Nov 10, 2014: Cruz: 'Net Neutrality Is Obamacare For The Internet'
May 14, 2014: Ted Cruz bill would ban 'FCC's latest adventure in net neutrality'
Jan 13, 2004: FTC Policy Planning Director Ted Cruz Appointed Solicitor General of Texas
"....Mr. Cruz has led the Office of Policy Planning since June of 2001. The Office assists the Commission in developing and implementing long-range policy and legal objectives, advises on cases raising novel or complex legal issues, and directs the FTC's Competition Advocacy program. In addition, Mr. Cruz has chaired the FTC's State Action Task Force, Noerr-Pennington Task Force, and Internet Task Force. He argued successfully for the agency in In re Buspirone, 185 F.Supp.2d 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), a major Noerr precedent that cleared the way for continued antitrust scrutiny of anticompetitive conduct that could frustrate the sale of generic pharmaceuticals to consumers. And, he organized a ground-breaking three-day public workshop at the FTC examining possible anticompetitive efforts to restrict competition on the Internet.
Prior to his tenure at the FTC, Mr. Cruz served as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, as Domestic Policy Advisor to President Bush on the Bush-Cheney campaign, and as a law clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court...."
July 17, 2002: FTC to Host Public Workshop to Explore Possible Anticompetitive Efforts to Restrict Competition on the Internet
On October 8-10, 2002, the Federal Trade Commission will host a three-day public workshop to explore how certain state regulations and private business practices may be having significantly anticompetitive effects on e-commerce. Some private estimates suggest that the potential costs to consumers of these anticompetitive restrictions "may exceed $15 billion annually."......
""Similarly, some private companies have engaged in conduct that may raise antitrust issues," the Notice continues. For instance, some dealers do not list prices for certain items they sell online; others refrain from selling certain items in their product line over the Internet at all, and urge competitors to follow suit. Again, some or all of these restrictions could be justified as procompetitive, or they could prove anticompetitive upon closer examination.
"Robust competition is vital to our economy, and reducing the barriers to e-commerce dramatically could increase competition and benefit consumers," said FTC Chairman Timothy J. Muris. "E-commerce has tremendous potential, especially if anticompetitive barriers to dynamic new forms of Internet competition can be understood and eliminated," added FTC's Director of Policy Planning Ted Cruz.
Making America weaker has always been a labor of love for progs.
if that had been the bell boy we would have heard..
Obama is salivating to control the internet
but but you know it’s true Barack Obama is salivating to control the internet
it’s like I have said the fact is Barack Obama is salivating to take control of the internet and when I’m President that won’t happen because we are the greatest country in the world
well you didn’t want to go home and shovel snow Christie and btw you know Obama is just salivating to control the internet it’s no mistake it’s his plan
"Appointed to the office of Solicitor General of Texas by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, Cruz served in that position from 2003 to 2008. The office had been established in 1999 to handle appeals involving the state, but Abbott hired Cruz with the idea that Cruz would take a "leadership role in the United States in articulating a vision of strict construction." As Solicitor General, Cruz argued before the Supreme Court nine times, winning five cases and losing four.
Cruz has authored 70 United States Supreme Court briefs and presented 43 oral arguments, including nine before the United States Supreme Court. Cruz's record of having argued before the Supreme Court nine times is more than any practicing lawyer in Texas or any current member of Congress. Cruz has commented on his nine cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court: "We ended up year after year arguing some of the biggest cases in the country. There was a degree of serendipity in that, but there was also a concerted effort to seek out and lead conservative fights."
In 2003, while Cruz was Texas Solicitor General, the Texas Attorney General's office declined to defend Texas' sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, where the U.S. Supreme Court decided that state laws banning homosexual sex as illegal sodomy were unconstitutional.
In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Cruz drafted the amicus brief signed by the attorneys general of 31 states, which said that the D.C. handgun ban should be struck down as infringing upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Cruz also presented oral argument for the amici states in the companion case to Heller before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In addition to his success in Heller, Cruz successfully defended the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds before the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, winning 5-4 in Van Orden v. Perry.
In 2004, Cruz was involved in the high-profile case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, in which he wrote a brief on behalf of all 50 states which argued that the plaintiff did not have standing to file suit on behalf of his daughter. The Supreme Court upheld the position of Cruz's brief.
Cruz served as lead counsel for the state and successfully defended the multiple litigation challenges to the 2003 Texas congressional redistricting plan in state and federal district courts and before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was decided 5-4 in his favor in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry.
Cruz also successfully defended, in Medellin v. Texas, the State of Texas against an attempt to re-open the cases of 51 Mexican nationals, all of whom were convicted of murder in the United States and were on death row. With the support of the George W. Bush Administration, the petitioners argued that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to notify the convicted nationals of their opportunity to receive legal aid from the Mexican consulate. They based their case on a decision of the International Court of Justice in the Avena case which ruled that by failing to allow access to the Mexican consulate, the US had breached its obligations under the Convention. Texas won the case in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court holding that ICJ decisions were not binding in domestic law and that the President had no power to enforce them.
Cruz has been named by American Lawyer magazine as one of the 50 Best Litigators under 45 in America, by The National Law Journal as one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America, and by Texas Lawyer as one of the 25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century."
[snip]
King obama will have zero tolerance of those who slander islam.
BTTT...
this subject confused me a little. there’s a shock lol
He has a grasp of our Founding documents that is unlike anyone else in Congress, except for maybe Ben Sasse.
It is great reading.
Hey Cruz, good job stopping Obama again....NOT!
Ted is a big talker who accomplishes nothing.
Hope he doesn’t repeat it - folks will go all “Rubio” on him....
Ted’s on right point again. This is a troubling problem and I’m glad he’s talking about it.
----------
If Cruz thinks that then he is a moron. Net neutrality is about Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.
Cruz is using lawyer scum terms to try and trick people into thinking its a bad thing because he is getting donations from groups that would benefit from the lifting of net neutrality is my guess.
Seriously
%$#^%&**(%#$ losers are going there?
The Magic Negro wants to institute a universal poll tax?
Valerie has jumped the tracks completely this time
What a wonderful Legacy for the FIRST American-AFRICAN president!
How does the Congressional Black Caucus feel about that!??
Tax the internet?
Seriously??
Morons.
The right to free speech is USELESS without the right to LISTEN.
That might have worked with the Second Amendment, taxing ammunition to accomplish the same thing, BUT NOT THIS TIME!!
Fast Facts for Conservatives on Net Neutrality
Since its birth, the Internet has existed on phone lines which were covered under what are known as "common carrier" regulations, (or "Net Neutrality"), which prevented discrimination by network providers based on content or where a call originated. This principle carried over to the Internet and helped make it a dynamic engine for free expression and economic growth.
In recent months, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lifted "net neutrality" regulations off of the Internet, leaving the issue up to Congress to decide. It is currently being debated as part of pending telecommunications legislation.
"Net neutrality" policies helped create the most free and fair marketplace in history, allowing consumers to choose the winners and losers in a competitive marketplace. This resulted in the best ideas, products and services rising to top.
Unless Congress acts, it will change drastically - for the worse. The new regulations will leave consumers with less choice and our economy with less innovation and competition. Without equality of access, such innovation would be diminished at best, or perhaps even begin to move to competing countries in the world economy.
The new FCC regulations set the cable and phone companies up to become the equivalent of the mafia to the Internet. Today, consumers dictate the evolution of the Internet. Under the new regulations, cable and phone companies will be making the decisions. And their decisions will not be made based on quality, but rather on who pays the most "protection money" to be protected from the competition of a truly free marketplace.
The Internet currently provides a megaphone for political expression by virtue of the fact that every site, no matter how obscure, is just as accessible to every individual as any site with a multi-million dollar budget. Every American has the opportunity to create their own site and say what they want to the entire world.
Conservatives had made many gains in recent years thanks to the power of the Internet. In terms of organization, it has become an indispensable tool. In political communications, it allows us to finally bypass the liberal media and to get our message out more effectively. These gains must be preserved!
Under the new rules, there is nothing to stop the cable and phone companies from now allowing consumers to have access to speech that they don't support. What if a cable company with a pro-choice Board of Directors decides that it doesn't like a pro-life organization using its high speed network to encourage pro-life activities? Under the new rules, this could happen - and it would be legal!
Allowing Internet service providers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success. But such things have already begun to happen. For Example: In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival web-based phone service (like Vonage, Skype, etc.). In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a website sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute. In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com [1] - and advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send email plan.
In a time when there is an increasing need to connect citizens with their political system, the Internet has begun to play this role in a big way. Now Congress is on the verge of allowing that newfound energy to be diminished.
Given that most Americans have just one (or at most, two) companies through which they can get broadband access, the free market principle of competition for consumer dollars doesn't enter the picture, just like the old "Ma-Bell" monopoly. Much like the trade-off involved in allowing a telephone monopoly was that the company had to provide equality of service, so too should it be with the Internet duopoly.
Consumers that are already paying monthly fees for broadband access will soon find out they don't actually have what they thought they were paying for. Americans won't have broadband access to the entire Internet, just the part that the cable and phone companies allow them to see.
Politicians that are sitting idle and empowering cable and phone monopolies to have power over what consumers can see on the Internet are some of the same politicians that would criticize countries such as China for not allowing its citizens to be exposed to the free market of ideas represented on the web.
Congress has wisely decided many times in the past to avoid stunting the growth of the Internet via new taxation. They should follow the same logic in this case and not allow the cable and phone companies to stunt its growth with new fees and content based discrimination. In the end, the losers will be consumers, businesses and those who use the Internet for political expression.
© 2015 - Christian Coalition of America - Roberta Combs, President - PO Box 37030 Washington, DC 20013 - 202-479-6900