Those following the ongoing battle over net neutrality got a super dose of political back-and-fourth as Senator Ted Cruz took to Twitter Monday to decry President Obama’s call for the FCC to reclassify consumer broadband service as a utility — a move that would protect net neutrality by giving the FCC authority to keep those service providers in check.

The tweet quickly met with some harsh reaction from supporters of net neutrality, including the online comic blog The Oatmeal, which put together a this nice tutorial on the subject for Senator Cruz.

The FCC took up the question of net neutrality in May but is still formulating new rules that could be voted on by the end of the year. This piece from the New York Times offers some history and insight on the issue.

Make no mistake: If you enjoy using the Internet to consume information or entertainment, or believe at all that it plays an vital role in a keeping civic-minded society (porn sites aside), this is a story you want to follow.

Josh Tehee

Josh Tehee

Joshua Tehee is an entertainment guy. Music runs in his veins. Like seriously, you cut him open and there's no blood-- just music. It's weird.
Josh Tehee
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Tagged on:                         

5 thoughts on “Obama, Ted Cruz, weigh in on net neutrality

  • November 12, 2014 at 9:58 am
    Permalink

    Net neutrality is censorship.

    Reply
    • November 12, 2014 at 12:10 pm
      Permalink

      Intrigued. Please, explain.

      Reply
  • November 13, 2014 at 3:00 pm
    Permalink

    With this issue of “net neutrality”, it’s important to look at the internet as an example of an unregulated free market, or, at the very least, a close to unregulated free market. With net neutrality, the internet would most likely be under the auspices of the Federal Communications Commission, which is not in the interest in keeping communication open and free. Look at what it’s done for radio, as an example. With a third party, especially a government body, the potential for greed becomes greater, not worse. First, there would be greater controls via rules and regulations, and the internet would most likely run like a utility company, like the PG&E. Hmmm….I’ve heard this before…many of my friends call this a monopoly.

    In a free and unregulated internet, the people have more power, especially when it comes to consumer, purchasing power. Simple supply and demand will effect the market place. If a company provides an expensive service, but terrible bandwidth, the consumer will find another option. And, we don’t need the government to tell us what sites we should or should not visit. I’m not saying a free for all should happen, for example, I think, with reason, porn should be regulated, and pay attention to the word, “reason”– as long as the individuals using the internet are not violating the rights of others. So, I believe we can, and should have, a free and engaging internet without extreme, government overreach.

    Reply
  • November 13, 2014 at 3:39 pm
    Permalink

    There some good point in this, but I don’t think it explains how new neutrality is censorship. In my understanding it would prevent censorship by forcing service providers to treat all content equally.

    Reply
  • November 21, 2014 at 12:02 pm
    Permalink

    I would be for net neutrality, if it’s purpose was, indeed,to prevent monolopies (especially bandwidth), from occuring. But this is not the fact. Most likely, the FCC would be the regulatory agency, and I don’t view them as an agency that works in support of media, rather, against it. I think net neutrality will ultimately become a vaccuum of content regulation rather than check and balance to prevent monopoly. If you think about it, most of us were up in arms about net neutrality, two years ago. But we didn’t call it net neutrality, we called it SOPA and PIPA. The major difference between the three, since all three essentially work in the same manner, is that net neutrality will use corporate regulation as a Trojan horse for censorship, whereas SOPA and PIPA are more blatant.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Visit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On YoutubeCheck Our Feed