Ted Cruz Embarrasses Himself By Proving He Doesn’t Understand Net Neutrality

ted-cruzTed Cruz proved once again what an absolute fool he is when he released a statement concerning net neutrality and the FCC.  Net neutrality, of course, is what keeps the Internet 100% open.  It means that every website, regardless of size, is accessible at the exact same speed as every other site.  If you want to stream something on Netflix, or visit your neighborhood pizza shop’s website, both will be accessible on your computer at whatever broadband speed you pay for.

What Internet service providers are trying to do is make it to where they can charge websites premium fees to gain access to these speeds.  And those sites that either can’t, or won’t, pay these premium fees to the Internet providers will then be throttled down to potentially unusable levels.  Basically, it’s the corporate takeover of how we access everything on the Internet.  It’s a massive threat that more Americans need to take far more seriously.

Well, Senator Cruz issued a statement on net neutrality – and subsequently proved that he doesn’t have any idea what it means.

“The FCC’s latest adventure in ‘net neutrality’ would stifle innovation and subject the Internet to nanny-state regulation from Washington.” Cruz wrote in the statement. “Internet freedom has produced robust free speech for billions and a wide-open incubator for entrepreneurs to generate jobs and expand opportunity.”

Cruz continued, “I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission’s nebulous Sec. 706 authority.”

To put it bluntly, Cruz doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.  He literally contradicted himself.  It’s clear by his statement that he doesn’t understand that net neutrality is actually a result of regulation from Washington preventing Internet service providers from restricting access to sites that don’t pay premium fees.  Stripping the regulations which prevent Internet service providers from doing this would restrict the “Internet freedom” he says provides such “robust free speech.”

So, in fact, it’s the “nanny-state” he tries to bash that’s protected net neutrality and “Internet freedom” for all these years.

It’s the “free market” that’s actually trying to kill net neutrality. You know, the very same “free market” that people like Ted Cruz claim is so flawless and perfect.

But in his statement, Cruz proved unequivocally that he has absolutely no idea what the heck he’s talking about.  All he did was take an issue going on in this country, add his usual anti-government spin on it, and the result was the Texas senator made an absolute fool of himself.


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • BPI Squirrel

    Actually I suspect Sen. Cruz understands Net Neutrality well, and he’s simply slinging right-wing buzzwords because he knows “the biggest and richest should dominate the internet” isn’t a winning argument. So he says “too much regulation” and “nanny state” and “freedom” to cover his real agenda …

    … that “the biggest and richest should dominate the internet.”

    • Chris

      He forgot to use the words “patriot” and “Benghazi.”

      • gian keys flat mom

        and repeal obamacare

  • Sargent Pepper

    he will figure it out when he learns to use it.

  • Edward Krebbs

    Problem is much bigger than Cruz issuing statements that don’t make any sense.

    Such statements would have passed through any number of staffers. Not only is Cruz ignorant, but he apparently doesn’t have any staffers who understand it.

  • Bud

    He knows what the hell he’s saying, and he’s lying out his ass. It’s the same old regulation is evil talking point they always use.

  • Jimmy Reynolds

    Like Louis Gohmert, Ted is probably not an actual idiot himself, he just
    plays one on Fox TV for the benefit of his whack-job base. He may realize that this base will conflate “net neutrality” with the old fairness doctrine, a common but very stupid error. Alan doesn’t mention this angle in the article, but it seems likely to me that Cruz’s reference to “robust free speech” is an attempt to encourage that conflation.

  • ayungclas

    Does Rafael Jr. ever know what he is talking about?

  • MLR

    Ted “out for himself” Cruz knows exactly what he’s doing and who he’s talking to. He’s bullshitting his gullible base as usual. I wish he would just go away, hopefully back to Canada since he thinks things are so bad over here.

  • bck555

    Ted is right on! Allowing the FCC to claim dominion over the internet and a 5 member board 3-2 currently, to determine policy regarding the internet is pure folly and Ted sees what would be coming should this fiasco be allowed to continue. The FCC wants more than controlling the “data pipe” and Ted wants them out of the internet business all together. Sic em Ted!

    • roooth

      Yes, of course you’re right. We people shouldn’t be controlling the internet – that would be tyranny!

      Corporations should control the internet for their private profit – and anyone who can’t pay what the corporations want has no business on the internet.

      Every single thing in America MUST be a profit point for someone to make money off us. And the law must be used to force Americans to pay fees to corporations for everything.

      That’s Capitalism! That’s the Free Market at work – politicians make laws to force Americans to buy what they have already paid for. Brilliant!!

      • bck555

        The people should be in control my friend. 5 unelected but “appointed” members of the FCC are not representatives of the people. Currently, the majority are Dems. That will change sometime in the future. Are you ready for just one person being able to control the net? A person that is not accountable? This isn’t about profit. It’s about the ultimate controller and power.

      • Lmaris

        Not the best at identifying sarcasm, are we? It is ALL about profit, which is why the gateway ISPs want to be able to charge tolls on it. Corporations routinely buy elections, so how exactly do you suggest “the people” exert control?

      • bck555

        I usually ignore sarcasm, as I will this time as well. I would ask you however, who controlled the internet before the FCC attempted to claim the power. I would submit that the growth and innovation that we know today began with little control and regulation. What was so wrong about that? Our current President asked for and received (I believe it has now happened) the ability to have a kill switch on the net should it become necessary. Is the kind of power inherent in that really important for national security, or is that power necessary to influence who can communicate with others? This power shouldn’t belong to politicians or corporations. The free market can adjust to the needs and wants of the people through competition.

      • Brian Mann

        “I would ask you however, who controlled the internet before the FCC attempted to claim the power.”

        The Department of Defense. Yeah, let’s put them back in control.

      • bck555

        Can you name any regulations or content control the DoD exerted? I can’t seem to find any.

  • DavidHarley

    During the populist heyday of the Tea Party movement, it was mildly amusing to watch some ocorporationsf the more influential groups taking money from telecom, trotting out denunciations of net neutrality, and then being parrotted by grassroots activists who had no idea that they were being manipulated.

    By and large, members of Congress are not much better informed, unless they have served for years on a committee charged with oversight of an area of government or the economy. They just don’t have the time, let alone the inclination, to become familiar with every topic on which they are expected to opine. They are in the hands of their staffers and the lobbyists. In the case of John McCain, on foreign policy and commerce, those were the same people.