Al Franken Explains Net Neutrality To Ted Cruz

ludin said:

a better way would be to pass a congressional bill that guarantee's net neutrality. this way we have a law there is no tax and you still get the same results.

Click to expand...

Yes, but Congress has already rejected this idea. In... 2006? It was a while ago. The GOP wont accept it.

So, FCC it is.

edit: Actually, several recent bills were also proposed, none seem to have gotten past committee.

Kobie said:

I was incorrect, that's why I deleted the post. They do. 2/3 vote.

Expulsion from the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure how Charlie Rangel came up in a discussion about net neutrality, but whatevs.

Click to expand...

Oh. Kobie. Sorry to have inadvertently trumped your delete.

My point about lack of expulsion (which isn't there - oh well), was can you imagine if trumped up legal charges could remove you political opponent in congress? I can see where that'd be abused. And yeah, what's this doing in a thread about NN? I agree with you there.

eohrnberger said:

Oh. Kobie. Sorry to have inadvertently trumped your delete.

My point about lack of expulsion (which isn't there - oh well), was can you imagine if trumped up legal charges could remove you political opponent in congress? I can see where that'd be abused.

Click to expand...

I could as well. Probably one reason doing so is pretty difficult.

Mithros said:

And his alternative?

Click to expand...

Apparently you are not paying attention.
"Cruz stated that he wants things to remain as they are. That is an alternative to classifying it as a utility."

Mithros said:

If I'm for something but against the way it's being done then I'm going to make it very clear that the reason I'm against it is because there are other better methods of implementing it.

Click to expand...

Again he stated he is for letting it remain as it is now.
That is an alternative to Obama's governmental control proposal.
ANnd far better than Gov control.

Mithros said:

Ask yourself this, did you care about this issue before the last few days?

Click to expand...

Why is it those who have no valid arguments constantly bring up irrelevancies?
I don't usually answer irrelevant questions, but as a sharer I have been aware for as long as you have, and have made both for and against arguments not only in ref to NN but to actual sharing as well.

Mithros said:

Where has Ted Cruz been on the issue?

Click to expand...

:doh
More irrelevancies. Figures.
Show me where he has to have a sated position that was previously announced. Can you do that?
Thought not.
He doesn't have to have a previously stated position.

Mithros said:

You'll note that the criticism against Cruz is just as strong from the right as is is from the left. Here's some of the responses Cruz has gotten from Republicans. tps://m.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10152839355922464

Click to expand...

Please note that is irrelevant as well.
Especially as it appears that, like here, there are those who have no idea what they were speaking about.
Cruz was speaking to what implementing NN by classifying it as a utility would bring. Which is not saying what NN is as the idiots were saying.
You attempting to provided such nonsense in support of your position is absurd to an extreme. You thinking irrelevant bs holds any significance, speaks wholly to your own thoughts on this and does not reflect well.

Mithros said:

And Gizmodo's take:

Click to expand...

Still irrelevant.
Kate Knibbs, some author of no merit.
Not only that, but she is a wrong as the others you presented.
So not just irrelevant, but also meaningless and invalid.


Yeah sure. Just as Obama's support of NN is.
Her hyperbole discredits her.


She doesn't seem to understand that such regulation comes with the classification of Utility, just as the taxes that come with it are.
That doesn't change because Obama says so.

Excon said:

Apparently you are not paying attention.
"Cruz stated that he wants things to remain as they are. That is an alternative to classifying it as a utility."

Click to expand...

The only issue I have with things remaining as they are is that to my understanding some/all ISPs have already started artificially slowing down specifically targeted traffic to force more money out of some of their customers.

This cannot be accepted.

However I am unsure whether classifying the internet as a utility is too heavy a hand in attempting to remedy the situation.

The Mark said:

The only issue I have with things remaining as they are is that to my understanding some/all ISPs have already started artificially slowing down specifically targeted traffic to force more money out of some of their customers.

This cannot be accepted.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that an ISP can not charge what it wants for what it provides?
Is that about right?

Interesting.

eohrnberger said:

But what he did was criminal. All he got was a slap on the wrists. Seems that congressmen treat their own according to different rules than the rest of us. That's a real problem, the in-equal application of the law? Wouldn't you agree?

Click to expand...

Is that the problem? Or is it a case of the punishment fitting the crime?

Excon said:

So you are saying that an ISP can not charge what it wants for what it provides?
Is that about right?

Interesting.

Click to expand...

No.

I'm saying that they cannot artificially slow down the traffic of their customers simply to force more money of out them. The only limitation on bandwidth should be the physical infrastructure paid for by the customer. Using software to forcibly slow down traffic for no legitimate reason is unacceptable.

Basically it strikes me as extortion, in a way.

Especially if the company being targeted relies on bandwidth to serve it's customers.

The Mark said:

No.

I'm saying that they cannot artificially slow down the traffic of their customers simply to force more money of out them. The only limitation on bandwidth should be the physical infrastructure paid for by the customer. Using software to forcibly slow down traffic for no legitimate reason is unacceptable.

Basically it strikes me as extortion, in a way.

Especially if the company being targeted relies on bandwidth to serve it's customers.

Click to expand...

That's because it is.

"Nice web-based business you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it."

DifferentDrummr said:

Is that the problem? Or is it a case of the punishment fitting the crime?

Click to expand...

Well, yes, I see un-equal application of the law as a problem. I know that it's an idealized idea, but shouldn't lady justice be blind?

The Mark said:

No.

I'm saying that they cannot artificially slow down the traffic of their customers simply to force more money of out them. The only limitation on bandwidth should be the physical infrastructure paid for by the customer. Using software to forcibly slow down traffic for no legitimate reason is unacceptable.

Basically it strikes me as extortion, in a way.

Especially if the company being targeted relies on bandwidth to serve it's customers.

Click to expand...

If that is the way they structure their business and their clients agree to it, then yeah, that is what you are saying.

Excon said:

If that is the way they structure their business and their clients agree to it, then yeah, that is what you are saying.

Click to expand...

You took economics right? At the basic level of economics you learn about monopolies and oligarchies, and how there is no free market when those exist? Right? You know that. And then tack on an extremely inelastic product at that.

Can you admit that?

Excon said:

If that is the way they structure their business and their clients agree to it, then yeah, that is what you are saying.

Click to expand...

I'm saying they should not be allowed to threaten their clients with slower connection speeds in order to extort larger fees out of them.


You don't see a problem with such tactics?

whysoserious said:

You took economics right? At the basic level of economics you learn about monopolies and oligarchies, and how there is no free market when those exist? Right? You know that. And then tack on an extremely inelastic product at that.

Can you admit that?

Click to expand...

There is nothing to admit.
I asked him a question and he answered it.

The Mark said:

I'm saying they should not be allowed to threaten their clients with slower connection speeds in order to extort larger fees out of them.


You don't see a problem with such tactics?

Click to expand...

Never said I did or didn't.

But I do know that if it is by prior agreement it is not extortion.

Excon said:

There is nothing to admit.
I asked him a question and he answered it.

Click to expand...

So you don't agree that monopolies and oligarchies do not represent a free market?

Excon said:

Never said I did or didn't.

But I do know that if it is by prior agreement it is not extortion.

Click to expand...

What sane company would agree that another company they contracted to provide a service could reduce their quality of service until they paid more money for said service?

whysoserious said:

So you don't agree that monopolies and oligarchies do not represent a free market?

Click to expand...

That's an odd question. Especially as I do not believe I answered either way.

What I do know is that it is irrelevant to what Cruz has said about classifying it as a utility as Obama wants.

The Mark said:

What sane company would agree that another company they contracted to provide a service could reduce their quality of service until they paid more money for said service?

Click to expand...

That really wouldn't be an accurate description for something that is contracted now is it?
It also seems to me that you are referring to what you think happened with Netflix and Comcast, when in reality it was a contractual dispute, not some arbitrary extortion.
So, it seems to me that under your scenario, what they would contract to pay more for is of their choosing.
And if they don't pay what they agreed to pay, they don't get it.
That's not something new and is done all the time, is it not?

Anyways, we are off topic as this is irrelevant to what Cruz has said.
Do you deny Cruz was speaking to classifying it as a utility?

Excon said:

That's an odd question. Especially as I do not believe I answered either way.

What I do know is that it is irrelevant to what Cruz has said about classifying it as a utility as Obama wants.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you just answer it? Anyway, it's not entirely relevant since monopolies need to be treated different - it's just the way it is. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but not all markets can be competitive.

Anyway, I'm not so sure it needs to be classified as a utility or even have the FCC watch over it. Net Neutrality would easily be enforced by end users... so it could just be a piece of legislation with little to no cost to anyone.

Excon said:

So you are saying that an ISP can not charge what it wants for what it provides?
Is that about right?

Interesting.

Click to expand...

The ISP doesn't provide content, they provide a conduit for you to access content produced by other people using hardware developed by other people running software developed by other people. They're not doing the innovating.

You already pay and ISP to access the internet, content providers already pay ISPs to host content on the internet. So why should ISPs take a 3rd slice and charge content providers again?

Excon said:

Apparently you are not paying attention.
"Cruz stated that he wants things to remain as they are. That is an alternative to classifying it as a utility."


Again he stated he is for letting it remain as it is now.
That is an alternative to Obama's governmental control proposal.
ANnd far better than Gov control.


Why is it those who have no valid arguments constantly bring up irrelevancies?
I don't usually answer irrelevant questions, but as a sharer I have been aware for as long as you have, and have made both for and against arguments not only in ref to NN but to actual sharing as well.


:doh
More irrelevancies. Figures.
Show me where he has to have a sated position that was previously announced. Can you do that?
Thought not.
He doesn't have to have a previously stated position.



Please note that is irrelevant as well.
Especially as it appears that, like here, there are those who have no idea what they were speaking about.
Cruz was speaking to what implementing NN by classifying it as a utility would bring. Which is not saying what NN is as the idiots were saying.
You attempting to provided such nonsense in support of your position is absurd to an extreme. You thinking irrelevant bs holds any significance, speaks wholly to your own thoughts on this and does not reflect well.



Still irrelevant.
Kate Knibbs, some author of no merit.
Not only that, but she is a wrong as the others you presented.
So not just irrelevant, but also meaningless and invalid.

This is a disingenuous, chicken**** political maneuver and nothing more. ​

Yeah sure. Just as Obama's support of NN is.
Her hyperbole discredits her.

Ted Cruz and his team have the facts wrong about net neutrality. Obama specifically said the government would NOT be in charge of pricing: "I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services." ​

She doesn't seem to understand that such regulation comes with the classification of Utility, just as the taxes that come with it are.
That doesn't change because Obama says so.

Click to expand...

Right... no one understands this issue except Ted Cruz and yourself.

The fact that you consider tech blogs, which aren't partisan in any way, to be irrelevant on an issue that is entirely tech related is extremely telling. This is like you telling an auto-mechanic that their expertise on fixing a car is irrelevant, because your hair dresser had a dream in which your car would be fixed if it only ran on Canadian air.

Mithros said:

The ISP doesn't provide content, they provide a conduit for you to access content produced by other people using hardware developed by other people running software developed by other people. They're not doing the innovating.

You already pay and ISP to access the internet, content providers already pay ISPs to host content on the internet. So why should ISPs take a 3rd slice and charge content providers again?

Click to expand...

:doh
Remove that isp and you do not get that content. They are a provider, not the originator. Don't confuse the two.

I swear, some folks try to be too specific for their own good.

Mithros said:

Right... no one understands this issue except Ted Cruz and yourself.

Click to expand...

Stop making false and absurd arguments.
What is understood by me, and obviously not by you, is that it does not need to be brought about by classifying it as a Utility.

Mithros said:

The fact that you consider tech blogs, which aren't partisan in any way, to be irrelevant on an issue that is entirely tech related is extremely telling. This is like you telling an auto-mechanic that their expertise on fixing a car is irrelevant, because your hair dresser had a dream in which your car would be fixed if it only ran on Canadian air.

Click to expand...

:lamo
You are talking nonsense now.
Tech blogs can be and are as partisan as it gets and she clearly was.
In this case what they see are the words "Net Neutrality", not the way it would be brought about, and that is the issue here.
Obama's desire to bring it about in a way that is not needed, classifying it as a utility, and would open it up to far more political control and taxes.

And yet here you are obviously for such nonsense. Figures.
NN does not need to be brought about in this manner.

Excon said:

And you are wrong again. Figures.
He is against classifying it as a utility to accomplish NN. Which this is about.
He clearly stated he wanted things to remain they way they are.
Your failure to acknowledge these things as well as what he actually said, continually makes you in the wrong.
So come back when you have something valid to say.

Click to expand...

Why is Ted Cruz saying he's against net neutrality if he's not against net neutrality? The question here is whether or not the executive and legislative branch should be pushing net neutrality and how that should be accomplished. Without net neutrality, start ups and small businesses operating on the internet are completely screwed. What we're headed towards is an internet that caters only to the Amazons of the world.

Cruz did not come out and say "I am for net neutrality but against classifying it as a utility." He said "I am against classifying the internet as a utility. Net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet." Then he makes a video whose title is "The Negative Consequences of Net Neutrality." You've said that Cruz isn't talking about net neutrality but he's using the term "net neutrality" an awful lot for somebody who isn't talking about it.

After doing some reading, my take on this is that Cruz is intentionally trying to conflate Obama's calls to have to FCC regulate the internet and the completely separate issue of net neutrality. He's hammering in the idea that the government taking over the internet is net neutrality to change public opinion and create a base that will work for big business and prevent net neutrality from ever being turned into law. That also explains why Cruz is saying he wants things to "remain the way they are" instead of saying that he's for net neutrality. That way, when the internet becomes an inhospitable platform for small businesses and start ups, the foundation of all innovation, Cruz will say "it's a free market! That's the way it was, just like I said!" I mean it's just my opinion, but it's an opinion that seems to jive pretty well with reality.

Mustachio said:

Why is Ted Cruz saying he's against net neutrality if he's not against net neutrality?

Click to expand...

In both his Opinion piece and his video, he is clearly speaking to Obama's suggestion for NN of classifying it as a Utility.
Any other suggestion besides that is out of context.

Mustachio said:

The question here is whether or not the executive and legislative branch should be pushing net neutrality and how that should be accomplished.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what Cruz addressed.

Mustachio said:

Without net neutrality, start ups and small businesses operating on the internet are completely screwed. What we're headed towards is an internet that caters only to the Amazons of the world.

Click to expand...

Odd. Franken has said that we have had NN all along.
Yet these fears have not manifested itself in any major way.

Mustachio said:

Cruz did not come out and say "I am for net neutrality but against classifying it as a utility." He said "I am against classifying the internet as a utility.

Click to expand...

1. He does not have to say he is for NN when he is addressing and specifically against Obama's NN suggestion.
2. Whether he is, or isn't for NN in principle, is irrelevant to his opposition to it being classified as a utility.
3. Franken says that we have had NN all along, and as you pointed out, Cruz says he wants it to remain the same. :shrug:

Mustachio said:

Net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet."

Click to expand...

Which makes it clear he is speaking of what Obama's version of NN, which is reclassifying it as a utility which he also clearly addresses.

Mustachio said:

Then he makes a video whose title is "The Negative Consequences of Net Neutrality." You've said that Cruz isn't talking about net neutrality but he's using the term "net neutrality" an awful lot for somebody who isn't talking about it.

Click to expand...

:doh Specifically in rebuttal to Franken's bs about NN.
And I seriously doubt the way his staff has labled the video matters one bit to the current argument.
But here is a suggestion. Email or call his Office and ask?
It is that simple.
Ask he is opposed over all to NN or just what Obama is suggesting.
To me, his overall position is irrelevant to opposing Obama's suggestion as Gov control by classification is not needed. Nor are the taxes that come along with such classification.

Mustachio said:

After doing some reading, my take on this is that Cruz is intentionally trying to conflate Obama's calls to have to FCC regulate the internet and the completely separate issue of net neutrality.

Click to expand...

You are imagining things. :doh
But like I said, ask.

Mustachio said:

He's hammering in the idea that the government taking over the internet is net neutrality to change public opinion and create a base that will work for big business and prevent net neutrality from ever being turned into law.

Click to expand...

Unlikely. Especially if legislation is introduced to give the FCC authority to keep the Net neutral and the power through fines to enforce it. That would not be any where near the control it would have over it as a utility and would not included the taxes of a Utility.


As I have already pointed out, throttling and packet priority is already happening. Because it has too.
That isn't going to change.