• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Al Franken Explains Net Neutrality To Ted Cruz

Only in the land of the partisan hacks would a person arguing that regional monopolies exist (fact) and they have no interest in the free market (fact) be seen as someone who is in 'griping about big business'. In that world, giving them the power to do away with net neutrality (fact) is seen as a positive for the free market (your position) which doesn't exist in that type of business (fact).

The guy who just minutes ago didn't know why net neutrality was important, is now reverting to catch phrases about liberals. How odd for a Libertarian! As it stands, net neutrality is literally the last bastion of freedom in telecommunications. That's what we have now and it has little to do with big business and everything to do with how content is accessed by the consumer. Essentially, without it, it'd be like you paying $100 for 100 TV channels, and then being charged again per minute of viewing time. The monopolies which already exist and have no interest in the market, are who you are arguing should be left in charge of defining what content you watch and how you watch it.

Are you even serious?
Of course I am serious. You are asking for me to give the government a greater say and more power with regard to the internet (and to trust liberals) and I am balking. Will this new regulatory structure of yours end anything you laid out in your first paragraph? Answer: no.
 
Of course I am serious. You are asking for me to give the government a greater say and more power with regard to the internet (and to trust liberals) and I am balking. Will this new regulatory structure of yours end anything you laid out in your first paragraph? Answer: no.

Net neutrality does that.

When other, hypothetical changes are proposed, I'll be happy to discuss those.
 
Because you're looking at the wrong people. Innovation on the internet comes from content creators, not the ISP that delivers the content. Net neutrality helps innovations like Twitter or Facebook become the giants that they are.

As a rough analogy: you don't look to FedEx for innovation in small electronics. Apple and Samsung are doing that. FedEx just delivers the boxes.
OK, continue with that analogy then. What does this new law do to FedEx?
 
Of course I am serious. You are asking for me to give the government a greater say and more power with regard to the internet (and to trust liberals) and I am balking. Will this new regulatory structure of yours end anything you laid out in your first paragraph? Answer: no.

How can I explain this... net neutrality isn't giving the government power over anything. It's ensuring that things stay as they are now. It won't regulate free speech on the internet, it won't regulate what information you have access to, it would not even mean you'd be charge more. Now, without net neutrality, it is companies which will have the power to regulate these things. Your provider is in bed with Republicans? Be ready for access to shows you like being restricted if they're on a crusade against any sort of immorality. Oh, you live in a liberal area? Okay! Great, be ready for access to Rush Limbaugh's website to be damn near impossible without paying extra on top of subscriptions. Have you not grasped that detail yet?
 
Net neutrality does that.

When other, hypothetical changes are proposed, I'll be happy to discuss those.
Even if I grant that something should be done, why is treating them as utilities the proper response?
 
Of course I am serious. You are asking for me to give the government a greater say and more power with regard to the internet (and to trust liberals) and I am balking. Will this new regulatory structure of yours end anything you laid out in your first paragraph? Answer: no.

:roll:
 
"we are reclassifying it so that it stays the same"


"war is peace"

"affordable care act"

When a socialist says one thing, it means the opposite. I mean, seriously, with the magnitude of lies told by this administration, who with a brain is going to believe you need to change something in order to keep it then same? Is that like "we had to pass it [unread] so that you could read it"?

As is Obama is not already using the internet to spy on all of us?

You left out "by reducing the proposed spending increase on X from $100 million to only $80 million we are applying the $20 million in savings to program Y". ;)
 
How can I explain this... net neutrality isn't giving the government power over anything. It's ensuring that things stay as they are now. Have you not grasped that detail yet?

No. You saying so doesn't make it so. Wont treating them as utilities make them subject to the same type of regulations as other utilities? And again, why is this the best solution to the problem you seem to think exists?
 
Of course I am serious. You are asking for me to give the government a greater say and more power with regard to the internet (and to trust liberals) and I am balking. Will this new regulatory structure of yours end anything you laid out in your first paragraph? Answer: no.

The power that the government has to preserve your freedom in this case would be given up to give your isp all the power it wants over your internet use, and result in you paying significantly more for the service you're currently enjoying unhindered. You're arguing against your own interests.
 
No. You saying so doesn't make it so. Wont treating them as utilities make them subject to the same type of regulations as other utilities? And again, why is this the best solution to the problem you seem to think exists?

Do you believe the internet is "good as it is?"
 

You know, I can always count on you to enter in the middle of a discussion and add exactly zero. Keep up the good work.
 
Of course I am serious. You are asking for me to give the government a greater say and more power with regard to the internet (and to trust liberals) and I am balking. Will this new regulatory structure of yours end anything you laid out in your first paragraph? Answer: no.

This isn't a conservative-vs-liberal issue. Net neutrality is good for everybody.
 
The guy who just minutes ago didn't know why net neutrality was important, is now reverting to catch phrases about liberals.

To be fair, pretty much every argument on DP turns into catch phrases about liberals.

This isn't a conservative-vs-liberal issue. Net neutrality is good for everybody.

For the hacks, EVERYTHING is a conservative-vs.-liberal issue. If any liberals are pro-net neutrality, it simply MUST be bad.
 
Do you believe the internet is "good as it is?"
Sure, I guess so. That isn't my question. My question is, what will treating them as utilities do as far as unforeseen consequences and why is that the best possible solution?
 
What I find interesting is that net neutrality has taken on a whole new meaning in this bill. I'm a huge supporter of net neutrality so, on the bill's face, it seemed like a good idea. Until I read it.

Republicans want major ISPs to control internet. Democrats want government to control the internet. Why can't we just leave it the **** alone?

I agree. I'm not really thinking that either of those parties is going to really address the issue AND stop from turning it to their advantage and exploitation. Call it an equal lack of trust in either of them.
 
This isn't a conservative-vs-liberal issue. Net neutrality is good for everybody.
Once the government puts it thumb on the scale, neutrality disappears. Net neutrality could turn out to be as accurate as the Affordable Care Act. Sounds great, but inaccurate as hell.
 
Sure, I guess so. That isn't my question. My question is, what will treating them as utilities do as far as unforeseen consequences and why is that the best possible solution?

If your response is "sure, I guess so" then re-regulating the internet is how that would be preserved.

My question is, what will treating them as utilities do as far as unforeseen consequences and why is that the best possible solution?

It would protect net neutrality and preserve the way you've been using the internet.
 
I don't see paying for what I use as being against my interests. Limiting the power of the state, on the other hand, is in my interest.

Paying a rampant cartel is not in your interests.

 
Last edited:
You know, I can always count on you to enter in the middle of a discussion and add exactly zero. Keep up the good work.

At least I know what the **** net neutrality is. And, as per usual, any discussion with you turns into taking childish potshots at liberals. Keep on hackin'.
 
Once the government puts it thumb on the scale, neutrality disappears. Net neutrality could turn out to be as accurate as the Affordable Care Act. Sounds great, but inaccurate as hell.

Up until last January the government had its thumb on the scale and you didn't even know it. It was regulation that resulted in net neutrality, and thus in the way you've been enjoying the use of the internet to now.

You need to educate yourself on what net neutrality even is.
 
OK, continue with that analogy then. What does this new law do to FedEx?

This not-actually-new law would require that FedEx deliver a 1 pound box for the same rate regardless of the content. I.E. they can't charge you double to ship a 1 pound Android phone versus a 1 pound Apple phone. This means Apple and Android phones have a level playing field in terms of delivery. And then when DeucePhones are invented, the new hotness in phones, my would-be startup is not hamstrung by FedEx because I can't yet afford the extortion fees.

It's a rough analogy. I guess we'll have to also assume identical size of the box, and identical shipping routes? (i.e FedEx would certainly charge you more to ship from Minnesota to France than Minnesota to Iowa) There's also not a very good analogy for data transfer rates. "I paid for 2-day air mail, so they can't slow down the Android phone to 5-day shipping just because Google didn't pay them enough"
 
The fact that Sen. Franken wants to keep net neutrality the way it is, agreed upon by Helix, versus Sen. Cruz who sides with
Time-warner and Comcast in creating fast lanes and charging for it, tells me all I need to know.

Pulling this "I don't trust" card out every time two members from different parties disagree is ridiculous.
Good luck with the GOP screwing up your internet due to their beholding to their corporate maters .

And Cruz using the word Obamacare saying "Obamacare for the internet" is right up your alley .

Fact is Franken is too far left for me and Cruz too far right. I stand by my original post.
 
At least I know what the **** net neutrality is. And, as per usual, any discussion with you turns into taking childish potshots at liberals. Keep on hackin'.
Says the hack whose foray into this discussion was a smilie. Look sport, either address my specific posts or stop responding to me. You add nothing. Absolutely nothing to any discussion.
 
No. You saying so doesn't make it so.

You're right, the definition of net neutrality makes it so.

Wont treating them as utilities make them subject to the same type of regulations as other utilities? And again, why is this the best solution to the problem you seem to think exists?

It's like you're not even sure why you joined the discussion. I argued that Ted Cruz's position of net neutrality being Obamacare for the internet is false. Why? Because net neutrality has nothing to do with overregulation. If anything, it has to do with lack of regulation by both the monopolies in existence AND the government. Now, what the government wants to do in regards to guaranteeing net neutrality has nothing to do with what net neutrality means and why opposition to it is wrong. Do you get that? Good.
 
Back
Top Bottom