• 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

Eohrnberger, yesterday you had this to say, when you didn't know that net neutrality had existed all this time due to FCC regulations:

Net Neutrality regulations are not new? Reclassifying ISPs as utilities is not new? Sorry, but that is new.

The Internet is working just fine as it is and requires no further government regulations to screw it up. Often, such as in this case, more government regulation isn't the best and only answer.

So what I would like to know is, how did you get from "the internet is working just fine as it is" to

But you see. I'm less than convinced that this is rally the case, and am willing to see what develops in this space over the next period of time.

Why did you feel the internet was fine as it is one moment, and then be happy to see what would happen if it changed the next? What happened between yesterday and today?
 
Last edited:
You said it was about monopolies. It isn't?

I didn't say that at all, please stop lying. I acknowledged monopolies exist, and giving them the power to do away with net neutrality is not a positive for innovation. That doesn't make net neutrality about monopolies. Net neutrality is about access to content.
 
I didn't say that at all, please stop lying. I acknowledged monopolies exist, and giving them the power to do away with net neutrality is not a positive for innovation. That doesn't make net neutrality about monopolies. Net neutrality is about access to content.

If monopolies exist, there are laws to take care of that, like I said.
 
Then why don't you share with us why internet service providers not only sued the FCC to end net neutrality but also paid congressmen $762,000 in lobbying efforts against net neutrality? And why don't you share with us why, if the internet "isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed," (your words, do you recall them?) you're now arguing for the internet to be fixed? And why don't you share with us how the end of net neutrality is good for you?

Eohrnberger, yesterday you had this to say, when you didn't know that net neutrality had existed all this time due to FCC regulations:



So what I would like to know is, how did you get from "the internet is working just fine as it is" to



Why did you feel the internet was fine as it is one moment, and then be happy to see what would happen if it changed the next? What happened between yesterday and today?


Yes, I did post that. At that time, it was based on what I knew at the time.
Chatting in these forums, I've come to learn more about it, and I've come your way a bit, as you can see; (dare I say that you [and others] are having an effect on me? :eek:) :mrgreen:

I suppose you might say that my position is evolving based on the new information that I've gotten from the forums, and researched on my own in the between time.

I mean, isn't that the real purpose behind these forums? Exchange information, test your position by defending it, and keeping an open mind, willing to accept and evaluate new information?
 
I was asking a ****ing question. Do you know what a, "?", is?

no, you were trying to strawman, and you even ****ed that up.
 
I'd rather my taxes go to a national system of free internet service than government funded condom drives. However, we're a nation that doesn't really understand why freedom to access to content at the speed you paid for is more important than getting laid. So I doubt that would ever happen. One can dream though!

same here. we have some of the ****tiest broadband in the first world because of the cable monopolies. and we pay more for it, too.

BBC News - Why is broadband more expensive in the US?
 
I suppose you might say that my position is evolving based on the new information that I've gotten from the forums, and researched on my own in the between time.

Blasphemy.
 
If monopolies exist, there are laws to take care of that, like I said.

... You do realize that laws regulating net neutrality have zero relevance in regards to the existence of monopolies... correct?
 
Yes, I did post that. At that time, it was based on what I knew at the time.
Chatting in these forums, I've come to learn more about it, and I've come your way a bit, as you can see; (dare I say that you [and others] are having an effect on me? :eek:) :mrgreen:

I suppose you might say that my position is evolving based on the new information that I've gotten from the forums, and researched on my own in the between time.

No, you've definitely moved further from me. Yesterday you believed net neutrality was a brand new government regulation and immediately opposed it (without understanding what it was, of course) and claimed to want to keep the internet as it is. Once you learned it was old, however, you now can't wait to end it. You're not arguing about net neutrality, you're just letting your beliefs on government involvement override all the facts of this discussion, to the extent that you're willing to argue against your own interests.
 
I'm just disappointed you're not standing for something on this and other issues--you used to at Politico.
I don't mind your anti-both parties meme.
Just take a stand on the very important issues of the day.
Isn't that what you've been asking the Congress and Senate to do--work together ?

Fact is Franken is too far left for me and Cruz too far right. I stand by my original post.
 
Right. The internet was just fine with net neutrality, so let's keep it the way it was.

Here's the truth. I don't understand the issue. I've read about it and it's so convoluted it's difficult to grasp what will change if it's implemented. Net neutrality has a nice ring to it but frankly I don't trust the government to do anything other take something we get for free and turn it into a revenue generator. If someone who actually has a thorough understanding of this issue, jump up.
 
I didn't answer them because they're not relevant to your question about why opposition to net neutrality is wrong. I explained to you what net neutrality was and laid out the arguments for why it should be maintained. You trying to steer the conversation to be about something other than that doesn't change the fact that opposition to net neutrality is wrong on various counts. The first of which would be restrictions on a consumer's right to access information.

Of course they are relevant questions. HOW these supposed issues that concern you are going to be addressed by the federal government is the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter to you because the state is the center of your universe and you fail to recognize that its growth as a threat to liberty.
 
I'm just disappointed you're not standing for something on this and other issues--you used to at Politico.
I don't mind your anti-both parties meme.
Just take a stand on the very important issues of the day.
Isn't that what you've been asking the Congress and Senate to do--work together ?

The thing is and I stated it in my original post is that I know nothing about the act or the proposed law. I would be either taking Cruz's or Franken's word on it. That I am not willing to do. So until I find out more about it or do some research I won't come down on either side. But in the generic sense of a position, I am in favor of which ever side keeps the internet as is. If the law changes it, then I will be against it. If the law codifies the internet and ensures it stays the same, than I will be for that. Notice the phrase I will be.
 
same here. we have some of the ****tiest broadband in the first world because of the cable monopolies. and we pay more for it, too.

BBC News - Why is broadband more expensive in the US?
So like everything else, this boils down to money. Liberals don't want to pay when they can get the state to get it for them for free. What else is new. So it is like Obamacare after all. Thanks for clearing this up.
 
The thing is and I stated it in my original post is that I know nothing about the act or the proposed law. I would be either taking Cruz's or Franken's word on it. That I am not willing to do. So until I find out more about it or do some research I won't come down on either side. But in the generic sense of a position, I am in favor of which ever side keeps the internet as is. If the law changes it, then I will be against it. If the law codifies the internet and ensures it stays the same, than I will be for that. Notice the phrase I will be.

Great! You are in favor of net neutrality then.

(assuming "as is," you mean the way the internet has always worked, rather than what it has very recently changed to)
 
No, you've definitely moved further from me. Yesterday you believed net neutrality was a brand new government regulation and immediately opposed it (without understanding what it was, of course) and claimed to want to keep the internet as it is. Once you learned it was old, however, you now can't wait to end it. You're not arguing about net neutrality, you're just letting your beliefs on government involvement override all the facts of this discussion, to the extent that you're willing to argue against your own interests.

Meh. I was dead set against further regulations (granted from limited understanding at that time), and I've come over to a wait an see what develops, if there really is a problem. From where I sit, I think that's a bit more your way, really. A willingness to accept new or re-regulation should an abusive situation develop.
 
When it comes to cable / Internet / VOIP service, I guess I must be lucky. Really lucky.

I have WideOpenWest, and for the around $100 / Mo. that I spend, I get the digital HD channel package that I like, with 2 dual channel cable cards in the 2 TiVo's that I've purchased separately, as well as 16Mb/sec down 1 Mb/sec up Internet AND VOIP phone service with voice mail (with CC to email) from them. This is down $60 / mo when we had the house phone line with AT&T.

The Internet service is fast, and above all reliable. It's never down, the last time was like 2 years ago for a mere 30 minutes or something. I have my static IP address for hosting my personal domain, and they've never complained about my Linux firewall / mail / web server which connects the home network and the Internet.

I know that one reason that the service is so reliable is that I saw the brand new cable plant that Americast in the neighborhood. WOW bought that cable plant from AmeriCast when it couldn't compete in the cable TV business Americast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. So I know that I have a very solid and clean cable plant on which my connection relies on. The installations were very well done. Little things like a small section of PVC pipe through which the coax was pulled, partially above ground, and partially below ground so that the weed whip wouldn't degrade the cable's insulation and fully shielded and fully grounded cable so there's less signal leakage and degradation.

On the rare occasions that I do need to call WOW support, the phone is answered quickly, by a human, that speaks American (yeah, OK English), who knows what's going on and what to do to get me back on line, or what the status and when I can expect to have service restored. Really wonderful people to work with, and before each time I hang up, I make sure to tell them that they should tell their boss that I liked speaking to an American. Guess what? The TiVo guys are the same way, BTW. Also why I've been with them for some 10 years or more.

All in all, I'd consider it a pretty decent package and a pretty decent experience. I'm not inclined to switch.

If I weren't so pleased with WOW, I'd have a choice of Comcast or AT&T U-Verse, but since WOW is so good, and at the price I'm willing to pay, I've not bothered to switch, as I don't believe that I could get a static IP from either AT&T or ComCast, and I know that Comcast's service isn't nearly up to the same standards, probably because they have the oldest cable plant around.

Now we have some friends that are on the opposite end of Detroit who also had WOW, but their experience isn't as good as mine. So how the municipality deals with the cable provider does in fact make a difference.
 
So like everything else, this boils down to money. Liberals don't want to pay when they can get the state to get it for them for free. What else is new. So it is like Obamacare after all. Thanks for clearing this up.

Oh, you're another one of those people who thinks that taxpayer-funded services are "free." :roll:
 
because we can't afford to have our data treated preferentially.
And what will that cost? And why should a provider be forced to treat your data preferentially when you wont pay for it?
 
Oh, you're another one of those people who thinks that taxpayer-funded services are "free." :roll:
Are you one of those people who think that taxpayer funded services aren't free for some people?
 
Here's the truth. I don't understand the issue. I've read about it and it's so convoluted it's difficult to grasp what will change if it's implemented. Net neutrality has a nice ring to it but frankly I don't trust the government to do anything other take something we get for free and turn it into a revenue generator. If someone who actually has a thorough understanding of this issue, jump up.

I'll simplify it for you:

- Net neutrality regards how you access content.
- Support of net neutrality basically boils down to wanting to keep usage of the internet as it has been for the better part of the last 25 years. It's not broken, no need to fix it.
- Opposition to net neutrality allows for the internet to be politicized by companies and local governments, it means arbitrary restrictions on how you access that content, it means giving additional power to existing regional monopolies.

You don't have to agree on the best way to ensure net neutrality, however, the need for it is unquestionable. It ensures innovation and is an established check on monopolies.
 
Are you one of those people who think that taxpayer funded services aren't free for some people?

Did you read that link? It's not what you are describing here.
 
By using the word "Obamacare" Cruz manipulated you flawlessly. The result is you're arguing against your own interests and you refuse to learn what the topic is about.

Oh please, Democrats get manipulated, not intelligent folk.

How's that "you can keep your plan..." thingy working out for you? You know what, if you hadn't had your ears covered with propaganda you would have heard Mr. Cruz clearly state that "millions" would be forced into less efficient but more costly plans.

Seems HE was right while Obama was outright lying.

I repeat, no one with a functioning brain would believe this bull****, or any other than oozes out of the White House basement.

Have yourself a nice day...if you can with your health care premiums......
 
So like everything else, this boils down to money. Liberals don't want to pay when they can get the state to get it for them for free. What else is new. So it is like Obamacare after all. Thanks for clearing this up.

i don't waste time on horse**** strawman arguments.
 
Back
Top Bottom