• 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 a liberal could claim that having the FCC regulate internet providers under Title II of the Telecommunications act is the opposite of regulation. Good one.

Lmao, you honestly have no clue what net neutrality is do you? Net neutrality isn't regulation anymore than the first amendment regulates what newspapers you read.
 
Lmao, you honestly have no clue what net neutrality is do you? Net neutrality isn't regulation anymore than the first amendment regulates what newspapers you read.

What is it, then?
 
I knew you couldn't do it. Nice bluff, though.

Nice bluff? C'man apdst. I made a generalized statement, it should be no problem for you to find a single false claim in it. Right? ;) I'll wait.
 
Lmao, you honestly have no clue what net neutrality is do you? Net neutrality isn't regulation anymore than the first amendment regulates what newspapers you read.

I do know what it is. You just cant grasp the possibility that someone would actually disagree with liberal orthodoxy, so you get bent out of shape. Net neutrality can only be achieved according to you, by regulation. So your continued insistence to the contrary is strange to say the least.
 
What is it, then?

I already explained it to you. Imagine you want to access a white supremacist right wing website. Net neutrality ensures you don't have to pay an arbitrary fee to access those websites. No net neutrality? Your actual access to websites is dependent on everything from the political relationships companies with parties to how other people in your area surf.
 
I already explained it to you. Imagine you want to access a white supremacist right wing website. Net neutrality ensures you don't have to pay an arbitrary fee to access those websites. No net neutrality? Your actual access to websites is dependent on everything from the political relationships companies with parties to how other people in your area surf.

You gave me your opinion. You didn't prove anything. Can you support your comments? Or, are we supposed to just take your word for it?
 
I do know what it is. You just cant grasp the possibility that someone would actually disagree with liberal orthodoxy, so you get bent out of shape. Net neutrality can only be achieved according to you, by regulation. So your continued insistence to the contrary is strange to say the least.

The most laughable part of your debating tactics in this thread is that, you've slowly moved away from the laughable stance that net neutrality is like Obamacare, to the belief that net neutrality can be achieved just not through regulation. Do you realize that wanting to maintain net neutrality, regardless of what method is used, makes Ted Cruz's statements wrong?
 
You gave me your opinion. You didn't prove anything. Can you support your comments? Or, are we supposed to just take your word for it?

Ah, I didn't prove anything. What didn't I prove? I'll wait for you to show us what I haven't proved. :) Post number and the specific claim will be appreciated. :)
 
If neither you nor I can imagine a different way, and if it has worked for 25 years, then there's no point in trying to find a different solution. As you said, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

Touche' :)

Still don't like government regulations. Always comes with far too many strings attached which typically ends up badly.
 
Is that all you got? :lamo

What do you want at this point? For us to go Professor Xavier on you and telepathically put the information into your head? If you refuse the explanations by everybody on this forum, and if you refuse to educate yourself, then that doesn't leave very many options.

If your goal is to remain ignorant then that's a barrier none of us can overcome. I'm comfortable admitting my limitations in that regard.
 
Last edited:
Touche' :)

Still don't like government regulations. Always comes with far too many strings attached which typically ends up badly.

It sometimes can, and I think we should reserve our energies for when those moments happen. Focusing on things like the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs or Asset Forfeiture would be much better issues to confront than a regulation that actually works.
 
What do you want at this point? For us to go Professor Xavier on you and telepathically put the information into your head? If you refuse the explanations by everybody on this forum, and if you refuse to educate yourself, then that doesn't leave very many options.

If your goal is to remain ignorant then that's a barrier none of us can overcome. I'm comfortable admitting my limitations in that regard.

What's the legislation say?!? How hard is it for you? :roll:
 
For those who think opposition to net neutrality isn't wrong:

So alright, it can be used to restrict other companies from conducting business with other companies:

The worst net neutrality violations in history

In 2004, Vonage customers who lived in a rural section of North Carolina started reporting something strange. The VoIP service, which effectively turns a broadband connection into an inexpensive phone line, had suddenly stopped functioning. The problem wasn’t limited to a few individuals—every single customer of regional ISP Madison River Communications was facing similar issues. Why? The company had imposed a system-wide block on all VoIP services through a process called port blocking.

In addition to broadband Internet, Madison River also offered landline telephone service, to which VoIP providers like Vonage are a direct competitor. By blocking VoIP from working on its network, Madison River was attempting to prevent the cannibalization of its landline business.

It has implications on freedom of speech:

In 2007, abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America embarked on a fundraising campaign that took advantage of supporters' ability to send monetary donations to the organization via text message. NARAL got the okay to conduct the campaign from every major cellular provider, save for one.

Verizon denied the request, telling NARAL that the company, ‟does not accept issue-oriented (abortion, war, etc.) programs—only basic, general politician-related programs (Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, etc.).”

Consumers can't use their devices as they see fit:

Tethering is a process by which a cellular device is converted into a mobile Wi-Fi hotspot that can be used by other devices, like laptops and some tablets, that are unable to send and receive cellular signals.

Added costs to consumers:

In 2012, AT&T blocked Apple’s video chat app FaceTime from running on its mobile network unless customers paid extra for a Mobile Shared Data plan, which mandated they also pay for unlimited voice service and text messages. AT&T’s explanation was that usage of the app on its network was eating up so much bandwidth that the network couldn’t keep up with demand, and restricting the app’s use to people who signed up for that more expensive plan would reduce the strain on its network infrastructure.

Deny business to other companies:

This block didn’t just extended to only pirated content. Legitimate copyright holders who wished their distribute their content through peer-to-peer network were also stymied.
 
What's the legislation say?!? How hard is it for you? :roll:

Until you educate yourself you're not qualified to participate in this thread.
 
For those who think opposition to net neutrality isn't wrong:

So alright, it can be used to restrict other companies from conducting business with other companies:

The worst net neutrality violations in history



It has implications on freedom of speech:



Consumers can't use their devices as they see fit:



Added costs to consumers:



Deny business to other companies:

I'll admit that I don't if this actually fits into the discussion, but carriers also track how you browse on your phone. Going to amibeingtracked.com on your mobile's browser will determine if they're tracking you. Again, I don't actually know if this is even relevant to the thread.
 
You got caught with you pants down and now you're trying to run away. Nothing new, there.

really? elaborate. can you do that without resorting to logical fallacies and dishonesty?
 
it's sad that not ruining the internet by adding slow lanes is even debatable, and that it has been reduced to food for hyperpartisans. sad, but not unexpected. our duopoly sucks so much. national interests seem to take a back seat to partisanship by default.

It is not mere partisanship. It is the corporate elites fooling the ignorant and gullible into thinking that the corporate elite and regular folks share the same interest in maximizing profits at all costs by calling it freedom.
 
The most laughable part of your debating tactics in this thread is that, you've slowly moved away from the laughable stance that net neutrality is like Obamacare, to the belief that net neutrality can be achieved just not through regulation. Do you realize that wanting to maintain net neutrality, regardless of what method is used, makes Ted Cruz's statements wrong?
Whats laughable is your inability to mount a defense of the presidents proposal or to even remotely question it. You hear your Savior Obama say something and you lap it up like a kitten with a bowl of milk. The similarity to this and Obamacare are that both are the brainchildren of the Liar In Chief that you worship. What I want "achieved' is what can be achieved through the free market not what some leftist fool dreams up and imposes upon the nation. I get that liberals don't question the thinking and plans of other liberals. But that is just foolish. I was never really all that interested in what Ted Cruz said and spent all of about 1 post discussing it. You just keep focusing on it because you cant make a rational defense of the presidents plan. But keep trying.
 
Whats laughable is your inability to mount a defense of the presidents proposal or to even remotely question it.

Strawman arguments this late in the race? I never stated I supported the president's proposal. I stated I support net neutrality and some regulation to ensure it. Who it comes from is irrelevant, hell, I'm supportive of keeping the system as it has been for 25+ years without any additional laws or regulations. The system as it was ensured net neutrality for 25+ years. Do you understand the difference yet? Or do I need to explain that too? You lost this argument really bad and the embarrassment keeps you posting over and over again with more nonsensical partisan hackery. Nobody is falling for it. :shrug:
 
Strawman arguments this late in the race? I never stated I supported the president's proposal. I stated I support net neutrality and some regulation to ensure it. Who it comes from is irrelevant, hell, I'm supportive of keeping the system as it has been for 25+ years without any additional laws or regulations. The system as it was ensured net neutrality for 25+ years. Do you understand the difference yet? Or do I need to explain that too? You lost this argument really bad and the embarrassment keeps you posting over and over again with more nonsensical partisan hackery. Nobody is falling for it. :shrug:
You know every liberal trick don't you. I didn't lose any argument. You haven't made one..well, outside of the typical liberal demand for the state to wipe your butt and tuck you in at night. You do support the presidents proposal and have spent the thread defending it. You just aren't honest. I have asked specifically and repeatedly if you even contemplated the dangers of what Obama is asking the FCC to do and you have dodged every one. Look, I don't expect honest debate from leftists, but it would be refreshing to get one from time to time. Just not going to happen here, is it.
 
You know every liberal trick don't you. I didn't lose any argument.

Lol, oh yes you did. I stated that Ted Cruz's belief on Net Neutrality was like Obamacare were wrong. Not only because of the implications of having net neutrality (innovation, freedom to access information, few restrictions) but because net neutrality has little to do with government regulation of how a person uses the internet or an imposition of the internet on people who don't want it.

You haven't made one..well, outside of the typical liberal demand for the state to wipe your butt and tuck you in at night. You do support the presidents proposal and have spent the thread defending it. You just aren't honest. I have asked specifically and repeatedly if you even contemplated the dangers of what Obama is asking the FCC to do and you have dodged every one. Look, I don't expect honest debate from leftists, but it would be refreshing to get one from time to time. Just not going to happen here, is it.

Oh really? I do, do I? Can you show us where I've supported Obama's proposals? :) I'll wait.
 
Back
Top Bottom