• 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

And again.
Did I say "no regulation"?
Or perhaps did I say making it a utility is what is not needed?
Would you like me to tell you?

Your comment was absurd and your question irrelevant.

As I said.
It is the way that Obama wants to accomplish it which is wrong.
It does not have to be, nor should it be classified as a utility.

i missed the part where you answered my question

Helix said:
I'd like you to answer my question. what is your preferred method of ensuring net neutrality?
 
Supply and demand.

as much as i'd love to live in fantasyland, supply and demand is not going to ensure net neutrality.
 
No. The consumer provides the market force in question. They do so by conveying to current provider that their continued service provision is dependent upon their stance on this issue.

No, it doesn't because the market in question isn't a free on because it's largely a duopoloy, if not a monopoly, in the vast majority of the country. Market force can not be exerted on a product that is nearly a requirement for existance in the modern day and yet you only have one to three choices to actively pursue.

This is the problem with the internet currently and why there is a problem.

In the early days of the internet and ISPs you're right, the consumer provided the market force. Significant censorship would be fought against. Even things like AOL and CompuServe had to open up their walled gardens to those who wanted to expand beyond their limits, and those services eventually died as people gravitated more and more to truly free and wide open ISPs. Neutrality was enforced by the market.

In the past decade or so that no longer exists. The move to High Speed Internet has significantly narrowed the market in question and has created defacto duopolies controlling broadband access. Customers have little choice other than to bend over and be reamed in the ass by these telecoms or simply live without internet access in their homes.

This situation has given rise to the need for this. It has given rise to Comcast throttling peer to peer services in the past. It's lead to smaller regional ISP's hijacking popular search engines to route people to their own. It's visible in the wireless carriers, who at least are SLIGHTLY less of a psuedo-monopoly setup but still is pretty close, who have blocked all video but youtube or who have stopped access to an entire website for their users or who have disabled one means of using a service while allowing another.

The various big telecoms are NOT operating in a free market and thus they aren't substantially affected by market force, and as such there's no reason they won't continue to push in the direction they've already shown, and stated, a desire to go. And there's nothing the "Market" can do about it.

The only two options, OTHER than just let them rape the consumer in the ass in a non-free market, are to have the government bust up their monopolies or have the government actually put guidelines on what they're able to do in regards to how they treat data.

As hard as the telecoms are fighting Net Neutrality, they'd fight busting of their monopolies ten times as hard. There is no chance that option is likely to happen.
 
It was stupendously idiotic.
Wrong Kobie.
Nothing he said was idiotic.
It was spot on.


OK, let's parse Cruz's column for a moment. I'm skipping parts, because it's long, but feel free to fill in the gaps if you feel I've missed something.

Irrelevant to net neutrality. An app is not an ISP.

As opposed to an internet service provider, which is apparently free to start up.

Literally nothing to do with net neutrality. I agree with him on this instance, but it has zero to do with the discussion here.

Literally nothing to do with net neutrality.

Emphasis mine. Ted Cruz has no idea what net neutrality is. What he claims here is not it.

What net neutrality actually is has been explained multiple times in the thread.

Well, here's a boatload of bull****.

The Postal Service certainly isn't innovative NOW, but it was 100-plus years before Mark Zuckerberg's was a glimmer in his father's eye. What's better for consumers, taxis or uber? Wait until an Uber driver plows into a bridge abutment with no insurance. Ted Cruz, who I guaran-goddamn-tee has never taken Uber or Lyft in the short part of his life that they've existed, is the last person to be lecturing us on them.

That said, it's been stated multiple times in the thread that the desire for net neutrality is not automatically lockstep agreement with the idea of running the internet like a utility. There are other ways to accomplish that goal. Read and learn, don't just take this asshole's words as gospel.

Again, NOT WHAT NET NEUTRALITY IS.

A well-intentioned if not likely focus-group provided rant against SOPA, but a nice sentiment and one I agree with. Again, NOTHING TO DO WITH NET NEUTRALITY.

The topic of the thread is Cruz's tweet:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/115950/large/CruzNetNuetrality_tweet.png?1415911919[IMG]

... and Franken's response to it, which is correct -- NN is not remotely comparable to Obamacare, and Ted Cruz doesn't know dick about the subject. That's it.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]:doh
Yep. As I thought.
You literally do not know of what you speak.

He was addressing two things there.
1. The internet as a whole.
2. Obama's desire to have it treated as a utility.

You are mistakenly conflating the issue, and as such are as wrong about it as the idiot Franken is.



[QUOTE="Kobie, post: 1063988307, member: 22320"][QUOTE]In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. [B]It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.[/B][/QUOTE]
Emphasis mine. Ted Cruz has no idea what net neutrality is. What he claims here is not it.

What net neutrality actually is has been explained multiple times in the thread.[/QUOTE]:lamo
Cruz did not say that was neutrality, he is saying that is what will happen by making it a utility.
This is nothing more than Cruz being spot, as compared to you not knowing what you are talking about.
 
i missed the part where you answered my question
You seem to be confused again.
Did I say I was going to answer your irrelevant question?
Or did I say it is irrelevant?
Would you like me to tell you what I said again?
 
You seem to be confused again.
Did I say I was going to answer your irrelevant question?
Or did I say it is irrelevant?
Would you like me to tell you what I said again?

i'd like for you to answer my question. if you dodge my question one more time, i won't respond to you again.

so, once again :

what is your preferred method of ensuring net neutrality? also, absent of regulation, how would that work?
 
i'd like for you to answer my question. if you dodge my question one more time, i won't respond to you again.

so, once again :

what is your preferred method of ensuring net neutrality? also, absent of regulation, how would that work?

How can he answer your question when he doesn't understand the topic?
 
How can he answer your question when he doesn't understand the topic?

he either answers the question, or i waste no more time discussing the topic with him.
 
i'd like for you to answer my question. if you dodge my question one more time, i won't respond to you again.

so, once again :

what is your preferred method of ensuring net neutrality? also, absent of regulation, how would that work?
:baby2
:2rofll:
What did you not understand about your question being irrelevant?
Huh?
Not only is it irrelevant, it is also off topic.
What don't you understand about that?


I couldn't care less if you will not respond. iLOL

I never said anything about no regulation. Period.
:doh
 
:baby2
:2rofll:
What did you not understand about your question being irrelevant?
Huh?
Not only is it irrelevant, it is also off topic.
What don't you understand about that?


I couldn't care less if you will not respond. iLOL

I never said anything about no regulation. Period.
:doh

our discussion has concluded. goodbye.
 
How can he answer your question when he doesn't understand the topic?
Knock off the bs. I understand the topic quite well.
It is others who apparently do not.

And it is those which do not that ask irrelevant questions.
 
our discussion has concluded. goodbye.
:baby2

And there was no discussion between us.
You were simply wrong in your assertion.
 
Sen Al Franken (D-Minn.) responded on Sunday to a Washington Post op-ed in which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) wrote that net neutrality is "Obamacare for the internet".

Franken said Cruz "doesn't understand" what net neutrality is.

"He has it completely wrong and he just doesn't understand what this issue is," Franken told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union".

Read the article here: Al Franken Explains Net Neutrality To Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz isn't a stupid guy but he's totally wrong on this issue.

I believe that we'll hear more from him on this. This is a very important issue to a lot of people.

Al Franken is no more knowledgeable about Net Neutrality than Ted Cruz is. He is only well versed in the simplistic, stupid explanation of Net Neutrality targeting people who know zero about the actual functionality of the Internet.

I am getting very tired of the idiotic babbling from the talking heads on this subject.
 
:doh
No I am not arguing semantics, it is a misnomer, the net is not neutral and has not been neutral.

Secondly; Why are you not paying attention? I clearly have commented on the concept. I even commented on it in another thread that you participated in, yet here you are acting like you don't know. D'oh!

In addition, this topic is not about any neutrality but, but Franken's idiocy on display in regards to what Cruz stated.

This is what Cruz stated and he is absolutely correct.

In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.

Cruz is clearly indicating that making it an utility is not the way to go.


What Franken said:
Franken said Cruz "doesn't understand" what net neutrality is.

"He has it completely wrong and he just doesn't understand what this issue is," Franken told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union"

That is Franken being an idiotic partisan hack and not actually addressing the valid concerns Cruz pointed out.


D'oh! Again I can reference what was provided in the other thread you participated in.
(http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...-net-neutrality-debate-13.html#post1063981739)




Even Obama acknowledges that making it a Utility wouldn't be all that was needed.

Even President Obama conceded that a strict Title II approach would not by itself be sufficient because there are hundreds of rules applying to telephone service common carriers that would be inappropriate to apply to broadband, like, for example, rate regulation.

In addition, even Title II does not ban paid prioritization completely.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/t...nts-on-fcc-head-over-open-internet-rules.html




:doh That is my point and why neutrality is a misnomer.

Which still does not make classifying it as a utility a wise, let alone correct option.


Wrong.
The net is not neutral. And that isn't what this topic is about either.

It is about what Cruz said in reference to Obama wanting the FCC to classify it as a utility. Classifying it as an utility is not needed, not just because it would give the Gov more control than it already has, but because doing so would cause how much we pay for it to increase because of the new assessed taxes.


No. You still don't get it.

Net neutrality means what I said it means. It does not mean what you said it means. It never meant that. All these other regulations you are talking about? Those are not net neutrality. Net neutrality is not title II regulation. Net neutrality is exactly one thing, and I already told you what that was. Nobody uses the term "net neutrality" the way you are using it. Except you.

If you use a word in a way nobody else in the world uses it, confusion is your problem, not theirs.
 
It was stupendously idiotic.



I'm sorry you can't handle having had your ass handed to you by someone who adds "exactly zero," but maybe you should bow out of this thread before you further embarrass yourself.

Ha!!! You handed me my ass? Now that's funny. Where did that happen? Lol
You say nothing. Add nothing. Then claim victory. I guess you did add something to this thread after all -- comedy.
 
Sen Al Franken (D-Minn.) responded on Sunday to a Washington Post op-ed in which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) wrote that net neutrality is "Obamacare for the internet".

Franken said Cruz "doesn't understand" what net neutrality is.

"He has it completely wrong and he just doesn't understand what this issue is," Franken told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union".

Read the article here: Al Franken Explains Net Neutrality To Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz isn't a stupid guy but he's totally wrong on this issue.

I believe that we'll hear more from him on this. This is a very important issue to a lot of people.

He plays at being a 'know it all" but does not know it all.
 
Not a huge Wiki fan myself, but this piece seems to be balanced ...

Net neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For my money, we need to be very careful when we legislate even more Government involvement in more regulation of mass communication.
And Tim Wu, the daddy of the innocent-sounding "net neutrality", is a hard left academic/politician ... that fact and the list of NN proponents should give pause also.
 
Knock off the bs. I understand the topic quite well.
It is others who apparently do not.

And it is those which do not that ask irrelevant questions.

Then answer the questions and debate honestly.
 
Wrong Kobie.
Nothing he said was idiotic.
It was spot on.


:doh
Yep. As I thought.
You literally do not know of what you speak.

He was addressing two things there.
1. The internet as a whole.
2. Obama's desire to have it treated as a utility.

You are mistakenly conflating the issue, and as such are as wrong about it as the idiot Franken is.



:lamo
Cruz did not say that was neutrality, he is saying that is what will happen by making it a utility.
This is nothing more than Cruz being spot, as compared to you not knowing what you are talking about.

Your entire attempt at a response is laughably dumb.
 
Well, considering what Time Warner charges for broadband, kinda, and if they get their way, they'll be ****ing me more.

Get wifi.

Wow.

Pop quiz, everyone: how is apdst able to function on the internet? How was he able to connect in the first place? The only answer that makes any conceivable sense is that somebody set all of this up for him.
 
Wow.

Pop quiz, everyone: how is apdst able to function on the internet? How was he able to connect in the first place? The only answer that makes any conceivable sense is that somebody set all of this up for him.

Wifi!
 
Back
Top Bottom