- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
i'd like you to answer my question. what is your preferred method of ensuring net neutrality?
Supply and demand.
i'd like you to answer my question. what is your preferred method of ensuring net neutrality?
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.
Helix said:I'd like you to answer my question. what is your preferred method of ensuring net neutrality?
Supply and demand.
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.
Wrong Kobie.It was stupendously idiotic.
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.
You seem to be confused again.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?
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?
as much as i'd love to live in fantasyland, supply and demand is not going to ensure net neutrality.
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?
:baby2i'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
Knock off the bs. I understand the topic quite well.How can he answer your question when he doesn't understand the topic?
:baby2our discussion has concluded. goodbye.
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.
: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.
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.
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.
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.
Get wifi.
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.
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.