Page 14 of 43 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 430

Thread: Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

  1. #131
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

    As a note, net neutrality does not disallow packet prioritization and throttling...it just requires that it be done for a legitimate need to deal with network traffic when no other means of managing said traffic is available. This is what screwed Comcast when it was throttling P2P connections.

    There's nothing wrong with throttling as it relates to a and congestion issue; where it becomes a problem is when it's being done in a discriminatory way when there are other alternatives, or it's being done for the purpose of promoting/decentivizing one service over another, or for other reasons other than pure and immediete congestion management.

    For example, throttling a service and claiming it's because of a traffic issue, and then seemingly not throttling it and not having that issue IMMEDIETELY following that company agreeing to pay you money (which doesn't inherently have ANY impact on traffic) would be a pretty clear indication of throttling being done for reasons other than a legitimate network congestion concern.

  2. #132
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    well, since you say so....
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  3. #133
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,423

    Re: Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Your arrogance speaks to your ignorance of others and isn't going to gain you any traction.
    Your arrogance because of your field of endeavor also means nothing as it does not mean others do not know what NN is.
    And you only provided what wiki said, which is what anybody here can obtain, understand and provide. Which has nothing to do with your personal knowledge.
    You may be able to explain it in a more accurate way (unseen), may be able to provided a general description/definition (wiki) or in a way that some may understand better, it does not mean that one has to be employed as you are to explain or understand it.

    So while I speak of it in terms of "for-pay packet prioritization" and throttling for ease of understanding, your addition from wiki is really no different and has nothing to do with your personal knowledge. And not being employed as you are certainly does not mean that one has nothing to add to this discussion.
    So kindly spare us your arrogance.
    First off, I used Wikipedia's explanation, then followed with 3 points describing how service works now. Morever, its a complicated subject, and frankly if you knew enough to understand Net Neutrality and how Layer 2 and Layer 7 QoS, CoS, Traffic Shaping, and other packet encapsulation methods and inspection methods work, then you would be working IT.


    And as far as I am concerned, for those knowledgeable enough, while it may lack the monetary motivation, Samhain's explanation is far better than either mine or the one you provided from wiki.
    Net Neutrality means ISPs are not allowed to alter, restrict or enhance packets based on origination, destination, or saturation.
    Hate to tell you, but that explanation is wrong. Net Neutrality in no way prevents ISPs from altering, restricting, or enhancing packets based on origination, destination, or saturation.

    For example, if an ISP detecting a DoS or scanning attack from a network in say, Russia, then the firewalls at that ISP would have a threat detection rule to shun those hosts and networks. This restricts traffic based on origination and in no way violates net neutrality.

    If an ISP had a segment that was being saturated, they would utilize various CoS and Traffic Shaping policies to temporarily throttle high usage users connections to ensure that enough bandwidth is available to other users on that same segment.

    What net neutrality prevents is an ISP from creating a QoS classes for its own content (at either Layer 2 or Layer 7) and prioritizing it above another company's content.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  4. #134
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Here's a good test. If anyone in congress on either party rails against the way something is being done without proposing any alternate legislation, then you can be assured that they're more interested in playing politics than creating solutions.
    Wrong in general and wrong in regards to Cruz.
    Cruz is on record as saying he wants it to remain as it is. You do not need to suggest any legislation to accomplish that.

    And in general, one does one have to suggest anything else when in opposition to what is being suggested.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  5. #135
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Excuse me? What distraction?
    Do you not know what this topic is about?
    It is about what Cruz said. And there are folks here who refuse to understand what he said.


    That is not what this topic is about.


    Exactly. Nough said.
    Your selective quoting is quite telling.
    There's no reason why ISPs have to be classified as utilities. Congress could also pass a new category of provider for ISPs which enforces net neutrality but otherwise maintains a hands-off approach to regulation.
    It's not exactly intellectually honest to concentrate on half of a statement, and ignore the bold.

    Why do you continue to ignore that option? You cannot claim to be for Net Neutrality, but against any means of actually achieving it. So once again, would you support any means of ensuring net neutrality?

  6. #136
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,767

    Re: Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    What is "actual net neutrality"? The "democrats" option seems to be to term internet access as a utility and in doing so regulate that a service provider can't discriminate between different pieces of data; that you pay for the access, and what you do with it is your choice. What is the alternative route you're suggesting? It's hard to "see the difference" without something to compare the utility option to.

    I would MUCH rather an option to protect net neutrality OTHER than the government declaring it a "utility" and regulating it as such...but thus far I've yet to see anyone offer up a suggestion that is realistic or worth while. The two alternatives I've seen put forward is:

    1. Do nothing. Which to me is not a worth while option at all, seeing how we have repeated evidence over the past decade of internet providers going against net neutrality principles and actions on their part clearly showing a desire to further such a thing.

    2. Bust the psuedo-monopolies the ISPs have, which is likely as realistic as saying remove marriage from government entirely or ban all guns. It may sound good to ideologues who like such ideas, but the chance of either happening is as realistic as me ****ting out a rainbow that has a pot of gold at it's end. As much as the ISPs are fighting net neutrality, it'd look like a 3rd year old trying to be a boxer compared to how they'd react if their monopolies were being busted.

    One other poster keeps going on and on about net neutrality being good, but suggesting it shouldn't be done without turning things into a utility....but everytime he's questioned for his alternative method he refuses and deflects, NEVER answering. I'm hoping, since you're one who never seems to hide their opinion on a subject, that you'll at least give an explanation of how you think "net neutrality", the concept, can be protected and assured (or at least most likely assured)?


    Ideally, The current system is gamed as a corporatist-state of favortism and protectionism, the government funds through our taxes the very infrastructure of ISP's and therefore arguably not 100% private. I don't think the answer is to regard them as part of the government and therefore open for regulation, but to tie my position of no state regulation of the internet with a call for the elimination of all forms of corporatism, and laws that protect larger companies via tax subsidies, and other laws favoriting these state related monopolies over smaller businesses that could provide competition.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  7. #137
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Wrong in general and wrong in regards to Cruz.
    Cruz is on record as saying he wants it to remain as it is. You do not need to suggest any legislation to accomplish that.

    And in general, one does one have to suggest anything else when in opposition to what is being suggested.



    As it is is a system with documented cases of ISP's not operating under net neutrality.

    So, you're saying he's on record with not wanting net neutrality then?

  8. #138
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Cruz is on record as saying he wants it to remain as it is. You do not need to suggest any legislation to accomplish that.
    Just keeping the status quo does NOT accomplish letting it "remain as it is". This is CLEARLY evidenced by the multitude of instances by various telecom providers over the past decade of them violating net neutrality principles, and their repeated attempts in recent years to argue for the ability to continue and expand upon such violations.

    From Comcasts throttling of P2P traffic (and lately the questionable issue regarding Netflix), to AT&T's banning of facetime but allowing other video chatting services, to various regional telecoms hijacking popular search engines and routing people to their own or hindering traffic for competing services of their own (like vonage), to Verizon fighting arguing that they should be able to discriminate against what data travels over their network and that they should be able to charge content providers for the ability to have their data delivered to end users in a neutral fashion, and on and on....

    The psuedo-monopolies of the past decade make just relying on the "status quo" to keep net neutrality as a concept a fools errand, as is evidenced by the repeated attempts by telecoms to violate those principles and their clearly stated desire to continue to push that route forward. This is not the 90's when there was a low barrier of entry for ISPs to enter the market thus allowing for significant competition and a free market approach to maintaining neutrality. Rather, we are in a highly monopolized market where the customer has little options other than to go without internet or simply bend over and take it up the rear.

    Going with the status quo is simply choosing to continue down the path we're on, which is a path AWAY from network neutrality principles.

  9. #139
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    Ideally, The current system is gamed as a corporatist-state of favortism and protectionism, the government funds through our taxes the very infrastructure of ISP's and therefore arguably not 100% private. I don't think the answer is to regard them as part of the government and therefore open for regulation, but to tie my position of no state regulation of the internet with a call for the elimination of all forms of corporatism, and laws that protect larger companies via tax subsidies, and other laws favoriting these state related monopolies over smaller businesses that could provide competition.
    I appreciate the up front answer Rev. But in my mind, this is just unrealistic. It's no different than Ron Paul droning on about being completely isolationist or like those who declare we should just remove marriage from governent all together as their ONLY option as it relates to that issue. It's a great stance to have in a smokey room with a bunch of collegues waxing philisophical regarding policy, but has little real impact on the real world.

    In an ideal world I agree, that's my prefered method for that as well. I said in another thread, in a perfect sort of world I'd say the backbone infastructure which is even more monopolized then the telecoms would continue to be regulated and subsidized by the government, while the actual middle men (the ISPs) would be far less regulated and far more open and free with a lower bar to hurdle to gain entry into the market place.

    But it's just extremely unlikely given the importance to the telecoms those things you speak of are and how much influence they have over politicians on both sides of the aisles...there's little to no chance that we see the government legitimately bust up their monopolies. So simply saying that's the answer, and looking at no other alternative, is no different in my eyes than saying "just leave things the way they are"....because ultimatley, realistically, that's what will happen. There's little to no chance those psued-monopolies are busted, and if that doesn't happen and that's all we say we want to try, then the reality is that we just go with the status quo.

    Even if you look at now, Cruz hasn't said one word about busting up the telecoms. Not a single one that I've seen. All he's done is **** on the Democratic proposals and tacitly suggest we just need to maintain the status quo.

    And the status quo is not working. The status quo has been a steady movement away from net neutrality proposals, with clear reasons to see that the telecoms have every intent to continue that push.

  10. #140
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,586

    Re: Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality





    With every other statement Cruz makes on this subject, he proves he doesn't understand what is being discussed here or has the first clue regarding the inner working of the internet. First of all, he argues that rotary phones are symbols of being "frozen in time". Then he argues that iphones are... what? A symbol of innovation? Well... aside from all of Apple's issues with stealing technology, does he not realize that at one point or another rotary phones were innovative? Does he believe they're still widely used? Does he believe his iPhone will evolve like a Pokemon and won't become a relic of time 25 years from now? Well, whatever he intended to show with that argument it failed. However, this is what made me laugh the most:
    Oh, Jeez. Went right over your head.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

Page 14 of 43 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •