Page 37 of 43 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 430

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

  1. #361
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    It's about preserving net neutrality, despite what some blowhard idiot like Cruz says. If you don't like Obama's proposal, then suggest a better one or get out of the way.
    Excon will never give a solution. Only complaints.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #362
    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 Deuce View Post
    No, I got mostly you saying they exist.

    No. The following is hardly "me" just saying it exists.
    And you know that.
    So a great assumption would be that your objections are just partisan based tripe. That is all.



    President Obama's public stance that the FCC should reclassify broadband internet services as a Title II "common carrier" under the current Telecommunications Act carries many ramifications, but one is undeniable: there's going to be a hidden tax hike, and it's going to be paid for by consumers.
    Title II common carriers are required to "contribute" to what's called the Universal Service Fund - a government program to bring telecommunications services to underserved areas with the goal of universal coverage. Whether it's called "contributions" or fees or whatnot, the function of the program is a tax on corporate revenues in order to fund services for those who might not have them otherwise. It's a redistributive corporate tax paid for by consumers.

    The USF tax amounts to more than a 16% charge on top of consumers' bills. As broadband service providers are not currently subject to the USF tax, a reclassification would mean that all consumers would see a jump around that size in their bill. Considering that in some locales, the cheapest broadband service runs upwards of $50 per month, this will cost even the most price-conscious consumers an extra $100 per year - and for those at higher tiers, much more than that.

    FCC commissioners past and present have agreed that the this net neutrality tax is unavoidable in a Title II reclassification scenario. In a discussion at the National Press Club on Friday, current FCC commissioner Ajit Pai laid out exactly what consumers would be seeing on their bills.

    "Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai said. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services. Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in."

    "The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax - or taxes - to access the internet."

    An FCC decision to go with title II reclassification in order to enforce new net neutrality regulations would have a lot of deleterious effects. One of the most obvious is that it would be a tax hike on a service that the government believes is essential to American life.


    The Net Neutrality Tax Hike - Kevin Glass


    Classifying it as a Utility brings about rate regulation also.
    While he may say that it wouldn't be appropriate to apply, even Obama acknowledges that rate regulation comes with classifying it as a Utility.

    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/te...net-rules.html
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  3. #363
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    No. The following is hardly "me" just saying it exists.
    And you know that.
    So a great assumption would be that your objections are just partisan based tripe. That is all.



    President Obama's public stance that the FCC should reclassify broadband internet services as a Title II "common carrier" under the current Telecommunications Act carries many ramifications, but one is undeniable: there's going to be a hidden tax hike, and it's going to be paid for by consumers.
    Title II common carriers are required to "contribute" to what's called the Universal Service Fund - a government program to bring telecommunications services to underserved areas with the goal of universal coverage. Whether it's called "contributions" or fees or whatnot, the function of the program is a tax on corporate revenues in order to fund services for those who might not have them otherwise. It's a redistributive corporate tax paid for by consumers.

    The USF tax amounts to more than a 16% charge on top of consumers' bills. As broadband service providers are not currently subject to the USF tax, a reclassification would mean that all consumers would see a jump around that size in their bill. Considering that in some locales, the cheapest broadband service runs upwards of $50 per month, this will cost even the most price-conscious consumers an extra $100 per year - and for those at higher tiers, much more than that.

    FCC commissioners past and present have agreed that the this net neutrality tax is unavoidable in a Title II reclassification scenario. In a discussion at the National Press Club on Friday, current FCC commissioner Ajit Pai laid out exactly what consumers would be seeing on their bills.

    "Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai said. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services. Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in."

    "The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax - or taxes - to access the internet."

    An FCC decision to go with title II reclassification in order to enforce new net neutrality regulations would have a lot of deleterious effects. One of the most obvious is that it would be a tax hike on a service that the government believes is essential to American life.


    The Net Neutrality Tax Hike - Kevin Glass


    Classifying it as a Utility brings about rate regulation also.
    While he may say that it wouldn't be appropriate to apply, even Obama acknowledges that rate regulation comes with classifying it as a Utility.

    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/te...net-rules.html
    Townhall.com does not appear to substantiate its claims.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #364
    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 Deuce View Post
    Townhall.com does not appear to substantiate its claims.
    What the hell are you talking about?

    FCC commissioners past and present have agreed that the this net neutrality tax is unavoidable in a Title II reclassification scenario. In a discussion at the National Press Club on Friday, current FCC commissioner Ajit Pai laid out exactly what consumers would be seeing on their bills.

    "Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai said. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services. Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in."

    "The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax - or taxes - to access the internet."

    Are you honestly trying to assert that the Managing Editor of Townhall may be lying about what the FCC commissioner Ajit Pai is quoted as saying?
    Which would also mean that not only has it gone unchallenged by him or his Office, but also by all the liberal lemmings and the media as well.

    Not just unlikely, but highly unlikely.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  5. #365
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I think suggesting we're going to move to a pay per page veiw internet anytime in the next 5 to 10 years is absolute hyperbole. Will telecoms try and push the boundries, and break the boundries, of net neutrality principles more and more and more over the coming years? Absolutely, I've stated as much in numerous threads. But something like a "pay per page view" model is an EXTREME end of that which I think is just RIDICULOUSLY unreasonable to suggest will exist in any significant way in the coming years...which you'll note, is the time span I'm talking about in regards to pushing for a law rather than going the utility route.
    What makes you think a monopoly that gives people the option of no internet or pay per page view is so far fetched? I don't think it's going to happen over night, but there is nothing to suggest that it won't come to that. The capital costs to compete with a wired telecom are outrageously high. And the whole "internet from the clouds" Google/Facebook style is a pipe dream. They've already throttled high data usage. What's stopping them from throttling individual websites to the point either the website or consumer has to pay extra for that site to load at a reasonable speed? Yes, there will be huge revolt, but if Congress won't act and there is no alternative competitor...you're faced with zero service or that. People like Excon want to pretend that nothing will change, but they completely ignore how ISPs and modified content providers like Comcast are trying to squeeze every dollar from every service they can. I think its perfectly reasonable that a monopoly facing no regulation and no start up competition will move to a tiered system that charges extra for every additional program, content provider or service. Comcast doesn't give a **** about what people think about it as it is. Why would they care that people truly hate them on a tiered system that charges for every little thing? And frankly, if I was in charge of Comcast and I solely cared about maximizing profits, I'd do this to. Want to use Yahoo? Extra $10 a month. Want to use Youtube? Extra $30 a month. Netflixs? $100. And that's on top of charging the content companies too. They can throttle both ways. There's nothing to stop me from doing that side from setting up the software to regulate speeds per paying individual. What are you going to do? Not use the internet? This is why we need to either legislate equal treatment of data or we need to actually build competition. We are facing the worst combination of a Congress who has many members who's donators would like to see a tiered internet and and virtual monopolies.

    And I get your distate for those who just complain and offer no solution, and a STRONG disagreement with those who just essentially say "do nothing"...but that wasn't the case with Rev, or with me. That was my point.
    You and I are actually on the same page here. Rev, I have to wait to see about that but he's definitely not on the "Do nothing bandwagon" that Excon and Cruz are on. That alone is better.

    I think the loan/tax credit is an interesting option. But I actually still think that a law enforcing neutrality principles, but not giving the government and ability to regulate, is more likely than any kind of attempt to break up the monopolies. I simply think the telecoms will fight that FAR more than they'll fight net neutrality, especially net neutrality passed in a way that doesn't provide a clear path for even greater government control over them and an increase on taxes they have to pay.
    Requiring all data packets to be treated the same is a form of regulation and it does require some enforcement mechanism. You can't write a law like that and not give the government some ability to regulate. Regulation has taken on a bad reputation these days. I personally think that laws regulation disclosure of financial information for investors is a godsend...or we end up like China. There has to be some form of testing and enforcement for such a law to actually matter. But it doesn't have to extend to control over networks or taxation. I still don't see that happening simply because of Ted Cruz's 2016 primary plan. His plan is actually quite genius when you consider his target audience, the problem is that it screws it up for the rest of us.

    Indeed, with the less likelihood of taxes and less likelihood of further regulation, I think it's more likely the telecons would fight an actual passage of a law LESS than they'd fight the FCC classifying it as a utility.
    Maybe, but the profits from a tiered system are huge. When you can charge extra for every service and content and you have no chance of a cheaper alternative arising, that's going to be a tasty meal that will be hard to give up. Telecom executives have to be salivating at the profit projections on tiered internet. Put yourself in their shoes, if you can get someone like Ted Cruz to torpedo any form of NN and then tier the internet, wouldn't you do it from a profit maximizing stand point?

    I do wish we could just break up Time Warner and Comcast into smaller players to force competition. If we just had decent competition, we wouldn't be discussing this topic.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #366
    Educator Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    02-22-15 @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    677

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Whoa, whoa, whoa. Conservatives? Since when did I say that?



    To which Ted Cruz has politicized the crap out of.



    That's because you don't understand the topic.



    You mean a program that's reduced uninsured rate by 10 million, reduced the deficit and has parts that are widely loved so much so that the GOP Senate Majority leader flat out stated that repeal isn't happening?

    Stop being an absurdly partisan hackjob.
    Your playing pretty loose with your bummercare facts. 37% like the debacle...those are the ones who
    are subsidized, I guess. And you call me a partisan hackjob.

  7. #367
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Meister View Post
    Your playing pretty loose with your bummercare facts.
    You are acting like a total partisan hackjob.

    37% like the debacle...those are the ones who
    are subsidized, I guess. And you call me a partisan hackjob.
    There is no question that when polled on the total ACA program it's horribly reviled. But when polled on the individual parts to the point where every part is polled on, people love it. That's the absurd marketing problem of the ACA. People love its parts, but hate the whole. That makes no actual sense. Its like loving every part of your car, except that you hate the car as a whole.

    What partisan hacks ignore is that the old system promoted theft of insurance money where the ACA is actually conservative in notion because it in ideology pushes those towards covering their own costs. The ACA is flawed. There is no question about that. But is light years ahead in conservative ideology than the GOP proposals which essentially advocate for stealing insurance money.

    At this point I'm going to ignore both you and Excon because both of you have demonstrated an absolute sheer ignorance of what Net Neutrality is.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #368
    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 obvious Child View Post
    You and I are actually on the same page here. Rev, I have to wait to see about that but he's definitely not on the "Do nothing bandwagon" that Excon and Cruz are on.
    You really need to stop baiting and lying about another's position.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  9. #369
    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 obvious Child View Post
    you and Excon because both of you have demonstrated an absolute sheer ignorance of what Net Neutrality is.
    You really should stop with this baiting and lying. It serves no purpose other than to make you appear foolish to those in the know.
    As it is you who clearly does not know what they are talking about, which at this time is about what another has already stated.
    Last edited by Excon; 11-18-14 at 11:32 PM.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #370
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    What the hell are you talking about?

    FCC commissioners past and present have agreed that the this net neutrality tax is unavoidable in a Title II reclassification scenario. In a discussion at the National Press Club on Friday, current FCC commissioner Ajit Pai laid out exactly what consumers would be seeing on their bills.

    "Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai said. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services. Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in."

    "The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax - or taxes - to access the internet."

    Are you honestly trying to assert that the Managing Editor of Townhall may be lying about what the FCC commissioner Ajit Pai is quoted as saying?
    Which would also mean that not only has it gone unchallenged by him or his Office, but also by all the liberal lemmings and the media as well.

    Not just unlikely, but highly unlikely.
    Do you know what the FCC commissioner's last job was?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 37 of 43 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... 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
  •