• 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!

Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

CMPancake said:
You are just yanking my chain, right? There's no way you are being completely honest about all of this. I just don't believe you.

And what is wrong with Obama's proposal, exactly? If the FCC classify the internet as a utility, Telecom companies won't be allowed to throttle their internet to people who don't pay extra for the same data as others who pay extra for it. There's nothing else about Obama's proposal that suggests anything remotely close to what Ted Cruz is speaking about.
Click to expand...
:doh
Holy ****.
This is you not understanding the real issue then.

Cruz is absolutely correct that classifying it as a utility opens it up to further regulation and taxation.
Do you really not understand that?


CMPancake said:
You're the one here completely wrong on the issue here.
Click to expand...
:naughty
No. That would be you and your absurd comments.


CMPancake said:
I'm going to assume you misread or misunderstand the debate here. As you just stated Ted Cruz believes Net Neutrality will allow the Government to run roughshod on the internet. (Which is doesn't.)
Click to expand...
Wrong. That would be you not understanding what he is saying. As pointed out.
He is stating what classifying it as a utility would bring about.


CMPancake said:
Ted Cruz is standing against Net Neutrality. Not for it.
Click to expand...
:doh
Being against classifying it as a utility is not being against neutrality. That is nothing more than an idiotic argument.


CMPancake said:
Again, Ted Cruz doesn't understand the issue. If he did, he would understand Net Neutrality isn't the Obamacare of the Internet.
Click to expand...
He certainly understands the issue far more than you do as classifying it as a Utility it is Obamacare for the internet.
 
Excon said:
1750Texan said:
Whether the internet is classified as a utility is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Click to expand...
And here is partially why.
New taxes.

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​



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/t...nts-on-fcc-head-over-open-internet-rules.html​
 
Hatuey said:
This really is what it boils down to. ISPs have infiltrated the government and now it is up to the consumers/content providers to tell Washington to shove it and stop bull****ting us. That John Oliver had to point out that Obama is as much in bed with ISPs as Ted Cruz shows why this needs to be legislated in a way that keeps the system exactly as it has been for 25+ years. No more, no less. I feel like Democrats are too ***** to actually take this issue the way it should be taken and Republicans have too many campaign contributions to lose if they stand in favor of NN. So we're left with a situation where:

1. Both parties are in bed with ISPs.
2. The president is in bed with ISPs.
3. ISPs have their former executives overseeing the death of net neutrality.
4. The mainstream media arguing in favor of big business (thanks to NBCUniversal).
5. Content providers/creators like Google, Facebook, DeviantArt, 500px, Wikipedia all being opposed to attacks on NN.

and finally....

6. Users who are going to get screwed no matter what.

I for one do not have much hope that things will improve but will do my best to join any demonstration in favor of net neutrality. It simply is a necessary part of innovation on the internet.
Click to expand...

I think the best thing that people who actually know what NN is is to call it what it is, BS.

The GOP are so friggin disingenuous with this it makes me sick. The Dems, they're spineless as ever on this, but that's nothing new.

All this is is an attempt by cable companies and telecoms to become kingmakers and make sure they get a cut of anything that goes across they networks. Essentially they're trying to create transportation fees for the internet when you break it down. The problem is the customer doesn't have a say, I want to view Drudge? OOPS, sorry, Comcast is a HuffPost exclusive provider, but as a courtesy for Comcast customers Comcast has made a special agreement with TimeWarner that will allow you to get Drudge for an additional $1 a month on your bill.

That's only one concern, the raping of the customer's pocketbook. Now what about the customers mind? Well Comcast doesn't like website ABC because ABC has had some harsh criticism for Comcast or some of it's affiliates, well low and behold all you get from now on at that location is a 405 Invalid Method screen. hundreds of thousands if not literally millions of websites now go bye bye.

Internet marketing? Why should Google or Facebook get advertising dollars and not the company who provides the broadband those ads are transmitted on?


I mean the list can go on and on on why this is a completely asinine proposal to be in support of.
 
Excon said:
facepalm.jpg

Wrong. It is you who has shown that he does not understand what Cruz is speaking to even though you have been told multiple times.

There is no need to classify it as a utility to obtain neutrality.

Your arguments against Cruz's stated position is nothing more than dishonesty.
Click to expand...

But we have to change the classification of the internet in order to keep it the same as it is. ;)

The trick used here is to say that net neutrality can only continue to exist if we tax the internet more. In other words, if you don't favor paying a utility tax then you oppose net neutrality - never mind that we have net neutrality now (and have always had it) without an added utility tax.
 
CMPancake said:
So when Ted Cruz says "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." You agree with him?

Ted Cruz doesn't understand the issue, and seemingly you seem to be ignorant on the matter as well.



Are you telling me a Politician is making bold, public statements out of the goodness of his heart and not to prey on people who do not understand the issue?

Ted Cruz is wrong on NN, but it isn't stopping him from being the Devil's Advocate.
Click to expand...

High volume distributers like amazon prime video and netflix pump a great deal of data into isp networks, so much so that infrastructure upgrades are necessary to maintain QOS. Who should ISPs pass those costs to? They could pass them to end users in the form of data caps, so that high volume users pay for their data, much in the manner of cell phones. Consumers definitely don't want this for their home connection. They could try to make deals with the content providers so that they pay their fair share for their usage of end infrastructure, which would break net neutrality if ISPs start throttling access. Or, they could just raise everyone's rates to subsidize high-volume end users. That is how it is like the ACA: if you insist on equal cost, then low volume users subsidize high volume.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
But we have to change the classification of the internet in order to keep it the same as it is. ;)

The trick used here is to say that net neutrality can only continue to exist if we tax the internet more. In other words, if you don't favor paying a utility tax then you oppose net neutrality - never mind that we have net neutrality now (and have always had it) without an added utility tax.
Click to expand...
The lemmings here are not even admitting that that is what will happen if it gets classified as a utility.
They are just supporting what ever Obama wants like good little lemmings.
 
ChezC3 said:
I think the best thing that people who actually know what NN is is to call it what it is, BS.

The GOP are so friggin disingenuous with this it makes me sick. The Dems, they're spineless as ever on this, but that's nothing new.

All this is is an attempt by cable companies and telecoms to become kingmakers and make sure they get a cut of anything that goes across they networks. Essentially they're trying to create transportation fees for the internet when you break it down. The problem is the customer doesn't have a say, I want to view Drudge? OOPS, sorry, Comcast is a HuffPost exclusive provider, but as a courtesy for Comcast customers Comcast has made a special agreement with TimeWarner that will allow you to get Drudge for an additional $1 a month on your bill.

That's only one concern, the raping of the customer's pocketbook. Now what about the customers mind? Well Comcast doesn't like website ABC because ABC has had some harsh criticism for Comcast or some of it's affiliates, well low and behold all you get from now on at that location is a 405 Invalid Method screen. hundreds of thousands if not literally millions of websites now go bye bye.

Internet marketing? Why should Google or Facebook get advertising dollars and not the company who provides the broadband those ads are transmitted on?


I mean the list can go on and on on why this is a completely asinine proposal to be in support of.
Click to expand...
Exaggerated nonsense in both your comments about the GOP and the Dems.
 
Excon said:
The lemmings here are not even admitting that that is what will happen if it gets classified as a utility.
They are just supporting what ever Obama wants like good little lemmings.
Click to expand...

Some of them yes but many see that a genuine threat to net neutrality exists absent a force to counter it. The debate should be about how to stop ISPs from straying from net neutrality which should not require a new tax to accomplish.
 
Excon said:
The lemmings here are not even admitting that that is what will happen if it gets classified as a utility.
They are just supporting what ever Obama wants like good little lemmings.
Click to expand...

Some people yes, will support Obama no matter what. However, what is known now is that the corporations (ISPs) want the power to limit or flat out exclude websites on the internet. This is a reaction to corporation over-reaching.

I don't for a second believe that the government classifying the internet as a utility will save "Net Neutrality" in itself. However, with corporations looking to do what they are doing is flat out wrong as well. Net Neutrality needs to be kept and corporations simply are not wanting to do that.
 
Excon's entire argument appears to be "nuh-uh."
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Some of them yes but many see that a genuine threat to net neutrality exists absent a force to counter it. The debate should be about how to stop ISPs from straying from net neutrality which should not require a new tax to accomplish.
Click to expand...
Some of them?
Not one of them that has discussed this with me has admitted such.
All they want to say is that Cruz doesn't know what NN is, when Cruz is addressing what classifying it as a Utility would bring about.
A persons thoughts have to be convoluted to even make such an association.

And while you point out one debate that can be had, this debate should be over whether or not classifying it as a utility to obtain neutrality is a wise suggestion.
As Cruz points out, it isn't.
 
TheNextEra said:
Some people yes, will support Obama no matter what. However, what is known now is that the corporations (ISPs) want the power to limit or flat out exclude websites on the internet. This is a reaction to corporation over-reaching.

I don't for a second believe that the government classifying the internet as a utility will save "Net Neutrality" in itself. However, with corporations looking to do what they are doing is flat out wrong as well. Net Neutrality needs to be kept and corporations simply are not wanting to do that.
Click to expand...
This discussion (about Cruz's assertion) is about Obama's desire to classify it as a Utility and the possible ramifications of that.

Once we get past that and folks understand that what Obama wants to do is not a wise choice, we can discuss other related topics.
 
Anyone who wants to give the Federal Government more control over the internet through Law or regulation is out of their freakin' minds, suckers, or know their ideas can't stand on their own.
 
Excon said:
This discussion (about Cruz's assertion) is about Obama's desire to classify it as a Utility and the possible ramifications of that.

Once we get past that and folks understand that what Obama wants to do is not a wise choice, we can discuss other related topics.
Click to expand...

Again it is a reaction to what the ISPs are doing. How do you stop the ISPs from continuing what they are doing?
 
Ted Cruz believes that he has a great career ahead of him reading "Green eggs and Ham" and other Dr. Seuss favorites on the web. He doesn't want net neutrality to interfere with his big money plans.
 
TheNextEra said:
Again it is a reaction to what the ISPs are doing. How do you stop the ISPs from continuing what they are doing?
Click to expand...

You can't. In order to maintain the SLA guaranteed when you paid for your access, the ISP must have the ability to throttle heavy volume users.

Under net-neutrality proposals, they can be regulated to not throttle or speed up anyone's access, which will directly translate into lower or non-existent SLAs. Or ISPs can move to per-GB plan for all, just like Electricity, Water, and Sewer utilities.

I believe this falls under the damned if you do, damned if you don't category of problems.
 
Samhain said:
You can't. In order to maintain the SLA guaranteed when you paid for your access, the ISP must have the ability to throttle heavy volume users.

Under net-neutrality proposals, they can be regulated to not throttle or speed up anyone's access, which will directly translate into lower or non-existent SLAs.

I believe this falls under the damned if you do, damned if you don't category of problems.
Click to expand...

So you side with the corporations essentially destroying net neutrality?

If you side for freedom, you at least side with net neutrality. I'm not saying that Obama's solution is the way to go, but yes, the ISPs need to be stopped from doing this.
 
TheNextEra said:
So you side with the corporations essentially destroying net neutrality?

If you side for freedom, you at least side with net neutrality. I'm not saying that Obama's solution is the way to go, but yes, the ISPs need to be stopped from doing this.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it's "corporations" vs freedom. It's ILECs vs freedom. Most corporations are for net neutrality as well, because they don't want another giant expense, too.
 
Excon said:
This discussion (about Cruz's assertion) is about Obama's desire to classify it as a Utility and the possible ramifications of that.

Once we get past that and folks understand that what Obama wants to do is not a wise choice, we can discuss other related topics.
Click to expand...
I have found that no one on the left wants to engage on that point. They don't seem to care how NN is achieved so long as it is achieved. Not one of them even considers the ramifications of classifying the web as a utility.
 
Samhain said:
You can't. In order to maintain the SLA guaranteed when you paid for your access, the ISP must have the ability to throttle heavy volume users.

Under net-neutrality proposals, they can be regulated to not throttle or speed up anyone's access, which will directly translate into lower or non-existent SLAs. Or ISPs can move to per-GB plan for all, just like Electricity, Water, and Sewer utilities.

I believe this falls under the damned if you do, damned if you don't category of problems.
Click to expand...

Why would they be restricted in having to throttle up? If they can throttle up, then they can throttle down. It is the throttling down that is the concern...down not up.
 
whysoserious said:
I disagree that it's "corporations" vs freedom. It's ILECs vs freedom. Most corporations are for net neutrality as well, because they don't want another giant expense, too.
Click to expand...

If ISPs get the ability to throttle down or even exclude websites, how long do you think it will be before corporations realize they can "buy" support from the ISPs to throttle or exclude their competition?
 
TheNextEra said:
Again it is a reaction to what the ISPs are doing. How do you stop the ISPs from continuing what they are doing?
Click to expand...
And again. That is a discussion for a different thread.
This discussion (about Cruz's assertion) is about Obama's desire to classify it as a Utility and the possible ramifications of that.

Once we get past that and folks understand that what Obama wants to do is not a wise choice, we can discuss other related topics.
 
Fletch said:
I have found that no one on the left wants to engage on that point. They don't seem to care how NN is achieved so long as it is achieved. Not one of them even considers the ramifications of classifying the web as a utility.
Click to expand...
Which is why they avoid the reality of what Cruz has said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom