Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

Excon said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well sorry, but you don't dictate where this thread goes. I will continue to post what I do for others to have a chance to comment on. If you don't want to, then that's up to you. But I will continue to do so regardless.

This is all in reaction to the ISPs and Cruz would rather to just let them do it.

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 like how you took what I stated and turned it into "you're either with us or against us" angle.

net neutrality means to give no packet, or group of packets, special treatment based on origination, destination, or saturation. If you apply that to all three ISP tiers, you would still be waiting for this page to load.

1750Texan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Given a finite amount of bandwidth on line A, if user X pays for more bandwidth than user Y, user Y's traffic is throttled down to make room for user X.

TheNextEra said:

Well sorry, but you don't dictate where this thread goes. I will continue to post what I do for others to have a chance to comment on. If you don't want to, then that's up to you. But I will continue to do so regardless.

Click to expand...

You obviously don't get it.
You are off topic and don't care that you are. :doh

TheNextEra said:

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?

Click to expand...

But that works both ways - their competition could form a partnership with an ILEC and have them throttled. Netflix isn't looking for this to happen - they've already been bent over by Comcast. Who wins, Facetime or Skype? Or does Facetime go merge with TWC and Skype merges with ATT? And it's not just big data users that are for Net Neutrality:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/behin...d-visa-push-for-net-neutrality-172203230.html

But a corporate alliance with subtle interests in this fight has been quietly pushing the Federal Communications Commission for strict broadband rules. In a series of meetings this year attended by representatives from Ford Motor (F), Visa (V), United Parcel Service (UPS), and Bank of America (BAC), participants urged FCC commissioners to reclassify broadband service under Title II, according to documents filed with the FCC.

Click to expand...

No one but republicans are dumb enough to go against Net Neutrality.

Excon said:

You obviously don't get it.
You are off topic and don't care that you are. :doh

Click to expand...

Then report me, ignore me, or go pound sand. I will continue to point out that Cruz sides with the ISPs.

TheNextEra said:

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?

Click to expand...

But that works both ways - their competition could form a partnership with an ILEC and have them throttled. Netflix isn't looking for this to happen - they've already been bent over by Comcast. Who wins, Facetime or Skype? Or does Facetime go merge with TWC and Skype merges with ATT? And it's not just big data users that are for Net Neutrality:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/behin...d-visa-push-for-net-neutrality-172203230.html

But a corporate alliance with subtle interests in this fight has been quietly pushing the Federal Communications Commission for strict broadband rules. In a series of meetings this year attended by representatives from Ford Motor (F), Visa (V), United Parcel Service (UPS), and Bank of America (BAC), participants urged FCC commissioners to reclassify broadband service under Title II, according to documents filed with the FCC.

Click to expand...

No one but republicans are dumb enough to go against Net Neutrality.

Excon said:

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.

Click to expand...

Excellent way to handle this issue Excon. You kicked ass on this, IMO!

MMC said:

Excellent way to handle this issue Excon. You kicked ass on this, IMO!

Click to expand...

Yes, we have to continue to bash Obama. We cannot for an instance bring up the fact that both Obama and Cruz could be wrong. We have to only focus on Obama. :roll:

Excon said:

Which is why they avoid the reality of what Cruz has said.

Click to expand...

Not so much that they avoid the reality.....which is why you get their take with a complete different tangent or the play with the semantic over terminology.
Or the complete misinterpretation.

TheNextEra said:

Then report me, ignore me, or go pound sand. I will continue to point out that Cruz sides with the ISPs.

Click to expand...

iLOL :doh
And I will continue to point out you are off topic when addressing me, or when I address you, that is, unless you are on topic.

TheNextEra said:

Yes, we have to continue to bash Obama. We cannot for an instance bring up the fact that both Obama and Cruz could be wrong. We have to only focus on Obama. :roll:

Click to expand...

You are off topic again, especially as no one has bashed Obama.
Pointing out that his suggestion is wrong is not bashing him.
Or do you not know the difference?

TheNextEra said:

Yes, we have to continue to bash Obama. We cannot for an instance bring up the fact that both Obama and Cruz could be wrong. We have to only focus on Obama. :roll:

Click to expand...

Mornin' TNE. :2wave: Didn't look like he was bashing BO to me.....he just stated that BO wanted a Utility.

Which I am quite sure if Excon wanted to bash BO.....he wouldn't have any problem.

Although, where did you think he was bashing BO?

MMC said:

Not so much that they avoid the reality.....which is why you get their take with a complete different tangent or the play with the semantic over terminology.
Or the complete misinterpretation.

Click to expand...

After pointing out reality to these folks, I can not be as generous as you.

As I said, a persons thoughts have to be convoluted to say the nonsense that has been said.
That crap is not indicative of living in reality.

It is either that, or straight up partisan dishonesty.

:shrug:

ReverendHellh0und said:

Click to expand...

Hold on. I am going to go trademark the term so I can profit from it.

Excon said:

After pointing out reality to these folks, I can not be as generous as you.

As I said, a persons thoughts have to be convoluted to say the nonsense that has been said.
That crap is not indicative of living in reality.

It is either that, or straight up partisan dishonesty.

:shrug:

Click to expand...

Well politically, for those on the left.....it is a chance to go off on a Cruz. Just sayin. :mrgreen:

Hatuey said:

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:



In short, this is the reason Cruz and opposers of net neutrality have been laughed at. Not only have they been dishonest in their presentation of the facts, they've completely tried to change the arguments around net neutrality. They've tried to paint their opposition to NN - which includes slow lanes, making developers and producers pay ransoms to ISPs and denying other companies businesses - as part of a process of innovation. Not only is that laughable, it's criminally dishonest. Hopefully, the generation (mine) which grew up using the internet will not fall for it.

Click to expand...

To be fair, Cruz is right, but perhaps not in the case for Net Neutrality, but I have to ask, in vast majority of other cases, isn't he is correct?

Since when has government being involved, rendering regulations and legislation, actually improved the competitive landscape in the private business sector?
I struggle to think of a single case where it has (I'm sure that some will pipe up and let us know where it has).

Yes, in the past, via government and court intervention, the old AT&T / Bell Systems monopoly was broken up, and the RBOCs were created. In the mean time, haven't these RBOCs re-consolidated once again? I know that SBC grew by acquisition, and has even adopted the at&t moniker (note, not the previous AT&T moniker). Has anyone considered the possibility that a large corporation such as the new at&t really is the best to service the customers? Are there cases where a large, regulated company is the only way to render the needed goods and services to the customer in an effective, cost and otherwise, manner?

Hatuey said:

Do you drive-by post a lot? Because it seems you do. You can't win an argument in one thread, then you hurry to another thread and post hoping others won't respond. Well, sigh alright.

Can you tell us how net neutrality restricts innovation? I'll wait.

Click to expand...

A granular approach to QoS allows ISPs the ability to far over-license their purchased circuits, greatly reducing the cost per customer for access to the internet with minimal impact on the service provided. More customers, more and varied demands, more innovation. If you actually had to pay for the cost of your internet access that was pegged at all times to your high usage you likely couldn't afford it.

People keep complaining that they want the "internet to stay how it was" which shows just how ignorant they really are. Advancements in QoS technology over the years is what has lead to the internet boom of the last 20 years. "The way it was" back in the day was paying $100 to a telcom/month for a locked 750k of bandwidth. At those speeds NetFlix barely functions, if at all. With QoS you can have NetFlix customer take the bandwidth equivalent of 5 customers of the "good old days" because those 5 customers are current not using their bandwidth. THat works well until NetFlix eats over a quarter of the internet Bandwidth and there is a growing demand for non NetFlix traffic.

By Net Neutrality standards if you are hit with new demand for, say, some news even that sends millions of customers to the PC to stream a news report, the 10% increased demand in bandwidth means you take 10% from all existing traffic equally, which barely effects the NetFlix user, but kills services operating on slim functionality margins.

You can't treat all data equally simply because all data isn't equal. The next time you are trying to check out at a grocery store and the system can't process your transaction because the internet connection is slow just remember that you are taking one for the team so some guy can watch RoboCop in remastered 1080p.

MMC said:

Well politically, for those on the left.....it is a chance to go off on a Cruz. Just sayin. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Yeah. Dishonestly go off on Cruz.

Excon said:

Hold on. I am going to go trademark the term so I can profit from it.

Click to expand...

Go ahead, let the isps have their way.

There's at least two good things that will come of it:

The republicans will probably lose in 2016 when the youth vote comes out in retaliation.

And we won't have to hear from you more than once every half hour or so when DP gets slow laned.

eohrnberger said:

To be fair, Cruz is right, but perhaps not in the case for Net Neutrality, but I have to ask, in vast majority of other cases, isn't he is correct?

Since when has government being involved, rendering regulations and legislation, actually improved the competitive landscape in the private business sector?
I struggle to think of a single case where it has (I'm sure that some will pipe up and let us know where it has).

Yes, in the past, via government and court intervention, the old AT&T / Bell Systems monopoly was broken up, and the RBOCs were created. In the mean time, haven't these RBOCs re-consolidated once again? I know that SBC grew by acquisition, and has even adopted the at&t moniker (note, not the previous AT&T moniker). Has anyone considered the possibility that a large corporation such as the new at&t really is the best to service the customers? Are there cases where a large, regulated company is the only way to render the needed goods and services to the customer in an effective, cost and otherwise, manner?

Click to expand...

Can't wait til they find a way to speculate on internet usage.

Then we can pay extra for nothing like we do for gas and power and heating oil.

Hatuey said:

Do you drive-by post a lot? Because it seems you do. You can't win an argument in one thread, then you hurry to another thread and post hoping others won't respond. Well, sigh alright.

Can you tell us how net neutrality restricts innovation? I'll wait.

Click to expand...

Well, if you could actually comprehend what he is saying, you would understand that He is not saying Net Neutrality restricts innovation, government regulation is the culprit.

Perhaps you and many others think the real argument is about net neutrality and support it no matter what out of selfish desire, but the real problem and subject of what Cruz was saying is governmental controls. Net Neutrality can be achieved without government interference, only leftist think the "government needs to do something".

nota bene said:

I'm pretty sure that it wasn't just low-info voters who elected Cruz. I'm not entirely familiar with the issue of 'Net neutrality or his position on it, but dismissing this Senator as a "talking head" does suggest that maybe you fall into that category of low information too.

Click to expand...

Typical conservative bull ****! You say you're not familiar with the issue, but that doesn't stop you from standing up for assholes like Cruz. If you don't understand the issue, why not educate yourself before commenting on the situation.

DVSentinel said:

Well, if you could actually comprehend what he is saying, you would understand that He is not saying Net Neutrality restricts innovation, government regulation is the culprit.

Perhaps you and many others think the real argument is about net neutrality and support it no matter what out of selfish desire, but the real problem and subject of what Cruz was saying is governmental controls. Net Neutrality can be achieved without government interference, only leftist think the "government needs to do something".

Click to expand...

Good luck. I have been trying to penetrate his skull with reason on this issue for days. Liberals have blind faith in liberalism. Since liberal Obama has proposed the regulatory change, why it must be a good thing. So they don't even question the wisdom of doing it. They fall in line like lemmings and don't even consider for an instant the downside of treating the web like a utility.