• 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

Without reading this entire thread.......when I think of utilities, I think a lot of government regulations.

Just one more part of our lives they can lord over, and over regulate.
 
Hyperbolic nonsense.
He said he wanted it to remain the way it is.

You do not obtain neutrality by classifying it as a utility, which is what he opposes.
The way it was WAS net neutrality. Net Neutrality was in force from the beginning of the internet until this year.

In January of this year, a federal appeals court threw out the federal rules mandating net neutrality. They did so because the FCC was treating broadband providers as common carriers without classifying them as such. As part of the ruling the judges said that net neutrality is a good thing, and the federal government should implement it by way of other means.
 
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.

You aren't helping your argument. But speaking of knowledge of Net Neutrality, can you explain it in terms more advanced than, say, an Oatmeal cartoon?
 
10805756_10152836742812726_1229765909163887911_n.jpg


That's why I like graphics. It makes the right point.
 
Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality



facepalm.jpg


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.

Umm did he really just use a smart phone to compare against a regular phone and say the telephone industry was frozen in place?
 
You aren't helping your argument. But speaking of knowledge of Net Neutrality, can you explain it in terms more advanced than, say, an Oatmeal cartoon?

I'm sure he can, but I'd like to help as well. When you think about Net Neutrality, you can think of the Internet as it has always been. When you think about not imposing Net Neutrality, you can think about this:

Slow Comcast speeds were costing Netflix customers - Aug. 29, 2014
The inside story of how Netflix came to pay Comcast for internet traffic – Quartz
Advertisement

Net Neutrality is a great piece of legislation - especially for conservatives - because it promotes freedom, while requiring almost no oversight. Businesses and end users would be the regulators. Oh, your connection to www.debatepolitics.com has been getting throttled? Sue the **** out of your ISP. That would be your right.

Otherwise, without Net Neutrality, I don't think you'd see many changes immediately. I, personally, believe the ILECs fought this hard to beat Net Neutrality as a safety net. One of their biggest income sources has always been TV service, and more and more end users are moving away of that in favor of streaming. Streaming can be cheaper, and while sometimes inconvenient, the end user gets to really control what content he/she is paying for. And that's what it comes down to:

Ownership of who gets your entertainment dollar. The ILECs want to make sure that they aren't just providing your data services.
 
Go ahead, let the isps have their way.
:doh
Opposing Obama's suggestion that the FCC classify the internet as a Utility in no way means letting ISP's have their way.
Where do you come up with such nonsense?

And we won't have to hear from you more than once every half hour or so when DP gets slow laned.
Yep! Figures. You had nothing of value to add to this thread. Grow up and knock off the absurd bs.
 
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.
I guess you haven't been paying attention, because if Obama gets his way your internet is going to be taxed like a utility.
There is no way around that.
 
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.

Dodn't y'all ask the same kinds of questuons about Obamacare?
 
Odd, I do not recall that Politicians are not supposed to point out the supposed downfalls of legislation.
And classifying it as a Utility like Obama wants has many a pitfall and is not needed.


Not just throttling, but packet prioritization also.
And it is going to happen regardless of neutrality (for pay packet prioritization), because it has too.



And here is the problem. That is a topic for a different discussion.
This is about classifying it as a Utility which is not needed.


Irrelevant.
One should not want to give that power to the Government and by virtue, to political appointees for our elected reps have to react against it in the first place.
Especially when it is not needed.
All you have done is highlight another reason as to why it shouldn't be classified as a utility. Politicization.

I'm not sure you understand what net neutrality actually is. Net Neutrality means that ISPs aren't allowed to do packet prioritization. It's not inevitable. Net Neutrality is the way the Tier 1 networks run, and those are what the ISPs connect to to "provide you with internet". Companies like Google that want a "fastlane" do that now by building server farms with direct access to the ISPs, skipping the internet backbone all together.

Packet prioritization is like the power company shutting off certain brands of appliances in your house unless those companies pay the power company a special fee.

Here's a simple principle. You pay for bandwidth to connect to the internet. Content providers pay for bandwidth to host on the internet. That's it. No third party internet troll should be able to establish a toll road in the middle of the internet for the sole purpose of taxing traffic.

Anytime there's an issue like this that suddenly becomes politicized; it helps to ask yourself where the money's coming from. Comcast and other ISPs et al are outlobbying the net neutrality folks something like 100-1. When you're on the side of a company that's idea of customer service is that they'll be there sometime between 12 and 4.. probably .. and waits until you're not paying attention to drastically raise you rates... Well perhaps its time for some reflection.

Has anyone not had an issue with their cable company / ISP?
 
I'm sure he can, but I'd like to help as well. When you think about Net Neutrality, you can think of the Internet as it has always been. When you think about not imposing Net Neutrality, you can think about this:

Slow Comcast speeds were costing Netflix customers - Aug. 29, 2014
The inside story of how Netflix came to pay Comcast for internet traffic – Quartz
Advertisement

Net Neutrality is a great piece of legislation - especially for conservatives - because it promotes freedom, while requiring almost no oversight. Businesses and end users would be the regulators. Oh, your connection to www.debatepolitics.com has been getting throttled? Sue the **** out of your ISP. That would be your right.

Otherwise, without Net Neutrality, I don't think you'd see many changes immediately. I, personally, believe the ILECs fought this hard to beat Net Neutrality as a safety net. One of their biggest income sources has always been TV service, and more and more end users are moving away of that in favor of streaming. Streaming can be cheaper, and while sometimes inconvenient, the end user gets to really control what content he/she is paying for. And that's what it comes down to:

Ownership of who gets your entertainment dollar. The ILECs want to make sure that they aren't just providing your data services.

Except that the articles you posted got the Comcast-NetFlix story pretty skewed.

The decrease in NetFlix traffic with Comcast customers had nothing to do with Comcast and everything to do with Level 3 peering contract dispute with Comcast. During the period of time that Comcast was in contract dispute with Comcast, where Level 3 was raising the prices on Comcast due to an increase in overages on Comcast's usage Level 3 stopped managing the peering for Comcast resulting in flat line in aggregate bandwidth for Comcast. Comcast wanted NetFlix to help pay for the new contract because those increased costs for Comcast were primarily due to an increase in NetFlix traffic to Comcast customers so charging NetFlix would then impose the added costs on NETFLIX USERS rather than on all Comcast users whether or not they used Netflix.

The funny thing is the bandwidth problems brought about by the Comcast and Level 3 dispute WAS NET NEUTRAL it just happened to hit NetFLix the hardest because they have a severe QoS demand for optimal functionality.
 
Last edited:
So many arguments from ignorance on this subject. This is the same response I used in a different thread, but it applies here as well, so here goes:

If you don't work as a Sr. Systems Admin, Sr. Network Admin, or Systems Engineer, then you have nothing to add to this debate and almost any argument you give will be based in ignorance.

That said, I work as the Sr. System and Network Administrator for what is easily one of the highest traffic sites hosted in the Midwest (both in terms of bandwidth and page views). So I know my **** on this one.

Basically, as wikipedia states Net Neutrality is:

The principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

That does not mean that under the current system you cannot buy higher tiers of internet service. These higher tiers of internet service basically mean that:

1. Internet bandwidth at the provider is shared by less customers than lower tiered service.

2. Internet bandwidth has a lower latency than lower tiered service.

3. Your connection is more reliable (due to higher redundancy at the carrier level).

Those are all available to you under the current system. What the current system does not allow for is a carrier or provider to prioritize their content over other providers, or to censor their competitors. For example, without net neutrality, Time Warner could utilize QoS to ensure that any voip packets coming from their service has a much lower latency than say a Vonage customer on their network. So calls from a TWC customer would be crystal clear while a Vonage customer would have forced jitter due to high latency. The same would be true for their video streaming vs say, Amazon's. Hell it could go so far as stock trades being prioritized over certain networks while others get higher latencies. The potential for corruption is nearly endless absent Net Neutrality. Who benefits from that other than carriers lobbying congress?
 
I'm not sure you understand what net neutrality actually is. Net Neutrality means that ISPs aren't allowed to do packet prioritization. It's not inevitable. Net Neutrality is the way the Tier 1 networks run, and those are what the ISPs connect to to "provide you with internet". Companies like Google that want a "fastlane" do that now by building server farms with direct access to the ISPs, skipping the internet backbone all together.

Packet prioritization is like the power company shutting off certain brands of appliances in your house unless those companies pay the power company a special fee.

Here's a simple principle. You pay for bandwidth to connect to the internet. Content providers pay for bandwidth to host on the internet. That's it. No third party internet troll should be able to establish a toll road in the middle of the internet for the sole purpose of taxing traffic.

Anytime there's an issue like this that suddenly becomes politicized; it helps to ask yourself where the money's coming from. Comcast and other ISPs et al are outlobbying the net neutrality folks something like 100-1. When you're on the side of a company that's idea of customer service is that they'll be there sometime between 12 and 4.. probably .. and waits until you're not paying attention to drastically raise you rates... Well perhaps its time for some reflection.

Has anyone not had an issue with their cable company / ISP?

The bolded statement is not accurate. Net Neutrality means ISPs are not allowed to alter, restrict or enhance packets based on origination, destination, or saturation.

Net Neutrality means not only can Joe User not pay for more bandwidth or priority, but the ISP cannot stop him from hindering your bandwidth through over-use.
 
So many arguments from ignorance on this subject. This is the same response I used in a different thread, but it applies here as well, so here goes:

If you don't work as a Sr. Systems Admin, Sr. Network Admin, or Systems Engineer, then you have nothing to add to this debate and almost any argument you give will be based in ignorance.

That said, I work as the Sr. System and Network Administrator for what is easily one of the highest traffic sites hosted in the Midwest (both in terms of bandwidth and page views). So I know my **** on this one.

Basically, as wikipedia states Net Neutrality is:

The principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

That does not mean that under the current system you cannot buy higher tiers of internet service. These higher tiers of internet service basically mean that:

1. Internet bandwidth at the provider is shared by less customers than lower tiered service.

2. Internet bandwidth has a lower latency than lower tiered service.

3. Your connection is more reliable (due to higher redundancy at the carrier level).

Those are all available to you under the current system. What the current system does not allow for is a carrier or provider to prioritize their content over other providers, or to censor their competitors. For example, without net neutrality, Time Warner could utilize QoS to ensure that any voip packets coming from their service has a much lower latency than say a Vonage customer on their network. So calls from a TWC customer would be crystal clear while a Vonage customer would have forced jitter due to high latency. The same would be true for their video streaming vs say, Amazon's. Hell it could go so far as stock trades being prioritized over certain networks while others get higher latencies. The potential for corruption is nearly endless absent Net Neutrality. Who benefits from that other than carriers lobbying congress?

This is net neutrality, not the govenrment democrat bill called "Net Neutrality".
 
This is net neutrality, not the govenrment democrat bill called "Net Neutrality".

I am not sure where they differ. Moreover, I don't know of a single IT professional that opposes Net Neutrality. It all falls under existing law unless the law is changed. The 1996 Telco Act specifically.
 
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE

Everyone pays for bandwidth. Content providers pay for bandwidth, content consumers pay for bandwidth, ISPs pay for bandwidth. If someone doesn't have enough, they buy more. That's the way the internet has worked, that's the way it should work.

Net neutrality is only dealing with the small part of the internet which connects you to the ISP. All of the rest of the internet will continue to function exactly the same way because it has to, it's a cooperative distributed network. Do you want ISPs to tell you how you can use your bandwidth? Or should we let the free market decide?
 
The way it was WAS net neutrality. Net Neutrality was in force from the beginning of the internet until this year.
:doh
What an absurd statement.
No it wasn't.


In January of this year, a federal appeals court threw out the federal rules mandating net neutrality. They did so because the FCC was treating broadband providers as common carriers without classifying them as such.
That is called a Government overreach, which is an abuse of power.


They did so because the FCC was treating broadband providers as common carriers without classifying them as such.
:naughty
Nice spin, but no; They treated them as a "common carrier" when the Law specifically forbade doing so.


As part of the ruling the judges said that net neutrality is a good thing, and the federal government should implement it by way of other means.
I guess you do not understand that a Judge's dicta means absolutely nothing and has no affect. :shrug:


And don't get confused like others have as to any position I, Cruz or anyone else may have by opposing classifying them as Utilities.
Opposition to classifying them as Utilities does not mean one is opposed to NN.
 
The bolded statement is not accurate. Net Neutrality means ISPs are not allowed to alter, restrict or enhance packets based on origination, destination, or saturation.

Net Neutrality means not only can Joe User not pay for more bandwidth or priority, but the ISP cannot stop him from hindering your bandwidth through over-use.

It is accurate. Obviously if a consumer pays for twice the bandwidth they can get twice the number of packets. I figured that was self evident.

We're talking about packets coming INTO the ISP from the internet at large. Net Neutrality means that the ISP is not allowed to prioritized those packets.


Comcast can't say, oh.. hi competitor's movie service packet. I think I'll lose every 10th one of you.
 
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.

Sadly, there are quite a number of individuals that never seem to get it. "Capitalism doesn't work", they cry, never realizing that it doesn't work because government regulation hinders competition and people like them don't actually participate but instead insist on more regulation to counter the byproducts of existing regulation.

He just doesn't think of the opportunity. Should he and others that want this "net neutrality" would invest in a start up, market it and grow it, they could not only achieve "net neutrality" but could also become rather wealthy off the deal. Instead, the only solution too many see is to whine to "Momma Government" to do something. Kind of reminds you a 3 year olds running to their mothers, doesn't it?
 
I am not sure where they differ. Moreover, I don't know of a single IT professional that opposes Net Neutrality. It all falls under existing law unless the law is changed. The 1996 Telco Act specifically.
The concept of Net Neutrality, and the proposal to reclassify the ISP's as regulated utilities,
are not the same thing. There is a lot of baggage that would come along with the reclassification.
Some of it may help the issue of Net Neutrality, but once you allow the Government regulatory
privileges, who is to say, they will not regulate other aspects of the internet.
There is also the issue of the additional taxes, that will be passed on to everyone.
The Government does lot's of things, but none of them for free, and they do not have
any money of their own.
 
DVSentinel said:
Should he and others that want this "net neutrality" would invest in a start up, market it and grow it, they could not only achieve "net neutrality"

ummmm wow. no.
 
Back
Top Bottom