• 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

SouthernDemocrat said:
How many broadband options do you have where you live? I would suspect at best you have either cable which would be either Time Warner or Comcast, and you have the option of much slower DSL through your local Telco. Not exactly a litany of choices.
Click to expand...

There are at least two cable providers (Cox and Comcast), CenturyLink for DSL and a whole bevy of satellite providers. As you get outside town a little the options become fewer but even that is starting to change.
 
ARealConservative said:
buzz words can exist for decades. network neutrality is not a legally defined term.

Can you host your own email server using the broadband you pay for? why not? shouldn't net neutrality allow you to do so?
Click to expand...

Of course you could host an SMTP server. However, in order to do so you would need to purchase a plan from you ISP that included a static IP. This way you can create MX records, SPF records, and reverse DNS records (most likely this one will need to be done by your ISP).

Alternatively, you could just go with a standard dynamic IP account, yet utilize a spam / malware filtering service, point your MX records to them, set up SPF records pointing to their smtp servers, and relay your inbound and outbound email through that service.
 
Lutherf said:
My bad. I was under the impression that there were more than 3 ISP's in the US.
Click to expand...

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you're actually serious.

There are many ISP's out there, but generally there are few in any given area that a person can actually use.

Take for example my old home just outside of Roanoke Virginia in the 24083 area code. Cox? Nope. Century link? Nope. Fios? Nope. Time Warner? Nope. Hughes Net sattelite service? Nope.

Comcast is the only cable internet service available there. Dish is POSSIBLE, depending on the location you're at to make it viable, but is kind of like pointing at a bike and a car and comparing those are legitimate alternatives for everyone in terms of daily modes of transportation and those two options somehow would make for a legitimate "choice".

The reality is that while there may be numerous ISPs within the US, over vast portions of the country there are about 1 to 3 legitimate choices, and even out of those choices usually at least one is a bicycle compared to a car. That's not a free and open market place that will be significantly impacted by market forces.
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
There are at least two cable providers (Cox and Comcast), CenturyLink for DSL and a whole bevy of satellite providers. As you get outside town a little the options become fewer but even that is starting to change.
Click to expand...

So basically you have 2 options, Cox or Comcast. The CIR with DSL is terrible and its not really comparable to cable in terms of speed (plus for various technical reasons a dsl connection performance drops dramatically when shared across multiple devices). Satellite internet has terrible latency and really is only viable at all for those in rural areas with no other choice.

So just like with any other utility, you have very little choice in providers.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Of course you could host an SMTP server. However, in order to do so you would need to purchase a plan from you ISP that included a static IP. This way you can create MX records, SPF records, and reverse DNS records (most likely this one will need to be done by your ISP).

Alternatively, you could just go with a standard dynamic IP account, yet utilize a spam / malware filtering service, point your MX records to them, set up SPF records pointing to their smtp servers, and relay your inbound and outbound email through that service.
Click to expand...

you can use third party services to get around your lack of a static ip, you can use non standard ports, to get around their restrictions, and your product will suck ass

this notion of an open neutral internet is bull****. it doesn't exist today, it didn't exist a decade ago.
 
Mithros said:
A better question would be, do you think that an increase in Netflix traffic should be treated differently from an increase in Hulu traffic?
Click to expand...

Do you want to answer my question? I will then answer yours.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You ask the wrong question. The correct question is, should the ISP be selling 100mb lines to as many customers as they can if thier network can't handle such traffic?
Click to expand...

Again, answer my question and I will answer yours.
 
ARealConservative said:
you can use third party services to get around your lack of a static ip, you can use non standard ports, to get around their restrictions, and your product will suck ass

this notion of an open neutral internet is bull****. it doesn't exist today, it didn't exist a decade ago.
Click to expand...

Net Neutrality does not mean that an ISP cannot firewall certain tcp ports on a consumer internet connection (a lot of malware utilizes port 25 for communication) It simply means that they cannot tag packets at the layer 2 or layer 7 level and prioritize their content over competing content. For example, Time Warner cannot utilize QoS and traffic shaping to prioritize their voip service over a competitors like Vonage and thus artificially introduce more latency and jitters into the competitors service on their network.

As I pointed out earlier, this is what I do. So I know my **** on this. You will hardly find any Sr. IT professionals out there that are not for the principle of net neutrality.
 
jmotivator said:
So, simple question: Do you think an increase in NetFlix traffic on an ISP should be shared by all NetFlix users or all ISP customers?
Click to expand...

An increase of traffic on an ISP should be shared by all folks on the ISP, whether that increase is from NetFlix, games, P2P, or anything else. If the network is not able to handle users pulling down a certain amount of data then it shouldn't have been offering them the ability to do such. The answer is not to target that singular service. And you continue to dishonestly debate this, as that if there is a legitimate network congestion issue then even under the principles of net neutrality throttling is a reasonable answer. However, throttling a providers data until they pay you additional money and then unthrottling it is not a sign of a legitimate network congestion issue. Simply disliking that the your a majority of your traffic created by your users is going through netflix is not in and of itself a reason to throttle netflix. If the service provider misrepresented it's ability and sold off more access then it reasonably could handle then the individual customers should not be punished, which is what netflix throttling would be doing.

I've no issue with them throttling netflix or anything else if its for a legitimate network congestion issue in which no other option other than discrminating against that particular content providers data is available. However, that has not been the case and telecoms like Verizon have explicitely argued that they should be legally able to discriminate against data for whatever reasons they want, not just legitimate network congestion issues.
 
iliveonramen said:
That's not a dumb question but it's not really what the net neutrality debate is about. Cable companies charging for the level of usage isn't the issue. They currently can and will be able to do so in the future. Like you said, that makes sense. If I'm downloading things constantly and my neighbor isn't that is ridiculous to pretend both should pay the same amount.

The net neutrality debate is over "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" and cable companies charging companies that provide services through the internet in order to access the fast lane.
Using your business as an example, if you pay for 30 Mbps internet connection and your business uses a lot of video conferencing services, should the cable company restrict your video conferencing to 10 Mbps unless you video conferencing company pays Cox a fee? You pay for the amount you use and you pay for a certain speed.

It's basically cable providers using their control over how those services are delivered in order to get a piece of the action. Rentiers are looked down on derision for good reason by almost every economic school of thought. They basically receive additional money by providing no added value.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm probably going to use the video conferencing company that offers the best connections at the best rates. If they have to pay more for more bandwidth then that's on them, not me (other than their fee). Their business model requires lots and lots of bandwidth. Mine doesn't.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
As I pointed out earlier, this is what I do. So I know my **** on this. You will hardly find any Sr. IT professionals out there that are not for the principle of net neutrality.
Click to expand...

Sure you could. They work for Verizon and Comcast and Cox and others. Hell, I believe there's one such person on this forum continually acting like he's some kind of neutral bystandard that just thinks Net Neutrality is a bad idea for completely altuiristic reasons.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Net Neutrality does not mean that an ISP cannot firewall certain tcp ports on a consumer internet connection (a lot of malware utilizes port 25 for communication) It simply means that they cannot tag packets at the layer 2 or layer 7 level and prioritize their content over competing content.
Click to expand...

network neutrality has not been codified. what you want it to mean is not what it means. it's a buzzword to discuss a subject. it isn't a legal concept.

huge difference exists between supporting the principals of network neutrality and supporting government legislation.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
So basically you have 2 options, Cox or Comcast. The CIR with DSL is terrible and its not really comparable to cable in terms of speed (plus for various technical reasons a dsl connection performance drops dramatically when shared across multiple devices). Satellite internet has terrible latency and really is only viable at all for those in rural areas with no other choice.

So just like with any other utility, you have very little choice in providers.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that depend on what you need broadband service for? I had DSL in the office for several years and really had nothing to complain about. I switched to cable when it became available but that was primarily because I was getting a better rate.

My mother offices out of her house and lives, literally, one block past where cable service stops. She's used a variety of satellite services over the years and, on the whole, hasn't had any significant problems.
 
Excon said:
facepalm.jpg


Why don't you read what Cruz said and keep it in context of regulating it like a Utility (as Obama wants) like the telephone services were.
Then maybe you will understand the point he was trying to make.
Click to expand...
The point it seems both you and the esteemed senator has missed is that utility classification did not cause stifled innovation.
 
jmotivator said:
Do you want to answer my question? I will then answer yours.
Click to expand...
IMO If an ISP's customers exceed the ISPs available bandwidth at some point, then the available bandwidth should be allocated proportionally to the amount of bandwidth each consumer has purchased. If this happens chronically, then the ISP must either increase capacity or raise the price of bandwidth. The free market will decide which option is best.

Your turn. Should an ISP be able to treat Netflix traffic different from Hulu traffic?
 
Lutherf said:
Well, I'm probably going to use the video conferencing company that offers the best connections at the best rates. If they have to pay more for more bandwidth then that's on them, not me (other than their fee). Their business model requires lots and lots of bandwidth. Mine doesn't.
Click to expand...

But it's not about paying for bandwidth. Lets take his example.

Company X and Company Y are consulting companies. They both have a plan purchased through the cable company that provides them with a 30 Mbps download speed, with a clear caveat in the fine print that the speed could be lower due to network congestion.

Company X uses Adobe Connect as their means of teleconferencing. Adobe has an agreement in place with the cable company where they pay the cable company $X amount of money in order for their service to be on a "fast lane". Company X thus is able to do their teleconference at their full 30 Mbps speed they're paying for

Company Y uses Webex as their means of teleconferencing. WebEx has no such agreement with the cable company. As such, the ISP throttles WebEx's services over their network, causing Company Y to only be able to do their video conference at 10 Mpbs.

Company X and Y are paying for the same amount of bandwidth. However, because the service Company X is using pays the ISP money they actually get to use all that speed they're paying for. Meanwhlie, because the service Company Y uses doesn't pay, Company Y is hit with a reduction in speeds that is not network congestion related, therefore not geting their moneys worth.

This isn't a case of Company X paying for more bandwidth then Company Y....they're paying the same money for the same bandwidth. But because a company on the other end didn't give the ISP money, their data is slowed down, and Company Y is screwed out of what it's paying for unless it changes its teleconferencing service.

That arguably could screw up competition, but it becomes even worse if you imagine a scenario where Adobe doesn't just pay to keep its data in the "fast lane" (which is really just the normal lane), but rather pays an extra amount on top of that to be the exclusive teleconference service for that ISP...meaning if you use that ISP, it's either Adobe OR a slowed down teleconference service.

A scenario like that is not allowable under net neutrality ideals and principles. It's ENTIRELY possible with what Verizon and other ISPs have been arguing for in front of courts that allows them to discriminate against data for any reason they want and allows for them to demand payment from content providers or else have their data throttled.
 
ARealConservative said:
network neutrality has not been codified. what you want it to mean is not what it means. it's a buzzword to discuss a subject. it isn't a legal concept.

huge difference exists between supporting the principals of network neutrality and supporting government legislation.
Click to expand...

Either you believe that an ISP should not be able to prioritize their content over their competitors content or you don't. Once you accept that, its then just a question of how best to accomplish such a principle with public policy.
 
Lutherf said:
Wouldn't that depend on what you need broadband service for? I had DSL in the office for several years and really had nothing to complain about. I switched to cable when it became available but that was primarily because I was getting a better rate.

My mother offices out of her house and lives, literally, one block past where cable service stops. She's used a variety of satellite services over the years and, on the whole, hasn't had any significant problems.
Click to expand...

There's undoubtably people out there that could reasonably get by with just using a 56k modem connection....that doens't mean it should be considered legitimate competition in the market place. And it's hardly a stirring endorsement for a market that allows innovation to thrive ("See, there's competition. You can use the extremey fast thing offered here or use the service that was the norm 20 years ago. CHOICE!")
 
ARealConservative said:
If we are talking broadband, I have two options

Hughes/dish Satellite, or Frontier DSL. that's it. no more exist.
Click to expand...

Hard to believe unless you live out in a rural community. Even then it'd have to be pretty small. Btw, Frontier bought a bunch of ATT and Verizon lines, but they still lease a bundle of them. It's not an exclusive lease so where Frontier exists there are other third tier providers who also lease those lines.

Regardless, my thoughts on the subject: The ISPs have always fought for common carrier status. It's time to officially give it to them along with the rules that come with that. They'll be indemnified from content that flows over their network, but they'll also have to serve everyone equally.
 
Lutherf said:
Well, I'm probably going to use the video conferencing company that offers the best connections at the best rates. If they have to pay more for more bandwidth then that's on them, not me (other than their fee). Their business model requires lots and lots of bandwidth. Mine doesn't.
Click to expand...

You already pay for internet access at a certain speed. The video conferencing company adds value by the features they add to their software. The cable company charging them an additional fee above what you pay for broadband usage is a non-value added charge that is possible only because the cable company controls the method of delivery. No value is added to the product, the method of delivery is already something the consumer is charged for, yet you'll have to pay higher fees?

The only winner in this situation is cable companies. They don't lay more wire, they don't provide a better service, they get additional money for nothing.
 
tacomancer said:
The point it seems both you and the esteemed senator has missed is that utility classification did not cause stifled innovation.
Click to expand...
The point that the regulation which comes from such a classification does, seems to be lost on you.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Either you believe that an ISP should be able to prioritize their content over their competitors content or you don't. Once you accept that, its then just a question of how best to accomplish such a principle with public policy.
Click to expand...

It's not even just their competitors.

Sure, you could have a situation where Verizon (prior to RedBox instant going defunct) throttles Amazon Prime Video and Netflix while allowing their service to go at a full speed...

But it's also the potential for people to essentially buy their way into that preference. So if said ISP doesn't offer their own version of that content, they simply allow one provider to pay money to be the singular high speed provider on their service. So, for example, Netflix shells out cash and doesn't get throttled while Amazon Prime video doesn't pay and does.

It's not that they shouldn't prioritize their content over a competitor. It's that they shouldn't prioritize any particular content over another unless there's legitimate network congestion issues where said prioritization is the only means to deal with it. That goes for their own content as well as content that they're paid to give priority to.
 
NN is akin to "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor". It's the only way Liberal progressives get to tax something without saying that this is exactly what they want to do.

Any other understanding of the subject mired in political word speak, is utter rubbish. The only thing congress should ever be concerned with about the internet is to get iCANN to make all porn sites a .xxx so that families can protect their children from the internet without expensive granular filtering programs like Websense. The other thing is allow other ISP's even start ups to use the tax funded cabling to resell the service at their whim. Allow for real competition among the ISP, rather than carved out territories.

Other than that, leave the ****ing internet alone!

Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom