• 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

Wow. This is the best you can respond with?
:doh
No other response is needed when you are as wrong as you are.
And that wasn't the only point he made. He also referred to the taxes such classification would bring about.
 
:doh
No other response is needed when you are as wrong as you are.
And that wasn't the only point he made. He also referred to the taxes such classification would bring about.
So you have nothing them. Typical from what I've seen of your post history.

My point stands, Cruz was wrong and innovation happened
 
So you have nothing them. Typical from what I've seen of your post history.

My point stands, Cruz was wrong and innovation happened
:doh
Wrong again.
It is you who has nothing and no valid point.
Typical from what I have seen of your post history.
 
:doh
Wrong again.
It is you who has nothing and no valid point.
Typical from what I have seen of your post history.
OK dude. If you want to debate like a grade schooler, go ahead.

Innovation happened.
 
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.

I personally believe that content that is more latent susceptible should be prioritized.

So in this case, I am in favor of prioritizing content based on the content itself, not based on where the content originates.

What I am not in favor of, is allowing people that have little or no understanding of technology to rule on these issues, which is what you are apparently seeking. Once we allow government to make laws to regulate this, the people that have very little idea how things work will be put in charge.
 
Hyperbolic nonsense.
He said he wanted it to remain the way it is.

Which is entirely idiotic given how ISPs have engaged in throttling. There is literally nothing stopping Time Warner and Comcast from engaging in a pay per page view form of internet tiering.

You do not obtain neutrality by classifying it as a utility, which is what he opposes.

Actually you do. Classifying it as a utility would allow the FCC to force ISPs to treat all packets of data the same.

The only reason that he may not, is that it is a dishonest question in regards to the topic.

No, he won't answer because he doesn't understand the topic outside of using it bash Obama. US Conservative is an extremist partisan who will always turn every topic he can into "why he hates democrats" and completely ignore the actual topic.

The real question in regards to this topic should be; Can you tell us how classifying the internet as a utility restricts innovation?
Cruz already answered that question.

If you think he answered that question, I have ocean front property to sell you in Switzerland.

Cruz is against trying to achieve neutrality by classifying the internet as a utility.
Which is what his comments are about.
As he stated in his published opinion, the following is what he wants.

To which he has zero explanations on how to do that. Meaning Cruz is entirely for letting the ISPs throttle all they want since he is against NN and against any form of regulation to ensure that all packets of data are treated the same.

Cruz's motto is "let's do nothing while they screw us over."
 
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.

I hear where you're coming from but that just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be silly for an ISP to tie up a vendor like that. They'd be stuck with that particular vendors product no matter what anyone else came up with and their customers would revolt over not having choices.

The flip side is that by charging more for certain services they can turn that additional revenue into improved infrastructure faster than before. I know that being anti-corporate is the "in thing" these days but corporations as a whole just plain are not as mean and evil as people make them out to be.
 
I personally believe that content that is more latent susceptible should be prioritized.

So in this case, I am in favor of prioritizing content based on the content itself, not based on where the content originates.

What I am not in favor of, is allowing people that have little or no understanding of technology to rule on these issues, which is what you are apparently seeking. Once we allow government to make laws to regulate this, the people that have very little idea how things work will be put in charge.

First off if you have read all my posts in this thread, then you should know that earlier I stated I am quite leery of a bunch of lawyers that are completely ignorant of the subject (ie: Ted Cruz) writing laws that govern this.

That said, if we are going to enforce a common carrier principle for internet providers - which is what net neutrality is, then there has to be some sort of oversight. Hell I can setup a QoS class and policy about as quick as I can write this post, so without some sort of minimal regulatory oversight, how do you propose we prevent the Comcasts and Time Warners out there from doing the same?
 
I hear where you're coming from but that just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be silly for an ISP to tie up a vendor like that. They'd be stuck with that particular vendors product no matter what anyone else came up with and their customers would revolt over not having choices.

The flip side is that by charging more for certain services they can turn that additional revenue into improved infrastructure faster than before. I know that being anti-corporate is the "in thing" these days but corporations as a whole just plain are not as mean and evil as people make them out to be.



Verizon and comcast throttled Netflix until Netflix paid the ransom,

Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown
 
Yes. Nonsense.
I am glad that you realize what you said was exaggerated nonsense.
Good for you!
:thumbs:

That smiley is a winking for a reason.

it sure is there buddy...:thumbs:

:roll:
 
I hear where you're coming from but that just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be silly for an ISP to tie up a vendor like that. They'd be stuck with that particular vendors product no matter what anyone else came up with and their customers would revolt over not having choices.

The flip side is that by charging more for certain services they can turn that additional revenue into improved infrastructure faster than before. I know that being anti-corporate is the "in thing" these days but corporations as a whole just plain are not as mean and evil as people make them out to be.

If I can implement QoS, CoS, and other Traffic Shaping policies to prioritize certain traffic over other traffic (ie: the companies that are paying me to prioritize my traffic), then there is far less of an incentive for me to upgrade my infrastructure as my "preferred" traffic is always the first in line. Moreover, in most markets I have no real competition, thus my end user customers can either continue to buy my service, or go with something much slower.
 
This is net neutrality, not the govenrment democrat bill called "Net Neutrality".

And how do you propose we maintain it without some form of regulation?

Excon believes in magic as he has literally no actual other plan. Cruz believes in Magic as well. Actually I think Cruz knows he's 100% wrong he's merely farming dumb voters for primary votes.

Thing is, all of the idiots here arguing against regulation have offered nothing as a plan to maintain actual net neutrality. It's like they magically think it will just stay that way despite ISPs clearly moving to throttling and a tiered system. Seems like the same batcrazy beliefs that made many of the praise the magical Ryan "budget" plan that had zero basis in reality.
 
A liberal citing a comedy show to make their case. Who saw that coming?

A quasi-conservative getting my lean wrong and attacking the source instead of the content. Who saw that coming?
 
First off if you have read all my posts in this thread, then you should know that earlier I stated I am quite leery of a bunch of lawyers that are completely ignorant of the subject (ie: Ted Cruz) writing laws that govern this.

That said, if we are going to enforce a common carrier principle for internet providers - which is what net neutrality is, then there has to be some sort of oversight. Hell I can setup a QoS class and policy about as quick as I can write this post, so without some sort of minimal regulatory oversight, how do you propose we prevent the Comcasts and Time Warners out there from doing the same?

ultimately, you are going to have to rely on the consumer class to not get bent over and shafted.

Personally, I feel that when it is business doing the shafting, we have far more avenues to pursue then when it is the government doing the shafting.

So until I see real signs of big problems today, not potential for problems down the road, I am not giving any government agency more power.
 
And how do you propose we maintain it without some form of regulation?

If you read up a few posts, I've addressed this.

Excon believes in magic as he has literally no actual other plan. Cruz believes in Magic as well.


I am not on thier side either.



Thing is, all of the idiots here arguing against regulation have offered nothing as a plan to maintain actual net neutrality. It's like they magically think it will just stay that way despite ISPs clearly moving to throttling and a tiered system. Seems like the same batcrazy beliefs that made many of the praise the magical Ryan "budget" plan that had zero basis in reality.


I have offered alternatives (see above) so I guess I am not one of the "idiots" you speak of. *shrug*
 
I hear where you're coming from but that just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be silly for an ISP to tie up a vendor like that. They'd be stuck with that particular vendors product no matter what anyone else came up with and their customers would revolt over not having choices.

When the choice is no internet or throttled/pay per page, there isn't much of a revolt. If an ISP can extract additional revenues on throttling when there is zero competition, why wouldn't they do it? So many people here are ignoring that most people have one provider option.

The flip side is that by charging more for certain services they can turn that additional revenue into improved infrastructure faster than before. I know that being anti-corporate is the "in thing" these days but corporations as a whole just plain are not as mean and evil as people make them out to be.

Possible, but unlikely. Why would they want to increase capacity when they can simply wring more money out of existing capacity and spend nothing on improvements? Again, a monopoly doesn't need to compete. Just because they're private doesn't mean they have to actually improve anything when they're a monopoly.
 
If you read up a few posts, I've addressed this.

Give me a brief summary. The last time I checked this thread is was one page.

I am not on thier side either.

That is good to hear.

I have offered alternatives (see above) so I guess I am not one of the "idiots" you speak of. *shrug*

Good. People who complain and never, ever, ever offer realistic solutions are worthless people.
 
I hear where you're coming from but that just doesn't seem likely to me. It would be silly for an ISP to tie up a vendor like that. They'd be stuck with that particular vendors product no matter what anyone else came up with and their customers would revolt over not having choices.

There's not much danger of revolt if there's not a ton of options. Take something like teleconferencing. You need significant speeds for that. A 10 Mpbs satallite signal is not likely going to be your option. It's cable or it's a fiber setup like FiOS most likely. And you'll have what? One? Two? MAYBE three if you're likely choices?

And that's the danger with monopolies or duopolies and the like...it's only a danger to the company if it's doing it but a competitor isn't. But there's no reason to think that the competitors won't get on board with doing something similar when there's no risk to do it.

If Cable Company X has an exclusive deal with Adobe and Fiber Company Y has an exclusive deal with WebEx, and you want to use goto meeting...well you're ****ed. And neither company needs to fear that their taking of additional money from Adobe/WebEx is going to harm them in losing a customer, because the customer has no other option besides just giving up having those services all together (ie, not a real option).

The flip side is that by charging more for certain services they can turn that additional revenue into improved infrastructure faster than before.

That's all nice and warm and fuzzy, but it ignores basic business principles. The telecoms are not going to upgrade infastructure more than the NEED to upgrade them. There's absolutely zero reason to believe that increased money gained from charging content providers are going to simply go into improved infrastructure as opposed to simply being profits on top of the botton line. This isn't "anti-corporate", it's basic business...a business is not going to spend money it doesn't need to spend simply because it makes people feel warm and fuzzy. They'll upgrade the infastructure if it's in their BUSINESS interest to do so....but they would do that regardless of whether or not the content providers were paying them extra cash, because if they NEEDED the upgrade to do business they'd do the upgrade.

The argument that "Oh, they'll just use that money to improve infrastructure" just simply doesn't hold water in a basic business sense.
 
If I can implement QoS, CoS, and other Traffic Shaping policies to prioritize certain traffic over other traffic (ie: the companies that are paying me to prioritize my traffic), then there is far less of an incentive for me to upgrade my infrastructure as my "preferred" traffic is always the first in line. Moreover, in most markets I have no real competition, thus my end user customers can either continue to buy my service, or go with something much slower.

It's not just the companies. There's to my knowledge, nothing stopping the ISP from offering fast lane treatment of certain applications payment options directly to the individual customer. ISP could charge both ways till the internet is as slow as dial up for everyone who isn't paying extra.
 
And how do you propose we maintain it without some form of regulation?

He's already answered that.

I support a net neutrality as posted in my graphic, a simple law stating that Internet service providers and governments must treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently basis of user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

Graphic he's talking about:

I has visual aids:


10805756_10152836742812726_1229765909163887911_n.jpg

Essentially, a law mandating that the principles of net neutrality be held up...which I believe is similar, but an expanded version, of what the FCC recently had struck down...but not actually classifying them as a utility, which gives the government expanded power to potentially regulate the industry BEYOND simply enforcing net neutrality and also requires the industry to start paying an additional tax.
 
ultimately, you are going to have to rely on the consumer class to not get bent over and shafted.

Personally, I feel that when it is business doing the shafting, we have far more avenues to pursue then when it is the government doing the shafting.

So until I see real signs of big problems today, not potential for problems down the road, I am not giving any government agency more power.

How can the customer do anything when in most markets they have no other alternatives. Moreover, it already has been a problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/b...netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html?_r=0
 
Back
Top Bottom