• 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

Zyphlin said:
....

The argument that "Oh, they'll just use that money to improve infrastructure" just simply doesn't hold water in a basic business sense.
Click to expand...

Wow!!

The whole point of being in business is to make money and there are really only two ways that happens. You either increase your market share or you increase your fees. Generally speaking, it's rare to be able to do both since fee increases almost always result in decreased market share. So, to that end, most businesses work really hard to "improve infrastructure" because it's that infrastructure that allows them to either provide more services to more people or to provide better services to the customers who are going to be paying more.

The only "business" that tends to survive by providing ****ty service at ever increasing prices is government.
 
obvious Child said:
Is that worse than moving to a pay per page view internet? IMO, doing nothing as Excon wants is not the solution.
Click to expand...

I think suggesting we're going to move to a pay per page veiw internet anytime in the next 5 to 10 years is absolute hyperbole. Will telecoms try and push the boundries, and break the boundries, of net neutrality principles more and more and more over the coming years? Absolutely, I've stated as much in numerous threads. But something like a "pay per page view" model is an EXTREME end of that which I think is just RIDICULOUSLY unreasonable to suggest will exist in any significant way in the coming years...which you'll note, is the time span I'm talking about in regards to pushing for a law rather than going the utility route.

And I get your distate for those who just complain and offer no solution, and a STRONG disagreement with those who just essentially say "do nothing"...but that wasn't the case with Rev, or with me. That was my point.

I think the loan/tax credit is an interesting option. But I actually still think that a law enforcing neutrality principles, but not giving the government and ability to regulate, is more likely than any kind of attempt to break up the monopolies. I simply think the telecons will fight that FAR more than they'll fight net neutrality, especially net neutrality passed in a way that doesn't provide a clear path for even greater government control over them and an increase on taxes they have to pay.

Indeed, with the less likelihood of taxes and less likelihood of further regulation, I think it's more likely the telecons would fight an actual passage of a law LESS than they'd fight the FCC classifying it as a utility.
 
obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...
No it isn't.
Unless you got something that clearly indicates otherwise, how about we remain within the confines of the context of what he said?
His comment, in context of what he was speaking about clearly indicates he wants it to remain the same as it is now, you know, without the suggested status change into a utility.


obvious Child said:
Actually you do. Classifying it as a utility would allow the FCC to force ISPs to treat all packets of data the same.
Click to expand...
Oh gawd. :doh
Net neutrality is about no outside interference, especially by the government.


obvious Child said:
No, he won't answer because he doesn't understand the topic outside of using it bash Obama.
Click to expand...
More nonsense from you.
It was a dishonest question.


obvious Child said:
If you think he answered that question, I have ocean front property to sell you in Switzerland.
Click to expand...
If you do not understand that "regulation" was the answer, then you have property to sell to your self.


obvious Child said:
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."
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Being against classifying it as a utility does not mean you are against NN.
So stop with the dishonest arguments.

obvious Child said:
I am. You are not. Your solution is to do nothing and rely on magic,

Hence why your opinion is of no value whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Your focus on me and for the reasons stated (which is wrong) is nothing more than an example of a person who can not form a coherent argument and instead attacks the poster.
Expected typical liberal bs.

Try discussing the actual topic for a change.
It is your opinion that is of no value here.
And as this topic isn't about possible solutions, but Cruz's words as to why Obama's desire to classify it as utility is wrong, you are speaking nonsense, as usual.

Again, try getting back on topic.




tacomancer said:
Its the same industry, telephony. Phones have data services and enhanced technologies, but unless one goes pure VoIP like skype, you are still using phone numbers.

911 is still regulated to work. You have taxes on your cell phone bill. You have access to tty for the deaf. Etc...

But all of the back end stuff was converted to digital packet switched protocols in the 80s and 90s regardless of the last mile being a copper wire or radio waves. Regulation didn't hinder that. Just because you and Cruz didn't see the upgrades right in front of them doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Did you ever use a party line for example where multiple houses had to share? That doesn't happen for example, in your scenario we would still be in that situation.
Click to expand...
Holy ****! :doh
Somehow you think what you just said is relevant.
It isn't.
Regulation stifles. Period.
And such a classification brings with it taxes. Which you keep ignoring.
 
Texmex said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have distorted what I actually said (post #15), which was:

"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."

I did not say that I am unfamiliar with the issue.

I am not standing up for Cruz; I am standing up for good sense. Dismissing Cruz as a "talking head" who preys on low-info voters is dumb and the type of remark that has ruined this thread. For every person wanting to reasonably discuss the issue of 'Net neutrality, there are four jerks who are calling others ignorant, relying on the predictable reading comprehension remarks, and making statements such as "Only a _______ (insert political party you don't like) would say _______."

I was not responding to you in my post. Your snarky "If you don't understand the issue, why not educate yourself before commenting on the situation" puts you in the category of those who are part of the problem. And by "snarky" I mean "nasty."

Your reach has exceeded your grasp here. Very sorry that you don't understand the difference between "not entirely familiar" and "not familiar," but you should take your own recommendation to heart and not be in such a rush to attack others.
 
Lutherf said:
As an ISP, what do I need to provide "better" internet? I need better wire and better servers, right? How do I get those things? I have to buy them, right? How do I get the money to buy them? I charge my customers.
Click to expand...
Your fundamental mistake here is that you are making the unwarranted assumption that an ISP's goal is "better internet service." It is not. It never has been. The only goal of a company is profit maximization, which in almost all situations has an inverse relationship with service quality. The higher the company's quality of goods/services (high COGs) the lower the take home profit (lower net income).

Now high quality service may bring profitability for some companies in select markets, but in highly monopolized markets like for ISPs, there is almost NO existent market forces that would force an ISP to provide high quality service. Better infrastructure for Time Warner means absolutely nothing. It already owns entire geographical markets and that's not going to change -- 30% of Americans have 1 ISP choice, 67% have 2 or fewer ISP choices. Thus a dollar spent by an ISP improving its service is a dollar in the trash. Which is why Comcast, AT&T, Timer Warner and Cox Communications are routinely awarded nominations as the "Worst Company in America."
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
The whole point of being in business is to make money and there are really only two ways that happens.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's my point. It's to make money, not provide "infastructure" simply out of the good of their heart.

You know when they'll provide infastructure? When they need to do it. Regardless of whether or not they're getting EXTRA money on top of their customer base by charging content users for data passing through their network.

Oh, and by the way, there's absolutely other businesses that tend to survive by providing ****ty service at ever increasing prices....Cable Companies, because they have psuedo-monopolies in most areas, going back to my earlier point that this isn't a free market and thus it's unreasonable to just assume standard market principles will keep everything in check.
 
Zyphlin said:
I understand it doesn't affect you. Whether or not something affects you personally doesn't necessarily mean it's a problem.

I don't own any firearms at this point in time. If there was a ban on "assault rifles" once again it would have zero direct effect on me. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned with the larger implications of what such actions could mean, or what it potentially opens the door to in the future.

Maybe you don't use Peer 2 Peer file transfer services, and so Comcasts throttling of those services in the past wouldn't affect you.

Maybe you don't use vonage, so telecoms that provide phone service blocking or hampering that service over it's networks may not affect you.

Maybe you don't use netflix, and so a telecom having ridiculously slow speeds for it until Netflix agreed to pay them money at which point their speeds took a precipitous spike may not affect you.

Maybe you don't use firefox, so a telecon hijacking it's google search abilities to be routed to it's own personal web search browser may not affect you.

But that doesn't mean those aren't potential problems. It doesn't mean that Verizon arguing before a court that it should be able to discriminate against data on it's network for any reason it likes, and should be able to charge content providers extra money for data from them that transfers over Verizon's network or be punished with throttling can't lead to a potential problem for many people, or even for you. It doesn't mean that an abandonment of net neutrality principles over the next decade to two won't end up impacting you.

Should I simply not oppose aims at restricting gun usage because I don't own a gun? Or should I have the wherewithall to understand that issues exist beyond those that directly impact me, and a problem is a problem regardless of it's personal touch on my life.
Click to expand...

I respect your post, but as I said in my previous post that this fix needs to be done right and taking the time to do it right, not some off the cuff quick fix solution.
If that happens we're all screwed and a bit poorer.
 
nota bene said:
I was not responding to you in my post. Your snarky "If you don't understand the issue, why not educate yourself before commenting on the situation" puts you in the category of those who are part of the problem. And by "snarky" I mean "nasty."
Click to expand...

I don't think snarky means the same thing as nasty, but I understand your point.

Your reach has exceeded your grasp here. Very sorry that you don't understand the difference between "not entirely familiar" and "not familiar," but you should take your own recommendation to heart and not be in such a rush to attack others.
Click to expand...

Yes, I apologize. I misread your posting.
 
One of the only things I trust less than the government is Comcast. Don't "fix" what has been working just fine.
 
obvious Child said:
Are you COMPLETELY UNAWARE that ISPs have throttled Netflixks?
Click to expand...

Are you completely unaware as to the reason why?



obvious Child said:
So you, like Excon have nothing but complaints? No solutions? Worthless.
Click to expand...
Your continued focus on me and for the reasons stated (which is wrong) is nothing more than an example of a person who can not form a coherent argument and instead attacks the poster.
Expected typical liberal bs.

Try discussing the actual topic for a change.




Helix said:
i'm not going to waste a lot of time worrying what Ted Cruz thinks, but i'm not surprised that he profoundly misunderstands the consequences of an internet with slow lanes. he has a lot of company in that area, though.
Click to expand...
:doh
Your lack of spending time has lead you to make an erroneous statement.
Nowhere is it evident that he does, or does not understand what you call slow lanes.




tacomancer said:
So cell phones aren't subject to the taxes and regulations I mentioned?
Click to expand...
More dishonesty from you. Figures.
I didn't say that or even argue that.
So try being honest.

The point was that you had not addressed the fact that classifying it as a utility will bring taxes to it. Which is a negative.
A negative we do not need.
And btw, the creation of cell phones (which is where the constant innovation is) is not regulated like the service that the phone uses is. So you have no point there either.
 
Kobie said:
Cable companies.
Click to expand...

I know, I know.

Maybe it's just me but in the past several years my cable service has become far more consistent and offers more stuff. Same goes for my internet even before I got cable.

I used to lose internet service at the office pretty much every time we had an electric storm. It was more or less a given that once I heard thunder I'd better wrap up whatever I needed to get done because it was just going to be a matter of time. That was maybe 7 years ago and all of a sudden we stopped having that problem because Qwest put in better equipment.

My cable used to go out pretty regularly. I'd be sitting there watching the game and my team was down by 2 but had the ball and just completed a pass to get them to the 27 yard line with 7 seconds left and then the cable would go out. That hasn't happened recently that I can recall and I also have a bunch of new channels to browse through as well as some "on demand" stuff that I haven't really figured out yet. Heck, the last time I had a problem Cox sent someone out to my house with a new box on a Sunday!
 
Excon said:
More dishonesty from you. Figures.
I didn't say that or even argue that.
So try being honest.

The point was that you had not addressed the fact that classifying it as a utility will bring taxes to it. Which is a negative.
A negative we do not need.
And btw, the creation of cell phones (which is where the constant innovation is) is not regulated like the service that the phone uses is. So you have no point there either.
Click to expand...

So that FCC link I gave you will bring a 404 error up, right, since these regulations don't exist?
 
Lutherf said:
I know, I know.

Maybe it's just me but in the past several years my cable service has become far more consistent and offers more stuff. Same goes for my internet even before I got cable.

I used to lose internet service at the office pretty much every time we had an electric storm. It was more or less a given that once I heard thunder I'd better wrap up whatever I needed to get done because it was just going to be a matter of time. That was maybe 7 years ago and all of a sudden we stopped having that problem because Qwest put in better equipment.

My cable used to go out pretty regularly. I'd be sitting there watching the game and my team was down by 2 but had the ball and just completed a pass to get them to the 27 yard line with 7 seconds left and then the cable would go out. That hasn't happened recently that I can recall and I also have a bunch of new channels to browse through as well as some "on demand" stuff that I haven't really figured out yet. Heck, the last time I had a problem Cox sent someone out to my house with a new box on a Sunday!
Click to expand...

I have Time Warner, and my service has gotten exponentially worse (mostly due to repeated equipment failures due to TWC basically refurbishing old cable boxes/modems and reissuing them, only for them to quickly break again), while my bill continues to go up, up, up.
 
tacomancer said:
So that FCC link I gave you will bring a 404 error up, right, since these regulations don't exist?
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about?
Your link is irrelevant as I said no such thing and made no such argument.
And as you were further informed your nonsense isn't even applicable as the creation of cell phones (which is where the constant innovation is) is not regulated like the service that the phone uses is.

You have no relevant point.
 
Excon said:
What the hell are you talking about?
Your link is irrelevant as I said no such thing and made no such argument.
And as you were further informed your nonsense isn't even applicable as the creation of cell phones (which is where the constant innovation is) is not regulated like the service that the phone uses is.

You have no relevant point.
Click to expand...
The initial argument was that cell phones were so advanced due to a lack of stifling regulations, set forth as an example against net neutrality.

Cell phones are subject to a number of FCC regulations as well as any regulations that pertain when they interface to the legacy phone system to make a call, yet cell phones advance at an astounding rate.

Also in spite of stifling regulations on phone systems, a number of innovations and upgrades were made, such as digital packet switching on the back end.

All of this shows that Cruz was wrong as are you for agreeing with him.
 
tacomancer said:
The initial argument was that cell phones were so advanced due to a lack of stifling regulations, set forth as an example against net neutrality.

Cell phones are subject to a number of FCC regulations as well as any regulations that pertain when they interface to the legacy phone system to make a call, yet cell phones advance at an astounding rate.

Also in spite of stifling regulations on phone systems, a number of innovations and upgrades were made, such as digital packet switching on the back end.

All of this shows that Cruz was wrong as are you for agreeing with him.
Click to expand...
Holy ****! :doh
Wrong.
Your argument, besides being absurdly wrong is dishonest as well.
Cell phone innovation/advancement has nothing to do with the service it provides being regulated.
 
Excon said:
Holy ****! :doh
Wrong.
Your argument, besides being absurdly wrong is dishonest as well.
Cell phone innovation/advancement has nothing to do with the service it provides being regulated.
Click to expand...
Heh OK.
 
tacomancer said:
Heh OK.
Click to expand...
:doh
That is right. You were wrong and it is okay.

Cell phone innovation/advancement has nothing to do with the service it provides being regulated.
 
Excon said:
:doh
That is right. You were wrong and it is okay.

Cell phone innovation/advancement has nothing to do with the service it provides being regulated.
Click to expand...
I need an actual counter argument please

Otherwise, heh OK is sufficient
 
tacomancer said:
I need an actual counter argument please

Otherwise, heh OK is sufficient
Click to expand...
You were already given one which showed your argument to be nonsense, and you apparently responded with agreement.

Cell phone innovation/advancement has nothing to do with the service it provides being regulated.
 
Kobie said:
I have Time Warner, and my service has gotten exponentially worse (mostly due to repeated equipment failures due to TWC basically refurbishing old cable boxes/modems and reissuing them, only for them to quickly break again), while my bill continues to go up, up, up.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Kobie. :2wave:

Same here in NE Ohio with Time Warner, Kobie. When you call them, the first question the answering machine asks is whether it's your internet or your TV giving you problems - then you get routed to the correct department, and the fun begins. It usually means that we have to take the cable box/modem to them and getting another one to replace it. My brother finally went to Dish and he's been aggravation free at his house for years!
 
Excon said:
You were already given one which showed your argument to be nonsense, and you apparently responded with agreement.

Cell phone innovation/advancement has nothing to do with the service it provides being regulated.
Click to expand...
And this argument that I agreed to is on post #...?
 
tacomancer said:
And this argument that I agreed to is on post #...?
Click to expand...
:doh
You know that cellphone innovation/advancement has nothing to do with the service it provides being regulated.
And you also know that you said "Heh, ok." to that.

As I replied; That is right. You were wrong and it is okay.
So do you want to keep going in circles with this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom