• 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

tacomancer said:
Simple fact is, its not absurd but fact, the fiendish regulation Mr Cruz so fears did not halt innovation as he claimed.
Click to expand...
More dishonesty from you, and you are absurdly wrong again. Figures.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
:doh
Really?
That is all Obama proposed.
And Cruz is the only one between the two proposing the non Governmental involvement like that on the left requires.
So who are the ones you are speaking about who also propose non governmental involvement as the one on the left requires?
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

Content does not end up being controlled. Even pricing isn't necessarily controlled. See, reclassifying ISPs as a utility does not automatically mean every single regulation has to be blindly applied to them.

Is it theoretically possible? Yes. But lots of things are theoretically possible. The FAA could declare an aircraft speed limit of 100mph.
 
tacomancer said:
You don't know when you are trounced do you?
Click to expand...
Haven't been yet. But you have been and still don't know it.

Cellphone innovation/advancement has nothing to do with the service it provides being regulated.
 
Excon said:
Again. My position is not relevant to what Cruz said which is what this topic is about.
Click to expand...

i'm going to ask you one more time, and if you do not answer the question, then our discussion has concluded.

do you or do you not support net neutrality?
 
Excon said:
Haven't been yet. But you have been and still don't know it.

Cellphone innovation/advancement has nothing to do with the service it provides being regulated.
Click to expand...
OK, it seems you actually believe your illogical stance is correct. (Yes and I know you will parrot that comment back instead of displaying original thought) so I got nothing for a true believer. Continue to live in your fantasy while the rest of us continue the real discussion you are unable to grasp.
 
Deuce said:
No, it's not.

Content does not end up being controlled. Even pricing isn't necessarily controlled. See, reclassifying ISPs as a utility does not automatically mean every single regulation has to be blindly applied to them.
Click to expand...
Really? iLOL :doh Prove it.
Taxes as a Utility are a given. So prove that the other regulation wont happen.


And while you are at that, show us these proposers you spoke of proposing the non-governmental interference like that on the left requires?
 
Helix said:
i'm going to ask you one more time, and if you do not answer the question, then our discussion has concluded.

do you or do you not support net neutrality?
Click to expand...
iLOL
You are going to ask me one more time. :doh D'oh!
lol
Pay attention to what I told you.
My position is irrelevant to what Cruz has stated.
Sorry you do not like that, but you are going to have to deal with that.

If you would stay on topic you wouldn't be asking such absurdities anyways. That is all your problem. Not mine.
 
Excon said:
Really? iLOL :doh Prove it.
Taxes as a Utility are a given. So prove that the other regulation wont happen.
Click to expand...
You're making the claims about the regulation. Prove that all utilities must be taxed. Show me the regulation that would add a tax to internet access beyond what cable companies are currently taxed.


And while you are at that, show us these proposers you spoke of proposing the non-governmental interference like that on the left requires?
Click to expand...

Uhh, people are proposing net neutrality, which isn't any of the things you've described.
 
tacomancer said:
OK, it seems you actually believe your illogical stance is correct. (Yes and I know you will parrot that comment back instead of displaying original thought) so I got nothing for a true believer. Continue to live in your fantasy while the rest of us continue the real discussion you are unable to grasp.
Click to expand...
There you go being wrong again.
The fantasy is all yours.

Cellphone innovation/advancement has nothing to do with the service it provides being regulated.

You simply can not counter that reality.
Your argument was absurd and wrong.
 
Excon said:
Cellphone innovation/advancement has nothing to do with the service it provides being regulated.
Click to expand...

However, as you are stating, regulation of the service it provides (internet access) stifles the innovation and advancement of the internet.
 
Excon said:
iLOL
You are going to ask me one more time. :doh D'oh!
lol
Pay attention to what I told you.
My position is irrelevant to what Cruz has stated.
Sorry you do not like that, but you are going to have to deal with that.

If you would stay on topic you wouldn't be asking such absurdities anyways. That is all your problem. Not mine.
Click to expand...

if you won't answer a simple question, then engaging in a debate with you is fruitless.

before we part ways, i'll say what is obvious : you do not support net neutrality, and you won't even admit it because it hurts your position on a site which will be seriously impacted by being relegated to the slow lane under the tiered system which you personally support. this is why you are dodging the question.

either way, goodbye.
 
Deuce said:
You're making the claims about the regulation. Prove that all utilities must be taxed. Show me the regulation that would add a tax to internet access beyond what cable companies are currently taxed.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I thought. You can't prove what you say.
I have already proven the taxes part multiple times.
And regulation is a given as I stated. A given doesn't have to be proven. And since this is Gov regulation, it is absurd that you would attempt to deny what the Gov does.
But beside proving that taxes would come from such a classification, I also showed that even though Obama doesn't think it would be appropriate to apply, he acknowledged that rate regulation is part of Utility regulation, which should be proof enough, and doubles as proof that you are wrong.


Deuce said:
Uhh, people are proposing net neutrality, which isn't any of the things you've described.
Click to expand...
:naughty
No. That simply isn't true to what has been stated.

We were speaking about the position statements in the picture, and you know that.
Again.
That is all Obama proposed. [the one on the right]
And Cruz is the only one between the two proposing the non Governmental involvement like that on the left requires.
So who are the ones you are speaking about who also propose non governmental involvement as the one on the left requires?​

No one but Cruz has proposed nongovernmental involvement.
And we are talking about actual proposals, not simply what non politicians may, or may not be talking about.
Obama has proposed gov involvement. Which is the one on the right.
Cruz has stated it should remain the way it is without gov involvement. Which is the one on the left. So where are these other proposals that support non-gov involvement like the one on the left?
If they are there you can certainly provide them. So why haven't you?





Ah what the heck. Just to satiate your ignorance.


President Obama's public stance that the FCC should reclassify broadband internet services as a Title II "common carrier" under the current Telecommunications Act carries many ramifications, but one is undeniable: there's going to be a hidden tax hike, and it's going to be paid for by consumers.
Title II common carriers are required to "contribute" to what's called the Universal Service Fund - a government program to bring telecommunications services to underserved areas with the goal of universal coverage. Whether it's called "contributions" or fees or whatnot, the function of the program is a tax on corporate revenues in order to fund services for those who might not have them otherwise. It's a redistributive corporate tax paid for by consumers.

The USF tax amounts to more than a 16% charge on top of consumers' bills. As broadband service providers are not currently subject to the USF tax, a reclassification would mean that all consumers would see a jump around that size in their bill. Considering that in some locales, the cheapest broadband service runs upwards of $50 per month, this will cost even the most price-conscious consumers an extra $100 per year - and for those at higher tiers, much more than that.

FCC commissioners past and present have agreed that the this net neutrality tax is unavoidable in a Title II reclassification scenario. In a discussion at the National Press Club on Friday, current FCC commissioner Ajit Pai laid out exactly what consumers would be seeing on their bills.

"Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai said. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services. Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in."

"The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax - or taxes - to access the internet."

An FCC decision to go with title II reclassification in order to enforce new net neutrality regulations would have a lot of deleterious effects. One of the most obvious is that it would be a tax hike on a service that the government believes is essential to American life.

The Net Neutrality Tax Hike - Kevin Glass​


Classifying it as a Utility brings about rate regulation also.
While he may say that it wouldn't be appropriate to apply, even Obama acknowledges that rate regulation comes with classifying it as a Utility.

Even President Obama conceded that a strict Title II approach would not by itself be sufficient because there are hundreds of rules applying to telephone service common carriers that would be inappropriate to apply to broadband, like, for example, rate regulation.

In addition, even Title II does not ban paid prioritization completely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/t...nts-on-fcc-head-over-open-internet-rules.html​
 
Excon said:
That is a real stupid comment, as no one has said, let alone expressed any such thing.
And simply being against what the Obama has proposed doesn't even come close to the nonsense you spew.
Click to expand...

If you're against enforcing net neutrality then you're in favor of paying significantly more for every aspect of your internet use (the parts that your isp will even let you use, of course). But if you have another solution, I'm all ears.
 
Kobie said:
However, as you are stating, regulation of the service it provides (internet access) stifles the innovation and advancement of the internet.
Click to expand...
You just can't help misstating what is being said, can you?
The specific service that is being spoken about is that which is regulated as a Utility, actual phone service.
Not the manufacturing of the phone or any service one may receive over that which is regulated. All of which are independent of such Utility regulation.
 
Cardinal said:
If you're against enforcing net neutrality then you're in favor of paying significantly more for every aspect of your internet use (the parts that your isp will even let you use, of course). But if you have another solution, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...
You are spewing nonsense again.
Simply being against what Obama has proposed does not mean one is against NN.
 
Excon said:
You are spewing nonsense again.
Simply being against what Obama has proposed does not mean one is against NN.
Click to expand...

As I said, if you have another solution to ensuring net neutrality, I'm all ears.
 
Excon said:
Ah what the heck. Just to satiate your ignorance.


President Obama's public stance that the FCC should reclassify broadband internet services as a Title II "common carrier" under the current Telecommunications Act carries many ramifications, but one is undeniable: there's going to be a hidden tax hike, and it's going to be paid for by consumers.
Title II common carriers are required to "contribute" to what's called the Universal Service Fund - a government program to bring telecommunications services to underserved areas with the goal of universal coverage. Whether it's called "contributions" or fees or whatnot, the function of the program is a tax on corporate revenues in order to fund services for those who might not have them otherwise. It's a redistributive corporate tax paid for by consumers.

The USF tax amounts to more than a 16% charge on top of consumers' bills. As broadband service providers are not currently subject to the USF tax, a reclassification would mean that all consumers would see a jump around that size in their bill. Considering that in some locales, the cheapest broadband service runs upwards of $50 per month, this will cost even the most price-conscious consumers an extra $100 per year - and for those at higher tiers, much more than that.

FCC commissioners past and present have agreed that the this net neutrality tax is unavoidable in a Title II reclassification scenario. In a discussion at the National Press Club on Friday, current FCC commissioner Ajit Pai laid out exactly what consumers would be seeing on their bills.

"Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai said. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services. Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in."

"The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax - or taxes - to access the internet."

An FCC decision to go with title II reclassification in order to enforce new net neutrality regulations would have a lot of deleterious effects. One of the most obvious is that it would be a tax hike on a service that the government believes is essential to American life.

The Net Neutrality Tax Hike - Kevin Glass​


Classifying it as a Utility brings about rate regulation also.
While he may say that it wouldn't be appropriate to apply, even Obama acknowledges that rate regulation comes with classifying it as a Utility.

Even President Obama conceded that a strict Title II approach would not by itself be sufficient because there are hundreds of rules applying to telephone service common carriers that would be inappropriate to apply to broadband, like, for example, rate regulation.

In addition, even Title II does not ban paid prioritization completely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/t...nts-on-fcc-head-over-open-internet-rules.html​
Click to expand...

I see claims. I want to see the regulations that support these claims.
 
Helix said:
if you won't answer a simple question, then engaging in a debate with you is fruitless.
Click to expand...
Your question is off topic and irrelevant.
If you do not understand that, it is not worth engaging you.
Nor are you entitled to any answer to off-topic and irrelevant questions let alone any relevant question you ask. You acting like you are is childish behavior.


Helix said:
before we part ways, i'll say what is obvious : you do not support net neutrality, and you won't even admit it because it hurts your position on a site which will be seriously impacted by being relegated to the slow lane under the tiered system which you personally support. this is why you are dodging the question.
Click to expand...
iLOL :doh
What you say is just as irrelevant and absurd as your off-topic question.
You know no such thing. And you assuming you do is foolish behavior on your part. So it is a good thing you choose to run away. You clearly know not of what you speak, and are just embarrassing yourself.

Once you finish searching the multiple threads for my stated position you are welcome back anytime to apologize.
 
Deuce said:
I see claims. I want to see the regulations that support these claims.
Click to expand...
You got the valid evidence that they exist. You want the actual code, find it yourself.
 
Excon said:
Your question is off topic and irrelevant.
If you do not understand that, it is not worth engaging you.
Nor are you entitled to any answer to off-topic and irrelevant questions let alone any relevant question you ask. You acting like you are is childish behavior.


iLOL :doh
What you say is just as irrelevant and absurd as your off-topic question.
You know no such thing. And you assuming you do is foolish behavior on your part. So it is a good thing you choose to run away. You clearly know not of what you speak, and are just embarrassing yourself.

Once you finish searching the multiple threads for my stated position you are welcome back anytime to apologize.
Click to expand...

then clarify your stance on net neutrality, or you will not receive another response from me.
 
Cardinal said:
As I said, if you have another solution to ensuring net neutrality, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...
This thread is about what Cruz said about Obama's proposal, Franken's idiotic statement about that and Cruz' rebuttal.
Not anything else.
 
Helix said:
then clarify your stance on net neutrality, or you will not receive another response from me.
Click to expand...

Think this needs its own poll?

edit: never mind, I should have figured one would have been created by now.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
This thread is about what Cruz said about Obama's proposal, Franken's idiotic statement about that and Cruz' rebuttal.
Not anything else.
Click to expand...

It's about preserving net neutrality, despite what some blowhard idiot like Cruz says. If you don't like Obama's proposal, then suggest a better one or get out of the way.
 
Helix said:
then clarify your stance on net neutrality, or you will not receive another response from me.
Click to expand...
Your threats are not just meaningless but hilariously funny as well. :doh :lamo Who do you think you are? You are not entitled to any answer, ever. Period.

Go find it, as it is irrelevant and off-topic to this thread. (It is truly sad that you do not understand that.)
 
Cardinal said:
It's about preserving net neutrality, despite what some blowhard idiot like Cruz says. If you don't like Obama's proposal, then suggest a better one or get out of the way.
Click to expand...
No it is not. It is exactly what I told you it was about; What Cruz said. Read the damn title.
And btw, Cruz did suggest a better one. Leave it as it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom