• 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

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,298
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

"We want a whole lot more of this," Cruz says in the video, waving an iPhone in the air, which he used as a proxy for innovation that can occur in the absence of government regulation. "And a whole lot less of this," he adds, pointing to a rotary phone, a symbol of an industry he says was "frozen in place" by regulation.

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:

Cruz's argument, though, relies on a different reading of what "the same" means. Franken is arguing that the Internet will be just as open to innovation as it always has been, since net neutrality has always been in effect and will remain in effect. Indeed, it would be hard to make the case that the Internet's current regulatory structure has made innovation impossible. Cruz instead is re-appropriating the phrase to imply that the Internet as a whole will never be able to change from the way it is now.

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.
 
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.

Its cute that you think the same statists which have ruined anything they try to put into law would somehow be even borderline competent here.
Leftists are about control, this is an example of how.
 
Its cute that you think the same statists which have ruined anything they try to put into law would somehow be even borderline competent here.
Leftists are about control, this is an example of how.

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.
 
Last edited:
Here, for those that need it pounded home

 
Its cute that you think the same statists which have ruined anything they try to put into law would somehow be even borderline competent here. Leftists are about control, this is an example of how.

It's cute you think the same statists who strive to keep restrictions on access in place by using fine print misdirection are somehow 'victims' and under the thumb of 'lefties'... :doh

A player has to play and a CON has to CON... :roll:
 

Ted Cruz doesn't give a flying monkey's butt about whether or not he's right.

Cruz is entirely doing this to out flank every Republican Presidential candidate in 2015-2016 by attacking everything Obama wants and does. Cruz knows full well that anyone who is even remotely tech informed knows he's completely full of crap. But most of us won't vote for him anyways. The crazy radicals within the GOP primaries, most of whom are old, white and tech illiterate will eat Cruz's statements up. Cruz knows he has to win the primaries and playing to the extremists is how he plans on doing just that.

I fully suspect that Cruz knows he's wrong. But he doesn't care he's wrong because being wrong is just a means to an end. In a sense Cruz is farming the idiots for their votes. Expect Cruz to be nearly 100% "Whatever Obama Wants, I Hate" for the next two years. Doesn't matter what, Cruz's plan of attack is to be the anti-Obama. Whether or not that ticket will get him into the White House remains to be seen.
 
Here, for those that need it pounded home

This really is what it boils down to. ISPs have infiltrated the government and now it is up to the consumers/content providers to tell Washington to shove it and stop bull****ting us. That John Oliver had to point out that Obama is as much in bed with ISPs as Ted Cruz shows why this needs to be legislated in a way that keeps the system exactly as it has been for 25+ years. No more, no less. I feel like Democrats are too ***** to actually take this issue the way it should be taken and Republicans have too many campaign contributions to lose if they stand in favor of NN. So we're left with a situation where:

1. Both parties are in bed with ISPs.
2. The president is in bed with ISPs.
3. ISPs have their former executives overseeing the death of net neutrality.
4. The mainstream media arguing in favor of big business (thanks to NBCUniversal).
5. Content providers/creators like Google, Facebook, DeviantArt, 500px, Wikipedia all being opposed to attacks on NN.

and finally....

6. Users who are going to get screwed no matter what.

I for one do not have much hope that things will improve but will do my best to join any demonstration in favor of net neutrality. It simply is a necessary part of innovation on the internet.
 
Ted Cruz has done the damage needed to kill NN. Cons like Cruz, and Rush Limbaugh have turned this into a Partisan issue. For the low information voters, that's enough for them to again allow businesses like Time Warner and Comcast to act against the interest of American Citizens.

Thanks Cruz.
 
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.
Wrong. It is you who has shown that he does not understand what Cruz is speaking to even though you have been told multiple times.

There is no need to classify it as a utility to obtain neutrality.

Your arguments against Cruz's stated position is nothing more than dishonesty.
 
Ted Cruz doesn't give a flying monkey's butt about whether or not he's right.

Cruz is entirely doing this to out flank every Republican Presidential candidate in 2015-2016 by attacking everything Obama wants and does. Cruz knows full well that anyone who is even remotely tech informed knows he's completely full of crap. But most of us won't vote for him anyways. The crazy radicals within the GOP primaries, most of whom are old, white and tech illiterate will eat Cruz's statements up. Cruz knows he has to win the primaries and playing to the extremists is how he plans on doing just that.

I fully suspect that Cruz knows he's wrong. But he doesn't care he's wrong because being wrong is just a means to an end. In a sense Cruz is farming the idiots for their votes. Expect Cruz to be nearly 100% "Whatever Obama Wants, I Hate" for the next two years. Doesn't matter what, Cruz's plan of attack is to be the anti-Obama. Whether or not that ticket will get him into the White House remains to be seen.
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.
 
Can you tell us how net neutrality restricts innovation? I'll wait.
You're probably going to die before you get a coherent answer to that.
The only reason that he may not, is that it is a dishonest question in regards to the 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.


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.

In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running. Not anymore. The Internet is the great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity. We should make a commitment, right now, to keep it that way.
 
Last edited:
Ted Cruz has done the damage needed to kill NN. Cons like Cruz, and Rush Limbaugh have turned this into a Partisan issue. For the low information voters, that's enough for them to again allow businesses like Time Warner and Comcast to act against the interest of American Citizens.

Thanks Cruz.

How do low-information voters allow businesses to do anything?
 
How do low-information voters allow businesses to do anything?

They vote for talking heads like Ted Cruz a position of power that will fight every step of the way to make sure Comcast/Time Warner can do what ever they like to the Internet.
 
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.
 
They vote for talking heads like Ted Cruz a position of power that will fight every step of the way to make sure Comcast/Time Warner can do what ever they like to the Internet.
That isn't at all evident.
So that must be partisan hacker speaking.
 
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'm not dismissing Ted Cruz on Net Neutrality. I understand his position on the matter completely. (Which is he doesn't understand the issue at all.) It only takes a second of research on Net Neutrality to understand Ted Cruz is spouting nonsense, and that no one outside of Telecom companies stand to win anything if we allow ISP's to kill Net Neutrality.
 
I understand his position on the matter completely. (Which is he doesn't understand the issue at all.) It only takes a second of research on Net Neutrality to understand Ted Cruz is spouting nonsense, and that no one outside of Telecom companies stand to win anything if we allow ISP's to kill Net Neutrality.
And you are wrong.
He has only addressed the way it is now and the impact of classifying it as a utility, and he is completely correct.
 
I'm not dismissing Ted Cruz on Net Neutrality.

No, you're dismissing him altogether as a "talking head" who preys on low-info voters.
 
And you are wrong.
He has only addressed the way it is now and the impact of classifying it as a utility, and he is completely correct.

So when Ted Cruz says "In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices." You agree with him?

Ted Cruz doesn't understand the issue, and seemingly you seem to be ignorant on the matter as well.

No, you're dismissing him altogether as a "talking head" who preys on low-info voters.

Are you telling me a Politician is making bold, public statements out of the goodness of his heart and not to prey on people who do not understand the issue?

Ted Cruz is wrong on NN, but it isn't stopping him from being the Devil's Advocate.
 
The only reason that he may not, is that it is a dishonest question in regards to the 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.


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.
In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running. Not anymore. The Internet is the great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity. We should make a commitment, right now, to keep it that way.

Cruz has given his opinion as to what regulators MAY do... There are no proposal from the Obama administration or the FCC to do what Mr. Cruz is suggesting MIGHT happen...Is there?

There are actual proposals and actions already being implemented by ISPs which have consumer groups concerned NOW ...Correct?

Throttling is happening now...Correct? What protections and guarrantees do the consumers have that ISP's will not do what consumer groups claim?

Do you know that Ted Cruz and Congress have over-sight of the FCC? That means that is the FCC enacts any regulation that kills "innovation"... Ted Cruz and Congress can order the FCC to change its rule? Did you know Congress has that power?

If the FCC has no regulatory power over ISPs, who can stop ISPs from doing as they wish? Ted Cruz?
 
Last edited:
So when Ted Cruz says "In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices." You agree with him?

Ted Cruz doesn't understand the issue, and seemingly you seem to be ignorant on the matter as well.
:naughty The only ignorance here is yours, as it is you who doesn't understand what he is speaking to.
He is speaking to Obama's proposal to have the FCC classify the internet as a Utility.

Do you really not understand that?

Btw, you forgot to include the information as to what he was speaking to in your quote.
He is speaking to regulation by the FCC that classifying it as a Utility would bring forth.

In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.

President Obama this week came out aggressively for net neutrality and turning the Internet into a public utility. Some in the online community have embraced this call, thinking that cheaper prices would result. But when has that worked? Government-regulated utilities invariably destroy innovation and freedom. Which is more innovative, the U.S. Postal Service or Facebook and Twitter? Which is better for consumers, city taxi commissions or Uber and Lyft?

If the federal government seizes the power to regulate Internet pricing and goods and services, the regulations will never end.


And as pointed out previously, in a post that you even liked, he, like most folks, want it to remain the way it is.

In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running. Not anymore. The Internet is the great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity. We should make a commitment, right now, to keep it that way.
 
:naughty The only ignorance here is yours, as it is you who doesn't understand what he is speaking to.
He is speaking to Obama's proposal to have the FCC classify the internet as a Utility.

Do you really not understand that?

Btw, you forgot to include the information as to what he was speaking to in your quote.
He is speaking to regulation by the FCC that classifying it as a Utility would bring forth.

In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.

President Obama this week came out aggressively for net neutrality and turning the Internet into a public utility. Some in the online community have embraced this call, thinking that cheaper prices would result. But when has that worked? Government-regulated utilities invariably destroy innovation and freedom. Which is more innovative, the U.S. Postal Service or Facebook and Twitter? Which is better for consumers, city taxi commissions or Uber and Lyft?

If the federal government seizes the power to regulate Internet pricing and goods and services, the regulations will never end.


And as pointed out previously, in a post that you even liked, he, like most folks, want it to remain the way it is.

In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running. Not anymore. The Internet is the great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity. We should make a commitment, right now, to keep it that way.

Whether the internet is classified as a utility is meaningless.
 
:naughty The only ignorance here is yours, as it is you who doesn't understand what he is speaking to.
He is speaking to Obama's proposal to have the FCC classify the internet as a Utility.

You are just yanking my chain, right? There's no way you are being completely honest about all of this. I just don't believe you.

And what is wrong with Obama's proposal, exactly? If the FCC classify the internet as a utility, Telecom companies won't be allowed to throttle their internet to people who don't pay extra for the same data as others who pay extra for it. There's nothing else about Obama's proposal that suggests anything remotely close to what Ted Cruz is speaking about.

Do you really not understand that?

You're the one here completely wrong on the issue here.

Btw, you forgot to include the information as to what he was speaking to in your quote.
He is speaking to regulation by the FCC that classifying it as a Utility would bring forth.

In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.

President Obama this week came out aggressively for net neutrality and turning the Internet into a public utility. Some in the online community have embraced this call, thinking that cheaper prices would result. But when has that worked? Government-regulated utilities invariably destroy innovation and freedom. Which is more innovative, the U.S. Postal Service or Facebook and Twitter? Which is better for consumers, city taxi commissions or Uber and Lyft?

If the federal government seizes the power to regulate Internet pricing and goods and services, the regulations will never end.

I'm going to assume you misread or misunderstand the debate here. As you just stated Ted Cruz believes Net Neutrality will allow the Government to run roughshod on the internet. (Which is doesn't.)

And as pointed out previously, in a post that you even liked, he, like most folks, want it to remain the way it is.

I agree, people would like the internet to remain the way it is. Which is why Net Neutrality needs to be protected. Ted Cruz is standing against Net Neutrality. Not for it.

In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running. Not anymore. The Internet is the great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity. We should make a commitment, right now, to keep it that way.
[/quote]

Again, Ted Cruz doesn't understand the issue. If he did, he would understand Net Neutrality isn't the Obamacare of the Internet.
 
Cruz has given his opinion as to what regulators MAY do... There are no proposal from the Obama administration or the FCC to do what Mr. Cruz is suggesting MIGHT happen...Is there?
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.


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


What protections and guarrantees do the consumers have that ISP's will not do what consumer groups claim?
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.


Do you know that Ted Cruz and Congress have over-sight of the FCC? That means that is the FCC enacts any regulation that kills "innovation"... Ted Cruz and Congress can order the FCC to change its rule? Did you know Congress has that power?
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom