• 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!

Al Franken Explains Net Neutrality To Ted Cruz

I'll simplify it for you:

- Net neutrality regards how you access content.
- Support of net neutrality basically boils down to wanting to keep usage of the internet as it has been for the better part of the last 25 years. It's not broken, no need to fix it.
- Opposition to net neutrality allows for the internet to be politicized by companies and local governments, it means arbitrary restrictions on how you access that content, it means giving additional power to existing regional monopolies.

You don't have to agree on the best way to ensure net neutrality, however, the need for it is unquestionable. It ensures innovation and is an established check on monopolies.

Thanks, doubt it's that simple. We've lived for25 years without it and nothing terribly nefarious is happening, well, other than Google's constant targeting me with advertising everything I search for something. I'm not sold but thanks for the effort.
 
i don't waste time on horse**** strawman arguments.
LOL Its your horse**** argument. Its not my fault you think so little of your own positions. Maybe you ought to think them through a little better in the future.
 
I'll simplify it for you:

- Net neutrality regards how you access content.
- Support of net neutrality basically boils down to wanting to keep usage of the internet as it has been for the better part of the last 25 years. It's not broken, no need to fix it.
- Opposition to net neutrality allows for the internet to be politicized by companies and local governments, it means arbitrary restrictions on how you access that content, it means giving additional power to existing regional monopolies.

You don't have to agree on the best way to ensure net neutrality, however, the need for it is unquestionable. It ensures innovation and is an established check on monopolies.

You know, I can agree with that.
 
And what will that cost? And why should a provider be forced to treat your data preferentially when you wont pay for it?

this will be the last horse**** argument of yours that i address.

DP's data should be treated neutrally, like everyone else's. casting us into the slow lane will **** up the site, and even worse, it will prevent the next netflix, facebook, or twitter, as a startup generally can't afford to bribe a cable monopoly for preferential treatment. net neutrality is absolutely vital to maintaining a competitive and innovative internet marketplace.
 
Great! You are in favor of net neutrality then.

(assuming "as is," you mean the way the internet has always worked, rather than what it has very recently changed to)

If that be true, yes I am. I haven't followed it and only learned of it yesterday on some thread here. I was do busy with my election predictions and watching Barney Miller, all 8 seasons I recently received on DVD.
 
In the article that the op linked to, Franken was quoted saying the following:

“This is about reclassifying something so it stays the same. This would keep things exactly the same that they've been.”​

Is it just me, or did that sound like Franken just said that "The internet ain't broke, but the government needs to fix it anyway in order to transform the unbroken internet into the same unbroken internet it's always been."

LMAO

Typical double speak, just like a an increase in spending that's not as large as anticipated is a cut in spending. I don't take anything politicians say at face value.
 
this will be the last horse**** argument of yours that i address.

DP's data should be treated neutrally, like everyone else's. casting us into the slow lane will **** up the site, and even worse, it will prevent the next netflix, facebook, or twitter, as a startup generally can't afford to bribe a cable monopoly for preferential treatment. net neutrality is absolutely vital to maintaining a competitive and innovative internet marketplace.

Waaaa
 
When it comes to cable / Internet / VOIP service, I guess I must be lucky. Really lucky.

I have WideOpenWest, and for the around $100 / Mo. that I spend, I get the digital HD channel package that I like, with 2 dual channel cable cards in the 2 TiVo's that I've purchased separately, as well as 16Mb/sec down 1 Mb/sec up Internet AND VOIP phone service with voice mail (with CC to email) from them. This is down $60 / mo when we had the house phone line with AT&T.

The Internet service is fast, and above all reliable. It's never down, the last time was like 2 years ago for a mere 30 minutes or something. I have my static IP address for hosting my personal domain, and they've never complained about my Linux firewall / mail / web server which connects the home network and the Internet.

I know that one reason that the service is so reliable is that I saw the brand new cable plant that Americast in the neighborhood. WOW bought that cable plant from AmeriCast when it couldn't compete in the cable TV business Americast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. So I know that I have a very solid and clean cable plant on which my connection relies on. The installations were very well done. Little things like a small section of PVC pipe through which the coax was pulled, partially above ground, and partially below ground so that the weed whip wouldn't degrade the cable's insulation and fully shielded and fully grounded cable so there's less signal leakage and degradation.

On the rare occasions that I do need to call WOW support, the phone is answered quickly, by a human, that speaks American (yeah, OK English), who knows what's going on and what to do to get me back on line, or what the status and when I can expect to have service restored. Really wonderful people to work with, and before each time I hang up, I make sure to tell them that they should tell their boss that I liked speaking to an American. Guess what? The TiVo guys are the same way, BTW. Also why I've been with them for some 10 years or more.

All in all, I'd consider it a pretty decent package and a pretty decent experience. I'm not inclined to switch.

If I weren't so pleased with WOW, I'd have a choice of Comcast or AT&T U-Verse, but since WOW is so good, and at the price I'm willing to pay, I've not bothered to switch, as I don't believe that I could get a static IP from either AT&T or ComCast, and I know that Comcast's service isn't nearly up to the same standards, probably because they have the oldest cable plant around.

Now we have some friends that are on the opposite end of Detroit who also had WOW, but their experience isn't as good as mine. So how the municipality deals with the cable provider does in fact make a difference.

This is great, but it has little to do with net neutrality. Quality of service isn't what's in question. The content you are able to access with that service is what is being debated. You live in Detroit right? I hear that's a Democratic stronghold. How would you like paying an additional 5$-10$ to access news sites with a right wing slant? Say you moved to an area where Comcast had a monopoly (thanks to local government), would you be alright with paying additional fees to play games, access netflix etc?
 
LOL Its your horse**** argument. Its not my fault you think so little of your own positions. Maybe you ought to think them through a little better in the future.

maybe you ought to learn to debate honestly rather than pretending that your opponent argued something that is easier to mount a hyperpartisan attack against.
 
yep. i'm done wasting my time debating this topic with you.

It's really sad that some people make this out to be an argument of right v. left. It'd be like saying that ensuring water sources aren't polluted carries a right/left slant. It's nonsensical, partisan hackery at its worst.
 
maybe you ought to learn to debate honestly rather than pretending that your opponent argued something that is easier to mount a hyperpartisan attack against.
I did. You just don't understand your own argument. It comes down to cost. You don't like it because you will have to pay more for what you currently are getting. Rather than open your wallet, you turn to the state to force someone else to provide you with something at a price you want to pay. Just like everything else with liberals, it boils down to money.
 
This is great, but it has little to do with net neutrality. Quality of service isn't what's in question. The content you are able to access with that service is what is being debated. You live in Detroit right? I hear that's a Democratic stronghold. How would you like paying an additional 5$-10$ to access news sites with a right wing slant? Say you moved to an area where Comcast had a monopoly (thanks to local government), would you be alright with paying additional fees to play games, access netflix etc?

Well, let's just say that I'd round out the picture from which I'm viewing things?

Anyway, No, I'd not be in favor of a monthly charge for viewing the web sites that I want to view, nor do I believe that anyone should have to, provided the content is legal, i.e. don't think this applies to stuff like kiddie porn and such.

I agree with your earlier statement that "You don't have to agree on the best way to ensure net neutrality, however, the need for it is unquestionable."
 
It's really sad that some people make this out to be an argument of right v. left. It'd be like saying that ensuring water sources aren't polluted carries a right/left slant. It's nonsensical, partisan hackery at its worst.
Except it isn't. Pointing out that wealth obsessed liberals are wealth obsessed liberals isn't hackery, its honesty. But then again, as Mr. Gruber so aptly demonstrated, honesty isn't a virtue amongst the left.
 
It's really sad that some people make this out to be an argument of right v. left. It'd be like saying that ensuring clean water is available to all, carries a right/left slant. It's nonsensical, partisan hackery at its worst.

go team, and all. i don't see why anyone would support ruining the internet by adding slow lanes. it would stifle innovation. and to make this argument on a site that would be second or third tier under such a system? it's un****ingbelievable.
 
You know, I can agree with that.

To be honest, I don't want to convince people to agree with me when it comes to net neutrality regulations. Hell, I've already stated I'm not sure what the best way to ensure it is. However, if the system can stay the way it has for 25 years, I'm perfectly fine with that. However, we know that's not what is happening. Thanks to the efforts of companies like Comcast, some people are going to see their bills jump, access to certain sites slowed down and websites like DP may even have to pay ransoms for access to them. That's not the kind of internet I want.
 
go team, and all. i don't see why anyone would support ruining the internet by adding slow lanes. it would stifle innovation. and to make this argument on a site that would be second or third tier under such a system? it's un****ingbelievable.
Because I use this site means I should support government force to keep it operating at the current cost structure forever. Right. The opposition is based upon principles of liberty and limited government, not that liberals understand that sort of thing...
 
Except it isn't. Pointing out that wealth obsessed liberals are wealth obsessed liberals isn't hackery, its honesty. But then again, as Mr. Gruber so aptly demonstrated, honesty isn't a virtue amongst the left.

You're getting desperate. Not only did you not know what net neutrality was or is, you absolutely have no clue what the implications of not having it are. The fact that you argued that you'd be okay with letting the free market "handle it", when no such thing currently exists in telecommunications means you've lost all credibility on this issue. Furthermore, that you continue arguing that liberals want to regulate a concept by maintaining the same guidelines is just further evidence of your general ignorance. Now poof, vamoose, you've got no real argument when you degenerate into a rant about evil libruls.
 
To be honest, I don't want to convince people to agree with me when it comes to net neutrality regulations. Hell, I've already stated I'm not sure what the best way to ensure it is. However, if the system can stay the way it has for 25 years, I'm perfectly fine with that. However, we know that's not what is happening. Thanks to the efforts of companies like Comcast, some people are going to see their bills jump, access to certain sites slowed down and websites like DP may even have to pay ransoms for access to them. That's not the kind of internet I want.
Aside from a general objection to government involvement in this sort of thing, the bolded was second on the list. Treating the internet like a utility might very well bring about changes you will live to regret that you have not even considered. There seems to be a rush to accept any change regardless of whether or not it is the right change. Much like Obamacare. Look how that has turned out.
 
Oh please, Democrats get manipulated, not intelligent folk.

And this is you being manipulated here, especially as you can't even argue how the end of net neutrality is in your favor.

How's that "you can keep your pla-

Off topic.
 
You're getting desperate. Not only did you not know what net neutrality was or is, you absolutely have no clue what the implications of not having it are. The fact that you argued that you'd be okay with letting the free market "handle it", when no such thing currently exists in telecommunications means you've lost all credibility on this issue. Furthermore, that you continue arguing that liberals want to regulate a concept by maintaining the same guidelines is just further evidence of your general ignorance. Now poof, vamoose, you've got no real argument when you degenerate into a rant about evil libruls.
Im not going anywhere. It is you who have not addressed specific questions I had about this issue, but are willing to accept whatever solution the great Obama and his leftist elites have in store for you. Try questioning authority once in a while. Wasn't that what liberalism was based upon at one point? Liberalism has gone from questioning authority to worshiping it. Pretty sad.
 
To be honest, I don't want to convince people to agree with me when it comes to net neutrality regulations. Hell, I've already stated I'm not sure what the best way to ensure it is. However, if the system can stay the way it has for 25 years, I'm perfectly fine with that. However, we know that's not what is happening. Thanks to the efforts of companies like Comcast, some people are going to see their bills jump, access to certain sites slowed down and websites like DP may even have to pay ransoms for access to them. That's not the kind of internet I want.

Agreed.

I don't know either which is the way to maintain what we've had for the last 25 years. I'm really not all excited by yet more regulations from the government, as they tend to give companies feet of lead, rather than the fleet afoot that we've experienced in the tech sector, nor do I like the idea of a tiered delivery performance system, in effect a balkanization of the Internet (although if you think about it, how often you see an @aol.com email address and think of A-O Loser! - but that's different I think).

We also have to acknowledge the good deeds from companies such as ComCast, AT&T, etc., in putting the current and extensive data pluming into place. Without their investments over the years in building out the Internet from major backbone links to the last mile and making it available to the general public at a reasonable price, we'd still be have an Internet of academicians trading insults with each other, rather than the information super highway that we have today on which you can purchase any number of things and conduct any number of business transactions (and yes participate in virtual communities such as this), and we should continue to have in the future.
 
It's really sad that some people make this out to be an argument of right v. left. It'd be like saying that ensuring water sources aren't polluted carries a right/left slant. It's nonsensical, partisan hackery at its worst.

You just have to package it right. A statement like "Ensuring access to water is like Obamacare" would, it would seem, appear to be sufficient.
 
I agree. I'm not really thinking that either of those parties is going to really address the issue AND stop from turning it to their advantage and exploitation. Call it an equal lack of trust in either of them.

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

Trust is such a nebulous thing, isn't it? It's so fleeting, and once lost, very difficult to get back.! Business can be counted on doing what's best for their bottom line and their shareholders, and government can be counted on doing what's best for them to hold on to and enlarge their authority over all of us. Neither side cares what the people think as they watch the drama unfolding.

For my part, I'd rather side with business for several reasons. 1) The consumer can negotiate with a business - if rates get too far out of line, or their service starts getting sloppy, you can complain and threaten to go with someone else. They don't like to lose customers so something can always be offered to keep you happy. With the government, if their regulations and bright ideas get too absurd, that's just too bad. Follow the law is what you're told to do! You have nobody to complain to, except perhaps your congress-critter, but they have already exempted themselves from whatever it is that's bugging you, so they could care less, except at election time.

2) Businesses create jobs and anyone who is not productive won't last long, because business is competitive, especially since we've become a global economy. Government doesn't have that worry... they can hire as many people as they wish, which tends to happen every time they make a new rule, or new law. Somebody has to shuffle all those damn papers around that have been created, and you certainly don't dare to ask existing personnel to take on additional work! They already feel they're overworked, and the unions might get involved.

Bottom line - taxpayers already know they're going to end up the losers whichever decision is reached, but they would be interested in knowing why this topic is under consideration NOW! Free speech and exchange of ideas seems to be a problem lately for some - not how fast the internet can work, or whatever. We may indeed be as stupid as government seems to think we are, but maybe not! :rantoff:
 
Aside from a general objection to government involvement in this sort of thing, the bolded was second on the list. Treating the internet like a utility might very well bring about changes you will live to regret that you have not even considered. There seems to be a rush to accept any change regardless of whether or not it is the right change. Much like Obamacare. Look how that has turned out.

You're exposing your weak debating skills again Fletch, better be careful. Not knowing what is the best way to ensure net neutrality does not make opposition to net neutrality any less of a ridiculous position. However, trying to argue that net neutrality in anyway resembles Obamacare when it's part of the well working system that's been around for 25 years is absolutely ludicrous.

The fact that you think net neutrality means "change" when it's been what has actually been around for 25+ years is just laughable.
 
Back
Top Bottom