• 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

sawdust said:
Here's what I know about net neutrality. It's fine now. Don't screw with it.
Click to expand...

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
 
Hatuey said:
Tell us? You're the only person on this thread who doesn't seem to know what net neutrality means or why Ted Cruz is wrong. So, I think you mean, tell you. With that said, I don't have to educate you. The internet is your friend. Just like you can find white power revisionist authors, I'm sure you can find what net neutrality means and why comparing it to Obamacare is ridiculous. Just be careful, if your state is already on the side of ISPs, your connection may be slowed down or you may be charged extra to access pages on net neutrality.
Click to expand...

I challenged a factual statement. It's not my job to do someone else's homework for them.
 
apdst said:
I challenged a factual statement. It's not my job to do someone else's homework for them.
Click to expand...

You didn't challenge anything.You asked why he was wrong, and I told you to educate yourself on the matter and why net neutrality is important. Once you do that, you'll realize why opposition to it is wrong. If you still believe net neutrality is something which should be opposed, that's up to you. However, the discussion presupposes that the people discussing it have some knowledge of what net neutrality is. Do you know what net neutrality is apdst?
 
That seems to be a new tactic from GOP cons todays.
Following GOP leadership, just saying NO will be hard to do when you take power .

apdst said:
I challenged a factual statement. It's not my job to do someone else's homework for them.
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
Tell us? You're the only person on this thread who doesn't seem to know what net neutrality means or why Ted Cruz is wrong. So, I think you mean, tell you. With that said, I don't have to educate you. The internet is your friend. Just like you can find white power revisionist authors, I'm sure you can find what net neutrality means and why comparing it to Obamacare is ridiculous. Just be careful, if your state is already on the side of ISPs, your connection may be slowed down or you may be charged extra to access pages on net neutrality.
Click to expand...
Hes not the only person, I am not sure why it is Ted Cruz is wrong. Perhaps he means the way Obamacare took a bad situation and made it worse is the analogy he is making. Or it could be that since Obamacare was a pack of lies meant to dupe a stupid American public, how can we be sure he isn't about to do the same thing again. Obama has no credibility and it is advisable to all 'stupid Americans' to be very skeptical of everything he says.
 
Fletch said:
Hes not the only person, I am not sure why it is Ted Cruz is wrong. Perhaps he means the way Obamacare took a bad situation and made it worse is the analogy he is making. Or it could be that since Obamacare was a pack of lies meant to dupe a stupid American public, how can we be sure he isn't about to do the same thing again. Obama has no credibility and it is advisable to all 'stupid Americans' to be very skeptical of everything he says.
Click to expand...

Okay! Okay, for the two people with no access to Wikipedia (presumably because their ISPs have blocked access to it):

What he did he actually say? He said net neutrality was Obamacare for the internet. That essentially means that the internet, as we know it today, is an overregulated mess where a person's right to choose options is debatable. However, as we all know, the internet as we know it today is one of the few mediums where access to content is only lightly regulated. For example, can you access whatever website you'd like without issue? Great! That's net neutrality! No net neutrality? News sites become part of a package. You play video games online? That becomes part of an entertainment package. Want to go on Netflix? Prepare to pay extra to Comcast because they feel like getting in on Netflix profit. Now remember, under net neutrality, none of these things are possible. All content is treated equally.

In short, Ted Cruz is arguing that the internet under net neutrality, which is what we have now, is going to be more restricted if it stays under the same system. It doesn't take a genius to realize the errors in that argument. Net neutrality is what has allowed innovation on the internet, good and bad. Without it, the internet becomes no better than a Comcast cable package and we all know how great companies like Comcast are.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Okay! Okay, for the two people with no access to Wikipedia (presumably because their ISPs have blocked access to it):

What he did he actually say? He said net neutrality was Obamacare for the internet. That essentially means that the internet, as we know it today, is an overregulated mess where a person's right to choose options is debatable. However, as we all know, the internet as we know it today is one of the few mediums where access to content is only lightly regulated. For example, can you access whatever website you'd like without issue? Great! That's net neutrality! No net neutrality? News sites become part of a package. You play video games online? That becomes part of an entertainment package. Want to go on Netflix? Prepare to pay extra to Comcast because they feel like getting in on Netflix profit. Now remember, under net neutrality, none of these things are possible. All content is treated equally.

In short, Ted Cruz is arguing that the internet under net neutrality, which is what we have now, is going to be more restricted if it stays under the same system. It doesn't take a genius to realize the errors in that argument. Net neutrality is what has allowed innovation on the internet, good and bad. Without it, the internet becomes no better than a Comcast cable package and we all know how great companies like Comcast are.
Click to expand...

So I would have to pay extra for certain services. So what? Why not let the market sort it out?
 
Excon said:
:doh
Yeah it would be..
Classifying it as a utility causes it to be taxed, not just by the Fed, but by the State and local Govs as well.
So sew that bs elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Prove that this is required for anything classified as a utility.


:doh Double d'oh!
You appear to read more into what has been said then has actually been said.

I said it isn't neutral now, and exemplified the statement by pointing out various ways that people and businesses are charged.
That isn't going to change. So there will be no neutrality, that type of throttling will always be allowed.
Click to expand...

Again. Net neutrality does not ban all kinds of throttling.
Under net neutrality, an ISP can still offer different speeds for different costs, and they can even still throttle traffic for network congestion reasons. It's not a misnomer, you're just applying the concept in an overly broad fashion.

Net neutrality simply requires than an ISP not selectively throttle lawful data from different sources, except in the conditions mentioned above. An example of what is not allowed under net neutrality: Your ISP decides that they like HuffingtonPost better than Fox News, so they allow HuffPo to transfer data to you at the full rate that your subscription allows, but they slow down Fox News to a crawl because they don't like Fox News' content. Or because Fox News hasn't coughed up enough money.

An example of what is allowed under net neutrality:
Fox News has the latest breaking exclusive scoop that Obama really wasn't born in the United States. Millions of people flood to Fox News' website to read the story. Too much traffic to handle, so the traffic gets throttled to maintain system integrity.

An example of what is allowed under net neutrality:
An ISP charging different rates for their 1mb/sec, 5mb/sec, and 10mb/sec packages, or offering different data caps for different prices.

By pointing this out I am showing that "Neutrality" is actually a misnomer being used to garner support to enforce something that does not need to be enforced by turning it into a utility.


While "neutrality" is actually a misnomer, you are correct that Congress could pass legislation to not allow the specific type of throttling in question.
Click to expand...

It's not a misnomer. You're just using a different interpretation of the word "neutrality" than everyone else is. Quit arguing semantics and comment on the concept.
 
Grim17 said:
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
Click to expand...

It might sound that way if you were unaware that the "not broken" part actually was recently broken. Franken is proposing we go back to the recent "not broken" state, because the recent change was a bad idea.
 
Fletch said:
So I would have to pay extra for certain services. So what? Why not let the market sort it out?
Click to expand...

Lol, the market? If there were actual choices available to the customer, this wouldn't be a problem. However, as it stands the US has regional monopolies on internet service. That's the second reason people don't buy this "free market" stuff when it comes to net neutrality. For one, major service providers aren't interested in it (as they work with local governments to choke competition) and two there simply aren't enough options available for there to be any actual competition between providers:

We Need Real Competition, Not a Cable-Internet Monopoly - The New Yorker

Comcast Corporation is America’s biggest cable company, its biggest internet-service provider, and its third-biggest home-telephone provider. As the owner of NBCUniversal, it’s also one of the largest producers of programming for film, cable, and television; on NBC’s networks, it is currently showing the Olympics. It’s not just big by American standards. It’s the largest media company in the world. In 2013, it took in $64.67 billion, generating $13.6 billion in operating income and $7.1 billion in net profits.
Click to expand...

So in short, doing away with net neutrality means that not only will the companies who have no interest in the free market be allowed to continue choking smaller providers (with government help), they'll also be able to charge customers a second time. Do you realize why net neutrality is important now? Or not?
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
Hes not the only person, I am not sure why it is Ted Cruz is wrong. Perhaps he means the way Obamacare took a bad situation and made it worse is the analogy he is making. Or it could be that since Obamacare was a pack of lies meant to dupe a stupid American public, how can we be sure he isn't about to do the same thing again. Obama has no credibility and it is advisable to all 'stupid Americans' to be very skeptical of everything he says.
Click to expand...

Net neutrality simply means your ISP can't selectively throttle lawful traffic based on its source. I.E. they can't decide that Huffington Post gets the fast lane and Fox News gets the slow lane just because they like HuffPo better, or because Fox News hasn't coughed up a ransom. This is how the internet has always functioned, and it functioned quite well by my measure. Recently, this was changed.

That's it. Nothing else. It doesn't mean the government monitors or controls ISP data plans, it doesn't mean the government arbitrates content, it doesn't mean innovation is stifled (promoted, in fact), and it doesn't mean the government takes over your ISP.
 
Excon said:
It is the way that Obama wants to accomplish it which is wrong.
It does not have to be, nor should it be classified as a utility.
Click to expand...

Ok. How do we ensure net neutrality without regulation?
 
Hatuey said:
Lol, the market? If there were actual choices available to the customer, this wouldn't be a problem. However, as it stands the US has regional monopolies on internet service. That's the second reason people don't buy this "free market" stuff when it comes to net neutrality. For one, major service providers aren't interested in it (as they work with local governments to choke competition) and two there simply aren't enough options available for there to be any actual competition between providers:

We Need Real Competition, Not a Cable-Internet Monopoly - The New Yorker



So in short, doing away with net neutrality means that not only will the companies who have no internet in the free market be allowed to continue choking smaller providers (with government help), they'll also be able to charge customers a second time. Do you realize why net neutrality is important now? Or not?
Click to expand...
No. It sounds like typical liberal griping about big business. If what you see as a problem is happening with, in your own words, government help, then it would seem the correct step wold be to remove that government involvement, not add to it.
 
Deuce said:
Net neutrality simply means your ISP can't selectively throttle lawful traffic based on its source. I.E. they can't decide that Huffington Post gets the fast lane and Fox News gets the slow lane just because they like HuffPo better, or because Fox News hasn't coughed up a ransom. This is how the internet has always functioned, and it functioned quite well by my measure. Recently, this was changed.
That's it. Nothing else. It doesn't mean the government monitors or controls ISP data plans, it doesn't mean the government arbitrates content, it doesn't mean innovation is stifled (promoted, in fact), and it doesn't mean the government takes over your ISP.
Click to expand...
OK, what changed and why? And why is turning them into a utility the right response?
 
Hatuey said:
Tell us? You're the only person on this thread who doesn't seem to know what net neutrality means or why Ted Cruz is wrong. So, I think you mean, tell you. With that said, I don't have to educate you. The internet is your friend. Just like you can find white power revisionist authors, I'm sure you can find what net neutrality means and why comparing it to Obamacare is ridiculous. Just be careful, if your state is already on the side of ISPs, your connection may be slowed down or you may be charged extra to access pages on net neutrality.
Click to expand...

On the plus side, apdst's connection may be slowed.

Just sayin'.
 
Fletch said:
OK, what changed and why?
Click to expand...

A federal court overturned the FCC's net neutrality regulations due to challenge by ISPs.

Now, ISPs are allowed to do things like I mentioned.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Pray to the ghost of john galt
Click to expand...

It's ironic to watch posters argue against net neutrality on a site which will be doomed to languish in the slow lane. The only way it could be any more perfectly ridiculous is if they bitch about load times.
 
shrubnose said:
Sen Al Franken (D-Minn.) responded on Sunday to a Washington Post op-ed in which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) wrote that net neutrality is "Obamacare for the internet".

Franken said Cruz "doesn't understand" what net neutrality is.

"He has it completely wrong and he just doesn't understand what this issue is," Franken told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union".

Read the article here: Al Franken Explains Net Neutrality To Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz isn't a stupid guy but he's totally wrong on this issue.

I believe that we'll hear more from him on this. This is a very important issue to a lot of people.
Click to expand...

What I find interesting is that net neutrality has taken on a whole new meaning in this bill. I'm a huge supporter of net neutrality so, on the bill's face, it seemed like a good idea. Until I read it.

Republicans want major ISPs to control internet. Democrats want government to control the internet. Why can't we just leave it the **** alone?
 
Deuce said:
A federal court overturned the FCC's net neutrality regulations due to challenge by ISPs.

Now, ISPs are allowed to do things like I mentioned.
Click to expand...
OK, thanks. How about we see how this plays out before we rush to regulate the industry differently?
 
Helix said:
It's ironic to watch posters argue against net neutrality on a site which will be doomed to languish in the slow lane. The only way it could be any more perfectly ridiculous is if they bitch about load times.
Click to expand...
Seriously, how do you know that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom