• 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

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...

And how is this good for you? Why are you arguing for a position that is so blatantly against your interests?
 
Hatuey said:
There isn't a way...
Click to expand...

There is, but they'd like it even less. The other way is a competing national broadband. We could power the entire country with the hot air that would generate.
 
Fletch said:
OK, thanks. How about we see how this plays out before we rush to regulate the industry differently?
Click to expand...

We're already regulating the industry differently. That's what changed recently.

Losing net neutrality means it's harder for that little plucky startup to rise to prominence. It's harder for a Facebook to start up when a Myspace already dominates the market. Or whatever the next big internet thing is. It's harder for the little guy when the big guys are able to cough up the dough required to go fast, but the little guy can't afford it yet.
 
Cardinal said:
And how is this good for you? Why are you arguing for a position that is so blatantly against your interests?
Click to expand...
I don't see paying for what I use as being against my interests. Limiting the power of the state, on the other hand, is in my interest.
 
Fletch said:
Is treating them as a utility the best answer? Or will that pose new and different problems in the future?
Click to expand...

I think legislatively reinstating net neutrality is certainly possible, and wouldn't require FCC reclassification.

But Congress is well-paid by telcoms. So i doubt that will happen.
 
apdst said:
I challenged a factual statement. It's not my job to do someone else's homework for them.
Click to expand...

I see you're still stuck in your own little world, too bad.
 
Deuce said:
We're already regulating the industry differently. That's what changed recently.

Losing net neutrality means it's harder for that little plucky startup to rise to prominence. It's harder for a Facebook to start up when a Myspace already dominates the market. Or whatever the next big internet thing is. It's harder for the little guy when the big guys are able to cough up the dough required to go fast, but the little guy can't afford it yet.
Click to expand...
Will regulating them like a utility change that? I don't see lots of new innovation and startups in utilities. I see a couple big companies in bed with the government running everything. How can you be sure this wont happen with the internet?
 
Fletch said:
I don't see paying for what I use as being against my interests. Limiting the power of the state, on the other hand, is in my interest.
Click to expand...

So between

a)paying significantly more for your internet use and
b)the government acting to make sure that the internet remains as it is

you've decided that a) is in your interests?
 
Fletch said:
I don't see paying for what I use as being against my interests. Limiting the power of the state, on the other hand, is in my interest.
Click to expand...

Uhh, net neutrality doesn't change the "pay for what I use" part.

In fact, I would describe net neutrality as requiring that you get to use what you paid for. When an ISP throttles Fox News just for ****s and giggles, they aren't giving you what you paid for.
 
Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Only in the land of the partisan hacks would a person arguing that regional monopolies exist (fact) and they have no interest in the free market (fact) be seen as someone who is in 'griping about big business'. In that world, giving them the power to do away with net neutrality (fact) is seen as a positive for the free market (your position) which doesn't exist in that type of business (fact).

The guy who just minutes ago didn't know why net neutrality was important, is now reverting to catch phrases about liberals. How odd for a Libertarian! As it stands, net neutrality is literally the last bastion of freedom in telecommunications. That's what we have now and it has little to do with big business and everything to do with how content is accessed by the consumer. Essentially, without it, it'd be like you paying $100 for 100 TV channels, and then being charged again per minute of viewing time. The monopolies which already exist and have no interest in the market, are who you are arguing should be left in charge of defining what content you watch and how you watch it.

Are you even serious?
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
Is treating them as a utility the best answer? Or will that pose new and different problems in the future?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, there is no way to ensure net neutrality without regulation. Where that regulation comes from can be debated later. What most people with common sense agree upon is that letting regional monopolies decide how customers access online content is a terrible addition to the power they already have.
 
Fletch said:
Will regulating them like a utility change that? I don't see lots of new innovation and startups in utilities. I see a couple big companies in bed with the government running everything. How can you be sure this wont happen with the internet?
Click to expand...

Because you're looking at the wrong people. Innovation on the internet comes from content creators, not the ISP that delivers the content. Net neutrality helps innovations like Twitter or Facebook become the giants that they are.

As a rough analogy: you don't look to FedEx for innovation in small electronics. Apple and Samsung are doing that. FedEx just delivers the boxes.
 
Hatuey said:
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?
Click to expand...

And that was a challenge. Learn simple English. :lamo
 
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...



"we are reclassifying it so that it stays the same"


"war is peace"

"affordable care act"

When a socialist says one thing, it means the opposite. I mean, seriously, with the magnitude of lies told by this administration, who with a brain is going to believe you need to change something in order to keep it then same? Is that like "we had to pass it [unread] so that you could read it"?

As is Obama is not already using the internet to spy on all of us?
 
Helix said:
There is, but they'd like it even less. The other way is a competing national broadband. We could power the entire country with the hot air that would generate.
Click to expand...

I'd rather my taxes go to a national system of free internet service than government funded condom drives. However, we're a nation that doesn't really understand why freedom to access to content at the speed you paid for is more important than getting laid. So I doubt that would ever happen. One can dream though!
 
Fearandloathing said:
"we are reclassifying it so that it stays the same"


"war is peace"

"affordable care act"

When a socialist says one thing, it means the opposite. I mean, seriously, with the magnitude of lies told by this administration, who with a brain is going to believe you need to change something in order to keep it then same? Is that like "we had to pass it [unread] so that you could read it"?

As is Obama is not already using the internet to spy on all of us?
Click to expand...

By using the word "Obamacare" Cruz manipulated you flawlessly. The result is you're arguing against your own interests and you refuse to learn what the topic is about.
 
apdst said:
And that was a challenge. Learn simple English. :lamo
Click to expand...

So your challenge wasn't to actually challenge anything in discussion? Mmkay. :shrug:
 
The fact that Sen. Franken wants to keep net neutrality the way it is, agreed upon by Helix, versus Sen. Cruz who sides with
Time-warner and Comcast in creating fast lanes and charging for it, tells me all I need to know.

Pulling this "I don't trust" card out every time two members from different parties disagree is ridiculous.
Good luck with the GOP screwing up your internet due to their beholding to their corporate maters .

And Cruz using the word Obamacare saying "Obamacare for the internet" is right up your alley .
Perotista said:
All I know is I like the internet the way it is. If this law changes something I don't want it. If the law guarantees the internet will remain as is and codifies it, then that is good.

I really know nothing about the act, but I do know I don't trust either Cruz or Franken and I would never take either's word as gospel.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom