• 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

apdst said:
To someone who speaks English it is.
Click to expand...

Ah... so to someone who speaks English... not bringing up a challenge is.. a challenge? Hm. Odd.
 
Deuce said:
This not-actually-new law would require that FedEx deliver a 1 pound box for the same rate regardless of the content. I.E. they can't charge you double to ship a 1 pound Android phone versus a 1 pound Apple phone. This means Apple and Android phones have a level playing field in terms of delivery. And then when DeucePhones are invented, the new hotness in phones, my would-be startup is not hamstrung by FedEx because I can't yet afford the extortion fees.

It's a rough analogy. I guess we'll have to also assume identical size of the box, and identical shipping routes? (i.e FedEx would certainly charge you more to ship from Minnesota to France than Minnesota to Iowa) There's also not a very good analogy for data transfer rates. "I paid for 2-day air mail, so they can't slow down the Android phone to 5-day shipping just because Google didn't pay them enough"
Click to expand...
But FedEx does that sort of thing now. Large customers get a discount where individuals that drop off a box at FedEx office pay a much higher rate. That is how things work. Should FedEx be regulated as a utility as well?
 
Hatuey said:
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!
Click to expand...

So the circle is now complete, WRT ObamaCare for the Internet, as I believe this is a request for 'single payer Internet'.

Actually, I too understand and appreciate why freedom to access content at speed is more important than getting laid. All the more reason to carefully consider this decision, the proposed regulations, and the near and longer term impact of them.

Frankly, I don't trust the government any more than I trust the large ISPs, but I've heard of large scale ISPs going bankrupt and leaving the market. I've never heard of government regulation being decreased in any significant way.

I'll take my chances with the large ISPs for now. If continued abuse piles up, as you and other believe is bound to happen, then there's still time to get the government involved to regulate it.
 
Hatuey said:
You're right, the definition of net neutrality makes it so.



It's like you're not even sure why you joined the discussion. I argued that Ted Cruz's position of net neutrality being Obamacare for the internet is false. Why? Because net neutrality has nothing to do with overregulation. If anything, it has to do with lack of regulation by both the monopolies in existence AND the government. Now, what the government wants to do in regards to guaranteeing net neutrality has nothing to do with what net neutrality means and why opposition to it is wrong. Do you get that? Good.
Click to expand...
So you cant or wont answer those two specific questions then?
 
eohrnberger said:
So the circle is now complete, WRT ObamaCare for the Internet, as I believe this is a request for 'single payer Internet'.

Actually, I too understand and appreciate why freedom to access content at speed is more important than getting laid. All the more reason to carefully consider this decision, the proposed regulations, and the near and longer term impact of them.

Frankly, I don't trust the government any more than I trust the large ISPs, but I've heard of large scale ISPs going bankrupt and leaving the market. I've never heard of government regulation being decreased in any significant way.

I'll take my chances with the large ISPs for now. If continued abuse piles up, as you and other believe is bound to happen, then there's still time to get the government involved to regulate it.
Click to expand...

So you don't like the internet as it is?
 
Fletch said:
Once the government puts it thumb on the scale, neutrality disappears. Net neutrality could turn out to be as accurate as the Affordable Care Act. Sounds great, but inaccurate as hell.
Click to expand...

And I believe that this concern is far more significant and valid than the other.
 
Fletch said:
But FedEx does that sort of thing now. Large customers get a discount where individuals that drop off a box at FedEx office pay a much higher rate. That is how things work. Should FedEx be regulated as a utility as well?
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's a rough analogy. Best I can fit your situation to the internet, the ISP can offer lower per-GB rates for bulk customers. I.E. if DeuceCorp needs a monthly data transfer of 100TB, I can certainly work out a better per-GB rate than Grandma and her 3.5mb monthly emailing of recipes. Such a thing is allowed under net neutrality. As is "the 1gb/sec line costs more than the 10mb/sec line." Or "500gb/month costs more than 100gb/month."

Unlawful data transfer is wholly excluded, so Comcast would have no particular obligation to provide speedy transfer of pirated music or whatever.
 
I said yesterday that once Cruz packaged net neutrality as a libertarian-vs-statist issue you could hear every conservative's brain instantly slam shut. And I said that the motive for this was to have us so busy screaming at each other that the attention would be taken off of the isps and they'd walk away victorious and counting our money. Can I call it or what?

It depresses me to think how easy it is to manipulate the public into arguing against its own interests.
 
Fletch said:
Says the hack whose foray into this discussion was a smilie. Look sport, either address my specific posts or stop responding to me. You add nothing. Absolutely nothing to any discussion.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better at night, champ.
 
Cardinal said:
I said yesterday that once Cruz packaged net neutrality as a libertarian-vs-statist issue you could hear every conservative's brain instantly slam shut. And I said that the motive for this was to have us so busy screaming at each other that the attention would be taken off of the isps and they'd walk away victorious and counting our money. Can I call it or what?

It depresses me to think how easy it is to manipulate the public into arguing against its own interests.
Click to expand...

It certainly seems like you were rather prescient.
 
Fletch said:
Once the government puts it thumb on the scale, neutrality disappears. Net neutrality could turn out to be as accurate as the Affordable Care Act. Sounds great, but inaccurate as hell.
Click to expand...

A pretty ridiculous comparison. Net neutrality, in this context, has very, very specific meaning. If anything else is implemented, it's not net neutrality.

So it seems you aren't against Net neutrality, but rather are against some other, unspecified, hypothetical regulation.

This seems like a silly reason to protest net neutrality.
 
Cardinal said:
So you don't like the internet as it is?
Click to expand...

Sigh.
You are about to propose that unless the Net Neutrality regulations are imposed that the Internet will be changed for the worse forever.
Yes, yes.

But you see. I'm less than convinced that this is rally the case, and am willing to see what develops in this space over the next period of time. Should the issue that you are concerned about come to be (yes, I know that there's been isolated incidences that have speedily resolved themselves), there is always time later to carefully draft regulations and put them into place.

The ISPs aren't won't be getting any more political leverage than they already have in the between time so that's not really going to effect the outcome of the regulations one way or another.
 
Fletch said:
So you cant or wont answer those two specific questions then?
Click to expand...

I didn't answer them because they're not relevant to your question about why opposition to net neutrality is wrong. I explained to you what net neutrality was and laid out the arguments for why it should be maintained. You trying to steer the conversation to be about something other than that doesn't change the fact that opposition to net neutrality is wrong on various counts. The first of which would be restrictions on a consumer's right to access information.
 
Cardinal said:
This isn't a conservative-vs-liberal issue. Net neutrality is good for everybody.
Click to expand...

Exactly...the people who aren't for net neutrality are against it because Obama is for it. They won't take the time to research the issue and learn about it.
 
eohrnberger said:
Sigh.
You are about to propose that unless the Net Neutrality regulations are imposed that the Internet will be changed for the worse forever.
Yes, yes.

But you see. I'm less than convinced that this is rally the case, and am willing to see what develops in this space over the next period of time. Should the issue that you are concerned about come to be (yes, I know that there's been isolated incidences that have speedily resolved themselves), there is always time later to carefully draft regulations and put them into place.

The ISPs aren't won't be getting any more political leverage than they already have in the between time so that's not really going to effect the outcome of the regulations one way or another.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you share with us why internet service providers not only sued the FCC to end net neutrality but also paid congressmen $762,000 in lobbying efforts against net neutrality? And why don't you share with us why, if the internet "isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed," (your words, do you recall them?) you're now arguing for the internet to be fixed? And why don't you share with us how the end of net neutrality is good for you?
 
Hatuey said:
You're right, the definition of net neutrality makes it so.



It's like you're not even sure why you joined the discussion. I argued that Ted Cruz's position of net neutrality being Obamacare for the internet is false. Why? Because net neutrality has nothing to do with overregulation. If anything, it has to do with lack of regulation by both the monopolies in existence AND the government. Now, what the government wants to do in regards to guaranteeing net neutrality has nothing to do with what net neutrality means and why opposition to it is wrong. Do you get that? Good.
Click to expand...

There's already a law to quell monopolies. Why a new law?
 
apdst said:
There's already a law to quell monopolies. Why a new law?
Click to expand...

So you want to enforce net neutrality under antitrust regulation? I'm confused.
 
Cardinal said:
This isn't a conservative-vs-liberal issue. Net neutrality is good for everybody.
Click to expand...

What makes it so great? And, BTW, that's what you all told us about Obamacare...jus' sayin'.
 
apdst said:
What makes it so great? And, BTW, that's what you all told us about Obamacare...jus' sayin'.
Click to expand...

Holy Jesus you were so easy to manipulate.
 
apdst said:
What makes it so great? And, BTW, that's what you all told us about Obamacare...jus' sayin'.
Click to expand...

Net neutrality encourages innovation, competition, and entrepreneurship on the internet.
 
apdst said:
There's already a law to quell monopolies. Why a new law?
Click to expand...

... The law won't quell monopolies either. Actually, ensuring net neutrality has nothing to do with quelling monopolies. It has to do with ensuring that the monopolies which already exist (and will not go away) aren't allowed to charge content providers and customers a second time. It's about ensuring content providers aren't held hostage by ISPs. Good grief, discussing this issue with you is like discussing media distribution strategies with a journalist from the 1840s. You're either too ignorant of the subject to actually discuss it in any depth or the political implications of the discussion go way above your head. Which is it?
 
Hatuey said:
... The law won't quell monopolies either. Actually, ensuring net neutrality has nothing to do with quelling monopolies. It has to do with ensuring that the monopolies which already exist (and will not go away) aren't allowed to charge content providers and customers a second time. It's about ensuring content providers aren't held hostage by ISPs. Good grief, discussing this issue with you is like discussing media distribution strategies with a journalist from the 1840s. You're either too ignorant of the subject to actually discuss it in any depth or the political implications of the discussion go way above your head. Which is it?
Click to expand...

You said it was about monopolies. It isn't?
 
apdst said:
What makes it so great? And, BTW, that's what you all told us about Obamacare...jus' sayin'.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way apdst...

Now, imagine you like accessing websites for singles who like to mingle. Now, with net neutrality, your access to those websites isn't restricted. The way you access that data isn't restricted in any way. That's net neutrality.

Now, imagine for one second, your ISP doesn't like net neutrality and it's in bed with the local government. Now imagine that local government is Democrat. You want to access white supremacist websites? Be ready to deal with slow service.

Now, imagine one last time, you enjoy visiting DP a lot. No net neutrality? It now falls under a package called "News and Politics" and you're paying extra for access to DP.

Now, of these 3 options, which one would you prefer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom