Al Franken Explains Net Neutrality To Ted Cruz

Hatuey said:

Lol, oh yes you did. I stated that Ted Cruz's belief on Net Neutrality was like Obamacare were wrong. Not only because of the implications of having net neutrality (innovation, freedom to access information, few restrictions) but because net neutrality has little to do with government regulation of how a person uses the internet or an imposition of the internet on people who don't want it.

Click to expand...

I haven't really been making the argument that Ted Cruz was right in his analogy. In fact, in my first post I pointed to the two ways in which it might be linked but really haven't mentioned it since. So if you want to claim victory on those grounds, congratulations.

Oh really? I do, do I? Can you show us where I've supported Obama's proposals? I'll wait.

Click to expand...

What the hell do you think we have been discussing if not the presidents proposal??? Jesus what a waste of time this has been.

If you don't work as a Sr. Systems Admin, Sr. Network Admin, or Systems Engineer, then you have nothing to add to this debate and almost any argument you give will be based in ignorance.

That said, I work as the Sr. System and Network Administrator for what is easily one of the highest traffic sites hosted in the Midwest (both in terms of bandwidth and page views). So I know my **** on this one.

Basically, as wikipedia states Net Neutrality is:

The principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

That does not mean that under the current system you cannot buy higher tiers of internet service. These higher tiers of internet service basically mean that:

1. Internet bandwidth at the provider is shared by less customers than lower tiered service.

2. Internet bandwidth has a lower latency than lower tiered service.

3. Your connection is more reliable (due to higher redundancy at the carrier level).

Those are all available to you under the current system. What the current system does not allow for is a carrier or provider to prioritize their content over other providers, or to censor their competitors. For example, without net neutrality, Time Warner could utilize QoS to ensure that any voip packets coming from their service has a much lower latency than say a Vonage customer on their network. So calls from a TWC customer would be crystal clear while a Vonage customer would have forced jitter due to high latency. The same would be true for their video streaming vs say, Amazon's. Hell it could go so far as stock trades being prioritized over certain networks while others get higher latencies. The potential for corruption is nearly endless absent Net Neutrality. Who benefits from that other than carriers lobbying congress?

Also, Ted Cruz's analogy is absolutely moronic. Thats the kind thing you get when you take a smart guy and combine him with a total nut job.

Fletch said:

I haven't really been making the argument that Ted Cruz was right in his analogy

Click to expand...

LMAO. Are you kidding? You've spent 10+ pages being pounded by posters because not only do you not understand what net neutrality entails, you actually believe keeping it as it has been for 25+ years means more regulation.

. In fact, in my first post I pointed to the two ways in which it might be linked but really haven't mentioned it since. So if you want to claim victory on those grounds, congratulations.

Click to expand...

I wonder why you haven't mentioned it since? I guess you'd have to give up on an argument so ridiculous is completely defies the constraints of the discussion at hand.

What the hell do you think we have been discussing if not the presidents proposal??? Jesus what a waste of time this has been.

Click to expand...

This is a new level of dishonest even for you Fletch. The thread, the entire thread has been about this statement:

View attachment 67176017

For you to pretend as if Obama's proposals have been a topic of discussion, when it is net neutrality being compared to Obamacare is laughable if not see through. You lost the argument. Give up, admit net neutrality is a good thing, and comparing it to Obamacare is not only absurd, it's essentially claiming that the internet as we've enjoyed it for 25+ years is a system that doesn't work. Do you not realize that without net neutrality, the internet can run at the speed of government? Lol.

Fearandloathing said:

Oh please, Democrats get manipulated, not intelligent folk.

How's that "you can keep your plan..." thingy working out for you? You know what, if you hadn't had your ears covered with propaganda you would have heard Mr. Cruz clearly state that "millions" would be forced into less efficient but more costly plans.

Seems HE was right while Obama was outright lying.

I repeat, no one with a functioning brain would believe this bull****, or any other than oozes out of the White House basement.

Have yourself a nice day...if you can with your health care premiums......

Click to expand...

Convenient. Obamacare exists, therefore anything that any liberal ever supports must inherently be wrong. Much easier than actually discussing net neutrality, just keep bringing up Obamacare. Similarly, if Obama were to propose lowering income taxes, it would be a bad thing because Obamacare exists.

Yeah. Sure. We're the ones who have been manipulated. :lamo

Fletch said:

Whats laughable is your inability to mount a defense of the presidents proposal or to even remotely question it. You hear your Savior Obama say something and you lap it up like a kitten with a bowl of milk. The similarity to this and Obamacare are that both are the brainchildren of the Liar In Chief that you worship. What I want "achieved' is what can be achieved through the free market not what some leftist fool dreams up and imposes upon the nation. I get that liberals don't question the thinking and plans of other liberals. But that is just foolish. I was never really all that interested in what Ted Cruz said and spent all of about 1 post discussing it. You just keep focusing on it because you cant make a rational defense of the presidents plan. But keep trying.

Click to expand...

Net neutrality is a brainchild of Obama? Hell, the term alone has been around since 2003.

Kobie said:

Net neutrality is a brainchild of Obama? Hell, the term alone has been around since 2003.

Click to expand...

He thinks if he lies enough people won't notice. He just tried to claim that we've been discussing "Obama's policies" for 23 pages... lmao. What has been in discussion for 23 pages is whether Obamacare and net neutrality are comparable. Hell, that is the entire premise of the OP. That's what Franken addresses and that's what every other poster has addressed in their discussion with Fletch, but he really is trying to make us believe this thread was about Obama's policies. :lol:

Kobie said:

Net neutrality is a brainchild of Obama? Hell, the term alone has been around since 2003.

Click to expand...

Obama hired cable company lobbyists to oversee cable companies.
Politicians just wanna get paid.

Helix said:

really? elaborate. can you do that without resorting to logical fallacies and dishonesty?

Click to expand...

Oh no, you don't want...remember? :lamo

Simon W. Moon said:

Obama hired cable company lobbyists to oversee cable companies.
Politicians just wanna get paid.

Click to expand...

Well, that's a tale as old as time. I'm not sure what the relationship between that and the concept of net neutrality is, however.

Hatuey said:

He thinks if he lies enough people won't notice. He just tried to claim that we've been discussing "Obama's policies" for 23 pages... lmao. What has been in discussion for 23 pages is whether Obamacare and net neutrality are comparable. Hell, that is the entire premise of the OP. That's what Franken addresses and that's what every other poster has addressed in their discussion with Fletch, but he really is trying to make us believe this thread was about Obama's policies. :lol:

Click to expand...

Of course it is, and then he doubles down with his nonsensical "Obama worship" rhetoric. Give some of these guys credit, they REALLY stick to their talking points.

Kobie said:

Well, that's a tale as old as time. I'm not sure what the relationship between that and the concept of net neutrality is, however.

Click to expand...

Imho, it would be self defeating to hire someone who is against what you're for.
:shrug:

Simon W. Moon said:

Imho, it would be self defeating to hire someone who is against what you're for.
:shrug:

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the relationship is between that and the concept of net neutrality. What, exactly, is your point in relation to net neutrality, whether we should have it, or its alleged similarities with Obamacare?

I'm sure Cruz knows that, and is just trying to start the political spin machine to get support for what he wants. I'm sure it's very compelling to the uneducated to compare it to "Obamacare," which is practically a swear word to some people.

Good on Franken for taking this apart right from the outset. Net neutrality is what we've always had, and what we should continue to have. But given that it has been constantly under threat for several years, there is, sadly, an apparent necessity for us to write down somewhere in law, "stop ****ing with it and trying to rip people off."

Fearandloathing said:

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

Click to expand...

"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...

No one has claimed that Obama said that he said that he "invented the internet" like they did with Al Gore but Obama will be able to honestly say that he tried to save net neutrality, no matter how this turns out eventually.

Helix said:

Ok. How do we ensure net neutrality without regulation?

Click to expand...

:doh
Did I say "no regulation"?
Or perhaps did I say making it a utility is what is not needed?
Would you like me to tell you?

Hatuey said:

LMAO. Are you kidding? You've spent 10+ pages being pounded by posters because not only do you not understand what net neutrality entails, you actually believe keeping it as it has been for 25+ years means more regulation.

Click to expand...

That's because keeping the internet 'as it has been for 25 years' DOES mean more regulation. It isn't possible that you don't understand this, so you are just being dishonest. What a surprise. Obama is asking the FCC to regulate internet providers under title II of the Telecommunications law. Do you think that means DE-regulation? Of course not. So I don't care how many idiots have been 'pounding' me for the last ten pages, they are all wrong and are either too stupid to understand that or to dishonest to admit it.

I wonder why you haven't mentioned it since? I guess you'd have to give up on an argument so ridiculous is completely defies the constraints of the discussion at hand.

Click to expand...

I haven't mentioned it because the thread went off in a different direction and you and I have been discussing other aspects of the proposed 'solution' and not Cruz's remarks. Again, you know this, but misrepresent it anyway. You do this because you haven't got an argument against what I am actually saying so you pretend I am saying something I am not. Try being honest.

This is a new level of dishonest even for you Fletch. The thread, the entire thread has been about this statement:

View attachment 67176017

For you to pretend as if Obama's proposals have been a topic of discussion, when it is net neutrality being compared to Obamacare is laughable if not see through. You lost the argument. Give up, admit net neutrality is a good thing, and comparing it to Obamacare is not only absurd, it's essentially claiming that the internet as we've enjoyed it for 25+ years is a system that doesn't work. Do you not realize that without net neutrality, the internet can run at the speed of government? Lol.

Click to expand...

The dishonest one here is you. The thread is about Cruz, but you and I have been discussing the Obama proposal and not what Cruz said. That is a fact. I am not all that concerned with what Cruz said nor its accuracy. My interest and our discussion is about what Obama wants to do and how it will effect the internet. Again, you know this to be true, yet you are dishonest about it. Why is that?

It's Comcast's internet, they should be able to do what they want with it. Including slow down people who don't play ball.

Sincerely,
Conservatives

Hatuey said:

He thinks if he lies enough people won't notice. He just tried to claim that we've been discussing "Obama's policies" for 23 pages... lmao. What has been in discussion for 23 pages is whether Obamacare and net neutrality are comparable. Hell, that is the entire premise of the OP. That's what Franken addresses and that's what every other poster has addressed in their discussion with Fletch, but he really is trying to make us believe this thread was about Obama's policies. :lol:

Click to expand...

Where is the lie? You and I have been discussing Obama policies for the last 23 pages and have not been discussing what Cruz said. Anyone who can actually read knows it is you who are lying. I know you are counting on the fact that most of your liberal pals either wont read, cant read, or will just go along with your lies because they are fellow liberals. Either way, you have clearly left the topic we were discussing because you lack the ability to continue. Rather than admit that you cant keep up, you smear me. Pretty pathetic, but par for the course. Now, if you don't want to continue to discuss what Obama is proposing then man up and say so and we can move on. But don't lie and pretend we have been discussing things we haven't. It destroys your credibility.

Fletch said:

Where is the lie? You and I have been discussing Obama policies for the last 23 pages and have not been discussing what Cruz said. Anyone who can actually read knows it is you who are lying. I know you are counting on the fact that most of your liberal pals either wont read, cant read, or will just go along with your lies because they are fellow liberals. Either way, you have clearly left the topic we were discussing because you lack the ability to continue. Rather than admit that you cant keep up, you smear me. Pretty pathetic, but par for the course. Now, if you don't want to continue to discuss what Obama is proposing then man up and say so and we can move on. But don't lie and pretend we have been discussing things we haven't. It destroys your credibility.

Click to expand...

Actually, he's been the one staying on topic, attempting (apparently in vain) to explain to you what net neutrality IS, since you clearly haven't the slightest clue about it, nor do you care to learn.

Kobie said:

Actually, he's been the one staying on topic, attempting (apparently in vain) to explain to you what net neutrality IS, since you clearly haven't the slightest clue about it, nor do you care to learn.

Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. He claims we are discussing Cruz and you claim we are discussing net neutrality. Why don't you two hook up on IM and get your stories straight. In the mean time, please point to the post of his that explains net neutrality. That should be easy even for you since you claim he has been doing it for page after page. Or, you could just butt out and go find another thread to post your hit and run one liners.

I'm all for net neutrality as long as the governmnent isn't involved in it.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

I'm sure Cruz knows that, and is just trying to start the political spin machine to get support for what he wants. I'm sure it's very compelling to the uneducated to compare it to "Obamacare," which is practically a swear word to some people.

Good on Franken for taking this apart right from the outset. Net neutrality is what we've always had, and what we should continue to have. But given that it has been constantly under threat for several years, there is, sadly, an apparent necessity for us to write down somewhere in law, "stop ****ing with it and trying to rip people off."

Click to expand...

Franken didn't take anything apart. All Franken did is show he didn't know what he was talking about.
And no, we have not always had net neutrality. Never really did either. Which just shows you also do not know what you are talking about.

Deuce said:

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.

Click to expand...

:doh
No I am not arguing semantics, it is a misnomer, the net is not neutral and has not been neutral.

Secondly; Why are you not paying attention? I clearly have commented on the concept. I even commented on it in another thread that you participated in, yet here you are acting like you don't know. D'oh!

In addition, this topic is not about any neutrality but, but Franken's idiocy on display in regards to what Cruz stated.

This is what Cruz stated and he is absolutely correct.


Cruz is clearly indicating that making it an utility is not the way to go.


What Franken said:
That is Franken being an idiotic partisan hack and not actually addressing the valid concerns Cruz pointed out.

Deuce said:

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

Click to expand...

D'oh! Again I can reference what was provided in the other thread you participated in.
(http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...-net-neutrality-debate-13.html#post1063981739)

President Obama's public stance that the FCC should reclassify broadband internet services as a Title II "common carrier" under the current Telecommunications Act carries many ramifications, but one is undeniable: there's going to be a hidden tax hike, and it's going to be paid for by consumers.
Title II common carriers are required to "contribute" to what's called the Universal Service Fund - a government program to bring telecommunications services to underserved areas with the goal of universal coverage. Whether it's called "contributions" or fees or whatnot, the function of the program is a tax on corporate revenues in order to fund services for those who might not have them otherwise. It's a redistributive corporate tax paid for by consumers.

The USF tax amounts to more than a 16% charge on top of consumers' bills. As broadband service providers are not currently subject to the USF tax, a reclassification would mean that all consumers would see a jump around that size in their bill. Considering that in some locales, the cheapest broadband service runs upwards of $50 per month, this will cost even the most price-conscious consumers an extra $100 per year - and for those at higher tiers, much more than that.

FCC commissioners past and present have agreed that the this net neutrality tax is unavoidable in a Title II reclassification scenario. In a discussion at the National Press Club on Friday, current FCC commissioner Ajit Pai laid out exactly what consumers would be seeing on their bills.

"Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai said. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services. Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in."

"The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax - or taxes - to access the internet."

An FCC decision to go with title II reclassification in order to enforce new net neutrality regulations would have a lot of deleterious effects. One of the most obvious is that it would be a tax hike on a service that the government believes is essential to American life.

The Net Neutrality Tax Hike - Kevin Glass

Click to expand...

Even Obama acknowledges that making it a Utility wouldn't be all that was needed.

Deuce said:

Again. Net neutrality does not ban all kinds of throttling.

Click to expand...

:doh That is my point and why neutrality is a misnomer.

Which still does not make classifying it as a utility a wise, let alone correct option.

Deuce said:

you're just applying the concept in an overly broad fashion.

Click to expand...

Wrong.
The net is not neutral. And that isn't what this topic is about either.

It is about what Cruz said in reference to Obama wanting the FCC to classify it as a utility. Classifying it as an utility is not needed, not just because it would give the Gov more control than it already has, but because doing so would cause how much we pay for it to increase because of the new assessed taxes.

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...

I'm not arguing either way, however I doubt where you live you have more than two ISPs, so where's your market? If they both have internet packages, kind of like Compu-serve and AOL used to be, you don't get ALL of the World Wide Web but what they want to sell you. Personally I would like to know what Tim Berners-Lee thinks about this.

Excon said:

:doh
No I am not arguing semantics, it is a misnomer, the net is not neutral and has not been neutral.

Secondly; Why are you not paying attention? I clearly have commented on the concept. I even commented on it in another thread that you participated in, yet here you are acting like you don't know. D'oh!

In addition, this topic is not about any neutrality but, but Franken's idiocy on display in regards to what Cruz stated.

This is what Cruz stated and he is absolutely correct.

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. ​

Cruz is clearly indicating that making it an utility is not the way to go.


What Franken said:

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"​

That is Franken being an idiotic partisan hack and not actually addressing the valid concerns Cruz pointed out.


D'oh! Again I can reference what was provided in the other thread you participated in.
(http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...-net-neutrality-debate-13.html#post1063981739)




Even Obama acknowledges that making it a Utility wouldn't be all that was needed.

Even President Obama conceded that a strict Title II approach would not by itself be sufficient because there are hundreds of rules applying to telephone service common carriers that would be inappropriate to apply to broadband, like, for example, rate regulation.

In addition, even Title II does not ban paid prioritization completely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/t...nts-on-fcc-head-over-open-internet-rules.html​

:doh That is my point and why neutrality is a misnomer.

Which still does not make classifying it as a utility a wise, let alone correct option.


Wrong.
The net is not neutral. And that isn't what this topic is about either.

It is about what Cruz said in reference to Obama wanting the FCC to classify it as a utility. Classifying it as an utility is not needed, not just because it would give the Gov more control than it already has, but because doing so would cause how much we pay for it to increase because of the new assessed taxes.

Click to expand...

I can tell you that the Universal Service Fund is pure bull****, because my parents live in a rural area and their best Internet service is a Verizon DSL connection at 1-3 Mbps, which in this day and age is closer to dial-up (or the Stone Age) than it is to a 25+ Mbps service in the city. They can't get Internet through FIOS because it doesn't exist or through cable which does. It's a ****ing joke.