• 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

If the government takes over the internet and when internet service worsens, who will you blame?

See? I can play that game, too.

It's not a game. The government did regulate the internet until last January, so I don't need to hypothesize over the change because I already know how it would go (it would happen as it did for the last 25 years). But if net neutrality ends...that's the change. So if everybody's internet use worsens as a result, who will be to blame?
 
And you can't bear the thought of daddy not holding your hand through life I guess.

So you didn't like the internet as it was for the last 25 years?
 
You think we would be better off with a one party system?

Seriously apdst? Would you not prefer that every democrat, liberal, anyone from center/left/ to middle left/to far left be kicked to the curb?

If not, it certainly is not the image you have crafted for yourself here at DP.

Myself, I would prefer to have a minimum of 3 parties with pretty much equal power. That way, they would be FORCED to negotiate and compromise and work together to get anything done. But that's living in a dream world. Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.
 
Seriously apdst? Would you not prefer that every democrat, liberal, anyone from center/left/ to middle left/to far left be kicked to the curb?

If not, it certainly is not the image you have crafted for yourself here at DP.

Myself, I would prefer to have a minimum of 3 parties with pretty much equal power. That way, they would be FORCED to negotiate and compromise and work together to get anything done. But that's living in a dream world. Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

No, I would not. In a one party system, there's no way to prosecute corruption. While I trust the Republicans more than the Democrats, I only trust a little more than the Democrats. Politicians are like children: they'll always push the envelope, to see what they can get away with.
 
No, I would not. In a one party system, there's no way to prosecute corruption. While I trust the Republicans more than the Democrats, I only trust a little more than the Democrats. Politicians are like children: they'll always push the envelope, to see what they can get away with.

Now, I agree with that 100%. Except, I distrust both parties about the same, myself. In fact, the ONLY reason I MIGHT have any favor for the democrat side is their positioning on social issues and needless war. But, outside that, I absolutely abhor them. I am waiting here on the sidelines for the GOP to get it's house in order and cull out the wingnuts that have cost us so dearly, so I can have my party back.

But, all that being said, I may just remain an independent regardless. It takes a bit longer to fill out the ballot at the ballot box, but it makes it easier to sleep at night.

Seriously, last election, my wife was standing by the exit door looking at me impatiently, as I voted for each office individually, instead of voting straight ticket, like, "Well, are you coming or not?" It took me several minutes to make my selections.
 
Last edited:
Now, I agree with that 100%. Except, I distrust both parties about the same, myself. In fact, the ONLY reason I MIGHT have any favor for the democrat side is their positioning on social issues and needless war. But, outside that, I absolutely abhor them. I am waiting here on the sidelines for the GOP to get it's house in order and cull out the wingnuts that have cost us so dearly, so I can have my party back.

But, all that being said, I may just remain an independent regardless. It takes a bit longer to fill out the ballot at the ballot box, but it makes it easier to sleep at night.

Seriously, last election, my wife was standing by the exit door looking at me impatiently, as I voted for each office individually, instead of voting straight ticket, like, "Well, are you coming or not?" It took me several minutes to make my selections.

The only Conservatives in Congress, are in The Republican Party. There's no way I could vote for a Democrat, any Democrat and betray my Conservative principals.

A local radio show, hosted by Moon Griffon, interviewed a Democrat, who was running for office a few years ago--I forget here name--on the basis of, "Hey, folks! Let's give her a fair shot". Well, she sounded like a level headed Conservative on his show, until she got elected and swung left quicker than you can flick flies off of ****. She made some outrageous comment about Conservatives, that would make most Liberal heads spin--I wish I could remember her name, so I could dig that comment up. My point is, Democrats are going to vote Liberal, when they get into office and there's no getting around it. Some Republicans will vote Liberal. But, the only people I can expect to preserve Conservative principles, are in the Republican party, period.
 
I have wifi. Must not be all that difficult.

(chuckle)

You realize of course that it takes an ISP being installed into your home in order to get wifi - right? Or do you live at a coffee shop and suck wifi of of other people? At work perhaps?
 
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.

You're lying. Please show where I discussed Obama's policies or retract.
 
Okay, so if this is the end of net neutrality and people's internet use worsens as a result, who will be to blame?
Obama.
duh

According to this article, the net neutrality legislation will stifle the profit making ability of the ISP's.
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/ro...threatened_by_government_regulation/page/full
Are they wrong about that?
It depends on how you mean it.
ISPs will make a great deal mor money if they can charge your small business for accessing the internet, for providing the internet access to your small business's content, AND then charge your business again for providing the internet access to your small business's content.

So in that sense, yes they are right. If ISPs can double charge businesses, the ISP will make more money.


But if you mean that Time Warner and Cox are not going to be able to turn a profit, then "No, the article is deliriously wrong."
We've had "neutrality" since the beginning of the internet.
How're TW and Cox faring so far?
 
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?
You should be asking what my post had to do with the context it was in regarding whether or not net neutrality was an Obama scheme.

:shrug:
 
(chuckle)

You realize of course that it takes an ISP being installed into your home in order to get wifi - right? Or do you live at a coffee shop and suck wifi of of other people? At work perhaps?

Not my wifi. I don't know what bass-ackwards part of the world you live in. My internet is through my cell phone provider and it goes everywhere with me.
 
According to this article, the net neutrality legislation will stifle the profit making ability of the ISP's.

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/ro...threatened_by_government_regulation/page/full

Are they wrong about that?

Anyone can increase profits by charging more for lower quality service. Which is exactly what the net neutrality legislation is supposed to prevent.

And that's also why quite a few hardcore conservative Republicans support net neutrality: they care much more about their own finances (and rightly so) than those of their local ISP monopoly.
 
Anyone can increase profits by charging more for lower quality service. Which is exactly what the net neutrality legislation is supposed to prevent.

And that's also why quite a few hardcore conservative Republicans support net neutrality: they care much more about their own finances (and rightly so) than those of their local ISP monopoly.

When the price goes up and the quality goes down, another provider will come in to compete for that business.
 
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.

Still attempting to create the perception that keeping things as they were means more regulation? Still attempting to draw the discussion to be about Obama? Nobody is falling for it, Fletch. Give up. The entire argument against net neutrality is that it stifled innovation. In turn, Ted Cruz' argument is that it's like Obamacare. Not only is that flawed, it contradicts the history of innovation of the internet. As it has been, (which is what Cruz opposes), it's been the most innovative medium available because of the fact that all data is treated the same. Yet, Cruz says it's Obamacare? Nonsense.

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.

Ah, you haven't mentioned it because not only is it ridiculous, it also had nothing to do with what we've been discussing for 23 pages. Which is Cruz's remarks and why they're wrong. You're being silly now. Hell, I can prove that from the beginning we were discussing why Cruz was wrong in making his remarks and then can point to the exact moment you tried to steer the conversation to be about Obama. Do you want me to? ;)

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?

You keep saying this but it doesn't make it anymore so. Please point to where I discussed Obama's proposal. I haven't at all. That you keep repeating that I have doesn't make it anymore so.
 
Obama.
duh


It depends on how you mean it.
ISPs will make a great deal mor money if they can charge your small business for accessing the internet, for providing the internet access to your small business's content, AND then charge your business again for providing the internet access to your small business's content.

So in that sense, yes they are right. If ISPs can double charge businesses, the ISP will make more money.


But if you mean that Time Warner and Cox are not going to be able to turn a profit, then "No, the article is deliriously wrong."
We've had "neutrality" since the beginning of the internet.
How're TW and Cox faring so far?

It might not inhibit Cox, or Time Warner, or Suddenlink, but what about Bobby Joe and his tech buddies that secure financing to start their own ISP, to compete with those large companies? Will the lowered profit margin--possibly lowered--prohibit them from making the profit needed for their startup company to survive?

I think you might agree that this could possibly do more to prohibit new providers from entering the market; the legislation could thereby produce the opposite effect.
 
Last edited:
Now, I agree with that 100%. Except, I distrust both parties about the same, myself. In fact, the ONLY reason I MIGHT have any favor for the democrat side is their positioning on social issues and needless war. But, outside that, I absolutely abhor them. I am waiting here on the sidelines for the GOP to get it's house in order and cull out the wingnuts that have cost us so dearly, so I can have my party back.

But, all that being said, I may just remain an independent regardless. It takes a bit longer to fill out the ballot at the ballot box, but it makes it easier to sleep at night.

Seriously, last election, my wife was standing by the exit door looking at me impatiently, as I voted for each office individually, instead of voting straight ticket, like, "Well, are you coming or not?" It took me several minutes to make my selections.

Here it is:

https://archive.org/details/CarolineFayardTheMoonGriffonElectionInterview

Listen to the interview, where she's all about not being a tax and spend Liberal and supports economic growth, blah, blah.

Then, 4 months later, she says:

“I hate Republicans. I hate Republicans,” Fayard said, drawing some nods and voices of approval from the crowd. “They are cruel and destructive. They eat their young."

"I hate Republicans. They eat their young" - David Catanese - POLITICO.com
 
It might not inhibit Cox, or Time Warner, or Suddenlink, but what about Bobby Joe and his tech buddies that secure financing to start their own ISP, to compete with those large companies? Will the lowered profit margine--possibly lowered--prohibit them from making the profit needed for their startup company to survive?
I think you might agree that this could possibly do more to prohibit new providers from entering the market; the legislation could thereby produce the opposite effect.
Encoding net neutrality means that BJ and his team will have the same shot tomorrow that they have today.

Do you imagine that the current ISPs are fighting net neutrality because net neutrality reduces competition in the ISP marketplace?
Or would you imagine that the current ISPs are trying to promote ideas that will enhance their profits by further securing their near monopoly of the market place?

What about all of the start up companies who will not be able to get their ideas to market because of the lowered profit margins caused by the big ISPs double charging them if NN is not allowed to continue?
There are many, many, many more start-ups which are not ISPs than there are start-up ISPs.
There are more non-ISP start-ups than ISP start-ups by an order of magnitude or so.
 
Well, considering what Time Warner charges for broadband, kinda, and if they get their way, they'll be ****ing me more.

Get wifi.

... This made me chuckle a lot. On par with root beer makes you impaired. If anything reduces apdst credibility on the subject, let it be this response.
 
... This made me chuckle a lot. On par with root beer makes you impaired.
It makes one question the wisdom of responding to the author of such a comment.
There's a knowledge gap which the author may not wish to have bridged.
 
Not my wifi. I don't know what bass-ackwards part of the world you live in. My internet is through my cell phone provider and it goes everywhere with me.

That's not wifi. That's your 3g, 4g or lte (all basic variations of the same thing). Your carrier in this case would be your isp, and therefore no more bound to the principles of net neutrality as comcast or time warner.
 
Encoding net neutrality means that BJ and his team will have the same shot tomorrow that they have today.

Do you imagine that the current ISPs are fighting net neutrality because net neutrality reduces competition in the ISP marketplace?
Or would you imagine that the current ISPs are trying to promote ideas that will enhance their profits by further securing their near monopoly of the market place?

What about all of the start up companies who will not be able to get their ideas to market because of the lowered profit margins caused by the big ISPs double charging them if NN is not allowed to continue?
There are many, many, many more start-ups which are not ISPs than there are start-up ISPs.
There are more non-ISP start-ups than ISP start-ups by an order of magnitude or so.

It all means nothing, if the profit margin is too low for startups to survive. I mean, let's face it, the current Democrat Party doesn't have the best track record for legislation making things better for the business community.

If profit margins are too low for startups to survive, the mega-ISP's could lower quality, to increase their profit margin and there's not damn thing anyone could do about it. Or, would you say that that scenario is impossible?
 
That's not wifi. That's your 3g, 4g or lte (all basic variations of the same thing). Your carrier in this case would be your isp, and therefore no more bound to the principles of net neutrality as comcast or time warner.

So, you agree that there are more than a couple of other options in any given community?
 
So, you agree that there are more than a couple of other options in any given community?

No, there aren't. I can name 3 major ILECs that provide data off of the top of my head:

1) Att/DirectTV
2) Comcast/TWC
3) Charter

That's at best an oligarchy, and often they don't intersect, causing local monopolies.
 
Back
Top Bottom