• 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!

Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality

Zyphlin said:
I appreciate the up front answer Rev. But in my mind, this is just unrealistic. It's no different than Ron Paul droning on about being completely isolationist or like those who declare we should just remove marriage from governent all together as their ONLY option as it relates to that issue. It's a great stance to have in a smokey room with a bunch of collegues waxing philisophical regarding policy, but has little real impact on the real world.

In an ideal world I agree, that's my prefered method for that as well. I said in another thread, in a perfect sort of world I'd say the backbone infastructure which is even more monopolized then the telecoms would continue to be regulated and subsidized by the government, while the actual middle men (the ISPs) would be far less regulated and far more open and free with a lower bar to hurdle to gain entry into the market place.

But it's just extremely unlikely given the importance to the telecoms those things you speak of are and how much influence they have over politicians on both sides of the aisles...there's little to no chance that we see the government legitimately bust up their monopolies. So simply saying that's the answer, and looking at no other alternative, is no different in my eyes than saying "just leave things the way they are"....because ultimatley, realistically, that's what will happen. There's little to no chance those psued-monopolies are busted, and if that doesn't happen and that's all we say we want to try, then the reality is that we just go with the status quo.

Even if you look at now, Cruz hasn't said one word about busting up the telecoms. Not a single one that I've seen. All he's done is **** on the Democratic proposals and tacitly suggest we just need to maintain the status quo.

And the status quo is not working. The status quo has been a steady movement away from net neutrality proposals, with clear reasons to see that the telecoms have every intent to continue that push.
Click to expand...
Very well said.

What's really bothersome about this entire issue is how simple it is to arrive at the right solution, but how difficult it would be to actually do it. The right answer is to put ISP's in a new class, lightly regulated to ensure even competition while also allowing flexibility and innovation. In short, keep all the regulations roughly the way they are now, but add a requirement to ensure that all packets of a type are treated equally (ie a packet of video from Hulu isn't treated differently than a packet from netflix). Given a few weeks we could probably craft a rough draft on this forum. It's simple, non partisan, and essentially everyone with any background in IT is in agreement.

Unfortunately it requires politicians to actually do something besides political grandstanding. It's really a sad indictment of our current political system when the fear of your opponent getting credit for accomplishing something outweighs the need to accomplish anything.
 
Zyphlin said:
Just keeping the status quo does NOT accomplish letting it "remain as it is". This is CLEARLY evidenced by the multitude of instances by various telecom providers over the past decade of them violating net neutrality principles, and their repeated attempts in recent years to argue for the ability to continue and expand upon such violations.
Click to expand...
OMG! Violating principles now.
:doh
Sorry that argument doesn't fly.

So unless you got something that clearly indicates otherwise, how about we remain within the confines of the context of what he said?
His comment, in context of what he was speaking about clearly indicates he wants it to remain the same as it is now, you know, without the suggested status change into a utility.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
rest assured, no matter what happens, we can be guaranteed the government will **** it up to benefit themselves and those they protect.
Click to expand...

See, that's why I think this is such a ****ty situation at the moment...

There's the government on one side, who because of the multi-actor reality of it, so takes well intentioned ideas about 4 steps too far in the name of power and doing "what's right", not to mention what benefits government....

....and on the other side there's mega corporations function as psuedo-monopolies, whose primary goal is to make as much money as possible by expending the least amount of possible, with little incentive to actually give a damn about the customers due to said psuedo-monopoly status.

Basically, do you want the entity that will take it's time before it screws you and will tell you nice compliments while it's doing it....or do you want the one that'll just do it quick and rough and laugh in the process. Either way you're getting screwed, it's just how quick and in what way.

Yay :roll:
 
TheNextEra said:
Some people yes, will support Obama no matter what. However, what is known now is that the corporations (ISPs) want the power to limit or flat out exclude websites on the internet. This is a reaction to corporation over-reaching.

I don't for a second believe that the government classifying the internet as a utility will save "Net Neutrality" in itself. However, with corporations looking to do what they are doing is flat out wrong as well. Net Neutrality needs to be kept and corporations simply are not wanting to do that.
Click to expand...

That's what competition is all about. If one provider isn't meeting your needs then you go to a different provider.
 
Jetboogieman said:
This has gottan really nuts.

People who are against Net Neutrality are against it for purely political reasons and nothing more.

There is no reason to do away with Net Neutrality, to do so would be incredibly harmful to small businesses, entrepreneurs and innovation, things conservatives claim to champion.

The only people, THE ONLY people who benefit from Net Neutrality being torn down is big corporations.

There is no more transparent issue than this one that clearly shows what side many extremist and ignorant conservatives are on and that isn't regular folks.
Click to expand...

Cruz's position is against Obama's suggestion of classifying it as a Utility which there is no reason for.
That is what this is about.
There is no reason to classify it as a utility to obtain NN. None.
 
Excon said:
:doh
I am quoting to that which I am responding. No matter how much you may complain about that, there is nothing wrong or intellectually dishonest about it.

As to what you emboldened. It was irrelevant and as such I was not responding to it. That shouldn't be that hard for you to understand.
Especially as it is dishonest to try and discuss that which the topic isn't about and not even being argued.
Click to expand...

Selective quoting, especially removing a clause is intellectually dishonest. For example, if I were to take your above quote.. and delete a few words that I disagreed with, I might end up with this:
Excon said:
:doh
I am intellectually dishonest irrelevant and as such I shouldn't try and discuss that which is being argued.
Click to expand...
But I wouldn't do that because that would be intellectually dishonest.
 
Lutherf said:
That's what competition is all about. If one provider isn't meeting your needs then you go to a different provider.
Click to expand...

The ISPs shouldn't have the power to do that in the first place. That is what this is about. If you are against net neutrality, and I'm not talking about the bill, then please go on record as saying so.
 
Excon said:
OMG! Violating principles now.
Click to expand...

What? You don't get to have it both ways...you can't claim that net neutrality exists but then claim it's not a law/regulation and at the same time act like it's not a principle.

"net neutrality" can't exist and be nothing at the same time.

Net neutrality, in it's current state, is a concept made up of various principles. Principles that the telecoms over the past decade have routinely and continually shat upon.

Pinch your nose all you want and tell console yourself into believing that it's debate, but sadly smiley's aren't actually intelligent though. Sorry you don't like the fact I've provided numerous examples of telecoms violating the ideals behind net neutrality, but that doesn't make it so.

Throttling P2P traffic for reasons other than pure network congestion issues. A telecom that offers phone service purposefully throttling Vonage use. Providers blocking some short clip streaming video services while allowing others. Companies making court briefs with their desire to pick and choose what data can travel over their network and fighting for the ability to charge content providers additional money or have their services throttled. These are things that "clearly indicate otherwise" that the notion of network neutrality is healty, alive, and well currently and that simply keeping the status quo actually assures that we remain with an internet that is largley government by net neutrality ideals.

You're absolutely correct...Ted Cruz has suggested he doesn't want it to be a utility and that the "way it is now" is fine. That's advocating to remain at the status quo. The status quo is moving away from an internet largely governmed by the ideals of net neutrality.
 
Lutherf said:
That's what competition is all about. If one provider isn't meeting your needs then you go to a different provider.
Click to expand...

Except it's not a real competition because there's an artificially limited market place. When there are only one to three options within the market place, and a near impossible prospect for someone whose disastisfied with those few options to actually launch an alternative, you're not dealing with a legitimate free market where simple principles of competition self regulate the market place.
 
Mithros said:
Selective quoting, especially removing a clause is intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It had nothing to do with what I was replying to.
Period.
You are simply wrong.


Mithros said:
But I wouldn't do that because that would be intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
What you did was dishonest. You said I said something I did not say.
Unlike you, what I did was quote the whole sentence I was responding to. That is not dishonest no matter how much you want to cry about it.

If you do not understand the difference between your dishonesty in changing what I said and in trying to discuss that which the topic isn't about and not even being argued, and my quoting exactly what I was responding to, then you have a real problem that will always put you at a disadvantage.
 
Zyphlin said:
Thank you.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see someone who doesn't like the utility option actually put forth a clear, reasonable, realistic alternative.

And I agree with you entirely. I would be far more interested in passing legislation mandating that all entities must treat data on the internet equally as you say, except in situations of legitimate network congestion issues where there are no other reasonable solutions. The issue with such a law is that it still would need regulation by SOME government body or else it'd have no teeth, and I don't necessarily mind the FCC being that body. But I agree with you, I'd prefer that method to the utility method IF there's legitimate grounds for the government to be able to enforce such a law.

Also agree with you on my general neutral to sour view of Cruz. Doesn't impress me much, and instances like this are a great example of why.
Click to expand...

So, simple question: Do you think an increase in NetFlix traffic on an ISP should be shared by all NetFlix users or all ISP customers?
 
Zyphlin said:
What? You don't get to have it both ways...you can't claim that net neutrality exists but then claim it's not a law/regulation and at the same time act like it's not a principle.
Click to expand...
:doh
You seem to be confused.


Zyphlin said:
"net neutrality" can't exist and be nothing at the same time.

Net neutrality, in it's current state, is a concept made up of various principles. Principles that the telecoms over the past decade have routinely and continually shat upon.

Pinch your nose all you want and tell console yourself into believing that it's debate, but sadly smiley's aren't actually intelligent though. Sorry you don't like the fact I've provided numerous examples of telecoms violating the ideals behind net neutrality, but that doesn't make it so.

Throttling P2P traffic for reasons other than pure network congestion issues. A telecom that offers phone service purposefully throttling Vonage use. Providers blocking some short clip streaming video services while allowing others. Companies making court briefs with their desire to pick and choose what data can travel over their network and fighting for the ability to charge content providers additional money or have their services throttled. These are things that "clearly indicate otherwise" that the notion of network neutrality is healty, alive, and well currently and that simply keeping the status quo actually assures that we remain with an internet that is largley government by net neutrality ideals.
Click to expand...
All irrelevant nonsense.
Doesn't matter one bit what examples you have provided.


Zyphlin said:
...Ted Cruz has suggested he doesn't want it to be a utility and that the "way it is now" is fine. That's advocating to remain at the status quo. The status quo is moving away from an internet largely governmed by the ideals of net neutrality.
Click to expand...
How sad.
He has stated that he wants it to remain the way it is now, in context, that is with out it being classifieds a utility.
So again, unless you got something that clearly indicates otherwise we need to stay within the context of what he said.

So get to providing it and we can go from there.

As it stands at this moment, this is about reclassifying it into a Utility, which as he pointed out, is just wrong.
 
Zyphlin said:
Thank you.

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see someone who doesn't like the utility option actually put forth a clear, reasonable, realistic alternative.
Click to expand...
:doh
Alternatives isn't what this topic is about.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
So many arguments from ignorance on this subject. This is the same response I used in a different thread, but it applies here as well, so here goes:

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?
Click to expand...

Maybe this is a dumb question but if an ISP decides to screw with their customers as described then don't you think that those customers would switch ISP's so that they are no longer screwed with?
 
Lutherf said:
Maybe this is a dumb question but if an ISP decides to screw with their customers as described then don't you think that those customers would switch ISP's so that they are no longer screwed with?
Click to expand...

Exactly! :thumbs:
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
.Net Neutrality in no way prevents ISPs from altering, restricting, or enhancing packets based on origination, destination, or saturation.
Click to expand...

Net Neutrality is just a buzz word for a concept that is very much still being debated and defined. for you to take such a black and white rule to this fluid concept tells me not to trust you
 
Lutherf said:
That's what competition is all about. If one provider isn't meeting your needs then you go to a different provider.
Click to expand...

That's the issue...broadband access is a utility and prone to natural monopolies.

100 Mbps is 100 Mbps.

The barriers to entry are high

It's not efficient for multiple companies to lay wire to the same neighborhood.

Cable companies are natural monopolies and therefore shouldn't be able to use that power to squeeze both users and content providers.

Ted Cruz is a demagogue bought and paid for by cable companies.
 
Zyphlin said:
Except it's not a real competition because there's an artificially limited market place. When there are only one to three options within the market place, and a near impossible prospect for someone whose disastisfied with those few options to actually launch an alternative, you're not dealing with a legitimate free market where simple principles of competition self regulate the market place.
Click to expand...

Wow!!

My bad. I was under the impression that there were more than 3 ISP's in the US.

Maybe I'm just not understanding this whole thing. I know I can get my internet access through Cox, Centurylink, Dish, Verizon, Comcast and a bunch of others but maybe those aren't ISP's.
 
Excon said:
:doh
Alternatives isn't what this topic is about.
Click to expand...

:doh You aren't the decider of what is or is not on topic. Last I checked you weren't a mod. Alternatives are definitely on-topic to this discussion whether you like it or not. Deal with it.
 
Lutherf said:
Wow!!

My bad. I was under the impression that there were more than 3 ISP's in the US.

Maybe I'm just not understanding this whole thing. I know I can get my internet access through Cox, Centurylink, Dish, Verizon, Comcast and a bunch of others but maybe those aren't ISP's.
Click to expand...

In some areas there are only two. In the area I am living at the choices are charter and Dish. That is it unless you want dial-up.

EDIT: Sorry total of 3, forgot Direct-TV.
 
jmotivator said:
So, simple question: Do you think an increase in NetFlix traffic on an ISP should be shared by all NetFlix users or all ISP customers?
Click to expand...

A better question would be, do you think that an increase in Netflix traffic should be treated differently from an increase in Hulu traffic?
 
TheNextEra said:
In some areas there are only two. In the area I am living at the choices are charter and Dish. That is it unless you want dial-up.

EDIT: Sorry total of 3, forgot Direct-TV.
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet there are few more than that. Those are just the big options that also do TV and phone.
 
iliveonramen said:
That's the issue...broadband access is a utility and prone to natural monopolies.

100 Mbps is 100 Mbps.

The barriers to entry are high

It's not efficient for multiple companies to lay wire to the same neighborhood.

Cable companies are natural monopolies and therefore shouldn't be able to use that power to squeeze both users and content providers.

Ted Cruz is a demagogue bought and paid for by cable companies.
Click to expand...


Well, Cox Communications just spent whatever they had to spend to run cable to my office complex. They had to go underground and run extra cable because one of the unit owners is an asshole and didn't want them within 10' of his unit. I don't know what it cost them but it couldn't have been cheap and they now have a whole TWO additional customers. Somewhere in that mix there must have been a good reason to lay out the capital to run that wire and I suspect that competition with the DSL provider was a big part of that equation.
 
clownboy said:
I'd be willing to bet there are few more than that. Those are just the big options that also do TV and phone.
Click to expand...

If we are talking broadband, I have two options

Hughes/dish Satellite, or Frontier DSL. that's it. no more exist.
 
TheNextEra said:
:doh You aren't the decider of what is or is not on topic. Last I checked you weren't a mod. Alternatives are definitely on-topic to this discussion whether you like it or not. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
iLOL :doh
While I have no control over what is said, you are absurdly wrong, alternatives isn't what this topic is about.
And the last I checked one does not need to be a mod to know or even mention what the actual topic is about. Funny that you think one does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom