• 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

Excon said:
Exaggerated nonsense in both your comments about the GOP and the Dems.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The GOP are being disingenuous and the Dems are spineless, have been since as far back as I can remember.
 
Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...

So in other words, your words mean nothing as usual. Good to know you admit that. :lamo

Funny that you think they do.
 
ChezC3 said:
Nonsense. The GOP are being disingenuous and the Dems are spineless, have been since as far back as I can remember.
Click to expand...

Yes. Nonsense.
I am glad that you realize what you said was exaggerated nonsense.
Good for you!
:thumbs:

That smiley is a winking for a reason.
 
TheNextEra said:
So in other words, your words mean nothing as usual. Good to know you admit that. :lamo

Funny that you think they do.
Click to expand...
:doh Funny that is what you think I said.
But it does figure.
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure but broadband is a superior product than DSL. Just like fiber is a better product than both.
What I'm getting at is if you want the fastest service in your area you're only going to have one provider. You most likely will not have two companies that can provide you broadband. You'll probably have an option between DSL, broadband, satellite, or BPL. In either case each one is differentiated by the speed it can provide you.

While it's "competition" it's like saying that the Toyota Camry is a competitor of the Aston Martin Vanquish. Sure, they are both cars, sure, they can both get you from point A to point B, but the true competitor of an Aston Martin would be something equal in value.

The ability to purchase a subpar product is an example of consumer choice but it's not really competition.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure but broadband is a superior product than DSL. Just like fiber is a better product than both.
What I'm getting at is if you want the fastest service in your area you're only going to have one provider. You most likely will not have two companies that can provide you broadband. You'll probably have an option between DSL, broadband, satellite, or BPL. In either case each one is differentiated by the speed it can provide you.

While it's "competition" it's like saying that the Toyota Camry is a competitor of the Aston Martin Vanquish. Sure, they are both cars, sure, they can both get you from point A to point B, but the true competitor of an Aston Martin would be something equal in value.

The ability to purchase a subpar product is an example of consumer choice but it's not really competition.
Click to expand...

Well then I guess that begs another dumb question. If I want more bandwidth then shouldn't I have to pay more for it? I mean, if I want more pizza then I have to pay for more pizza and if I want more gasoline then I have to pay for more gasoline. Conversely, if I really don't need all that extra bandwidth then why should I be paying extra for it?

For example, in my business I use a whole lot more bandwidth at certain times of the year. My business is rather seasonal so I would probably benefit from a plan where I pay a lower rate for my internet service when I'm not using it as much (and not bringing in as much revenue either).
 
Every libertarian in this thread: "Yes, yes yes!! I want to pay much, much, much more for my internet! That'll show the liberals! I love to argue against my own interests!"
 
Cardinal said:
Every libertarian in this thread: "Yes, yes yes!! I want to pay much, much, much more for my internet! That'll show the liberals!"
Click to expand...

this issue crosses political ideology. libertarians don't typically run to the government to protect them from price tyranny
 
ARealConservative said:
this issue crosses political ideology. libertarians don't typically run to the government to protect them from price tyranny
Click to expand...

And I hope you find comfort in your ideology when you have to pay for everything you're not paying for now. That'll show us.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sorry, Cable vs DSL. Are your panties unwaded now?
Click to expand...

cable has never been expanded to rural areas. my panties will remain wadded so long as my options are dsl and satellite latency
 
Cardinal said:
And I hope you find comfort in your ideology when you have to pay for everything you're not paying for now. That'll show us.
Click to expand...

I couldn't translate this. your tears clouded the message
 
Cardinal said:
Every libertarian in this thread: "Yes, yes yes!! I want to pay much, much, much more for my internet! That'll show the liberals! I love to argue against my own interests!"
Click to expand...
That is a real stupid comment, as no one has said, let alone expressed any such thing.
And simply being against what the Obama has proposed doesn't even come close to the nonsense you spew.
 
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...

How many broadband options do you have where you live? I would suspect at best you have either cable which would be either Time Warner or Comcast, and you have the option of much slower DSL through your local Telco. Not exactly a litany of choices.
 
ARealConservative said:
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
Click to expand...

Net Neutrality is not a buzzword. Its been around for over a decade.
 
Hatuey said:
Ted Cruz Hits Back At Al Franken On Net Neutrality



facepalm.jpg


With every other statement Cruz makes on this subject, he proves he doesn't understand what is being discussed here or has the first clue regarding the inner working of the internet. First of all, he argues that rotary phones are symbols of being "frozen in time". Then he argues that iphones are... what? A symbol of innovation? Well... aside from all of Apple's issues with stealing technology, does he not realize that at one point or another rotary phones were innovative? Does he believe they're still widely used? Does he believe his iPhone will evolve like a Pokemon and won't become a relic of time 25 years from now? Well, whatever he intended to show with that argument it failed. However, this is what made me laugh the most:



In short, this is the reason Cruz and opposers of net neutrality have been laughed at. Not only have they been dishonest in their presentation of the facts, they've completely tried to change the arguments around net neutrality. They've tried to paint their opposition to NN - which includes slow lanes, making developers and producers pay ransoms to ISPs and denying other companies businesses - as part of a process of innovation. Not only is that laughable, it's criminally dishonest. Hopefully, the generation (mine) which grew up using the internet will not fall for it.
Click to expand...

Ted Cruz is maybe stupid, but what is criminal about not liking NN? I don't like it. Furthermore, aside from the ISPs, what opposition is there to it? I can count on one hand the people that oppose it: Ted Cruz, myself and Mark Cuban. That's all I know. I'm actually going to make a poll about it to see just how many people are on my side on this forum. I haven't seen one.

I wrote this on another thread I made myself and it summarizes my and probably Cruz's instincts on it as well. We seem to have both researched the topic individually and came to the same conclusions. Unfortunately, since I don't agree with him on practically anything else.

In the political world, I am extremely suspicious of people who tell me, that they need to explain or educate me on matters that I can easily look up myself and draw my own conclusions on. Especially so, if they act like I haven't while I am in conversation with them, on the very same topic!!!! That type of political nonsense drives me crazy! This is like telling a conservative, that if we just explained communism better, they would like it. It's like telling a liberal, if we explained free markets better they would like it. This type of brainwashing should not be happening. First, because NN shouldn't be a political topic. Second, because everyday people will not understand it one lick, and they will just be repeating what you are telling them to.

This is the very problem, so many people on this forum have issues with. So, I don't know why, they are doing it with NN, but think doing so, with everything else is bad. The very fact that there is such a small opposition to this is frightening to me and should be to most people. Especially others who I've seen question everything else, other than this one topic!
Click to expand...

Now, unless you can tie him to ISPs that will be a different story.
 
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...



You ask the wrong question. The correct question is, should the ISP be selling 100mb lines to as many customers as they can if thier network can't handle such traffic?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Net Neutrality is not a buzzword. Its been around for over a decade.
Click to expand...

buzz words can exist for decades. network neutrality is not a legally defined term.

Can you host your own email server using the broadband you pay for? why not? shouldn't net neutrality allow you to do so?
 
Lutherf said:
Well then I guess that begs another dumb question. If I want more bandwidth then shouldn't I have to pay more for it? I mean, if I want more pizza then I have to pay for more pizza and if I want more gasoline then I have to pay for more gasoline. Conversely, if I really don't need all that extra bandwidth then why should I be paying extra for it?

For example, in my business I use a whole lot more bandwidth at certain times of the year. My business is rather seasonal so I would probably benefit from a plan where I pay a lower rate for my internet service when I'm not using it as much (and not bringing in as much revenue either).
Click to expand...

That's not a dumb question but it's not really what the net neutrality debate is about. Cable companies charging for the level of usage isn't the issue. They currently can and will be able to do so in the future. Like you said, that makes sense. If I'm downloading things constantly and my neighbor isn't that is ridiculous to pretend both should pay the same amount.

The net neutrality debate is over "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" and cable companies charging companies that provide services through the internet in order to access the fast lane.
Using your business as an example, if you pay for 30 Mbps internet connection and your business uses a lot of video conferencing services, should the cable company restrict your video conferencing to 10 Mbps unless you video conferencing company pays Cox a fee? You pay for the amount you use and you pay for a certain speed.

It's basically cable providers using their control over how those services are delivered in order to get a piece of the action. Rentiers are looked down on derision for good reason by almost every economic school of thought. They basically receive additional money by providing no added value.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
How many broadband options do you have where you live? I would suspect at best you have either cable which would be either Time Warner or Comcast, and you have the option of much slower DSL through your local Telco. Not exactly a litany of choices.
Click to expand...



I think the choice is cable monopoly internet or verizon monoply internet, with some att monopoly uverse options.
 
ARealConservative said:
buzz words can exist for decades. network neutrality is not a legally defined term.
Click to expand...

I'd say Net Neutrality is a theory and a principle. You're right, it's not legally defined either. So it pretty much doesn't exist. Which will end up a lot like the theory of communism. We all know how well that worked.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Net Neutrality is not a buzzword. Its been around for over a decade.
Click to expand...

How it is being used by one political party? Yes it is a buzzword, as it really is different from the idea that has been around as long as it has.
Hell, it is actually in opposition to the idea simply because it is about implementing Gov control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom