Al Franken takes dummy Ted Cruz to School

[idb]

Please explain this 'welfare to Netflix' meme?

Please learn to read, then peruse the thread.

It would have been shorter to type "I can't".

 

[Dana7360]

Actually it's the government that says it's not broken and leave it the same way it's been from the beginning.

It's the republicans and some big business that wants to change the internet from what we've had all this time.

They want to create a 2 tiered system. It will slow down most sites and speed up some. Those that are faster will be more expensive so you will be paying more.

Stop saying the government is trying to break the internet. It's the republicans and big business who are doing that.

And that 2 tiered system will stifle innovation.

Yes it will.

If we had that 2 tier situation from the beginning, we wouldn't have eBay, YouTube, Facebook, Netflix and a long list of other sites that we all use today. The people who started those sites weren't rich and they couldn't have paid for the faster tier. They probably wouldn't have even created the sites. No point if they're going to lose money.

We would have a very inferior internet than what we have today if we had that 2 tier system from the beginning.

I can't understand why anyone would want to stifle innovation and business that way.

 

[orogenicman]

First of all, the courts have stated that the internet can be regulated under title II. Secondly, placing it under Title II doesn't change the internet as it is today. It provides more consumer protections against corporate take over of the base function of the internet, which is to provide equality among users.

The internet is currently a title I utility. This means that it is loosely regulated. CHANGING it to a title II utility as Net Neutrality seeks to do makes it a tightly regulated utility.

You of the left see more government as better, and total government as perfect - I get it. But Cruz is right on the nose that this is the same shit as Obamacare, democrats are flat out lying about the issue and what you propose. You are NOT leaving things the same, you seek a drastic change that is not in the interest of the consumer.

{
The other road — which relies on Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 — would resuscitate decades-old public-utility regulations and enable the FCC (and a new layer of state agencies) to regulate prices and micromanage Internet services. This is the road back in time that the president endorsed.

Each year, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) prepares an “Investment Heroes” report identifying the companies that are investing the most in the United States. In 2013, the telecom and cable industry led the list with $46 billion in investment. Compare that with Europe, where Title II-style regulations have suffocated broadband innovation and investment. Indeed, even the president admitted in his announcement that “network investment remained strong” under the current rules.}

Obama s plan to regulate the Internet would do more harm than good - The Washington Post

Is Making Broadband a Utility the Key to Saving the Internet

As it stands today, Internet service providers are classified as information services, which means the FCC cannot regulate them as it would landline phones, which are considered telecommunication utilities and under the FCC’s purview. Reclassifying ISPs as utilities (like common carrier telephone services) would potentially give the FCC far greater control over ISPs and, potentially, help the FCC ensure an open Internet.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It would have been shorter to type "I can't".

Though not accurate.

What did the hate sites tell you the issue is?

 

[idb]

Prioritisation will be achieved by slowing others' stuff down...not by speeding your stuff up.

And you know this how? You made it up.

It makes simple commercial sense.
Why invest in better infrastructure when you can just throttle back on those less favoured?

Yes comrade, you are right. In fact they will do it in order to make the rest of the internet slower. Once again, you recognized a chance for the bourgeois to oppress the proletariat.

You pulled it out of your ass as a blind accusation, and you are wrong. In the real world rather than your Marxist one, they are building out bandwidth like crazy and this will put more money into that effort. What do I know, I'm an expert in networks for fortune 100 companies? You post on the internet and had a baseless anti- capitalist attack, obviously you know more.

What is fascinating to me is how you communist drones just drag out those accusations based on nothing and state them as fact. I realize you don't actually process any of this.

My anti-capitalist communist droning attacks are more or less baseless than your slavering adherence to the total fairness of The Market?
I wonder.

That's because you're a Marxist.

In your world you have to trust the government to take care of you. In my world, I have to trust me to take care of myself. The contrived choices you present are fundamentally different. I don't have to trust anyone to take care of me. You are entirely dependent on it.

My God...it's like you know me!
Your world must be so easy to understand seeing as how it only comes in two shades.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is Making Broadband a Utility the Key to Saving the Internet

As it stands today, Internet service providers are classified as information services, which means the FCC cannot regulate them as it would landline phones, which are considered telecommunication utilities and under the FCC’s purview. Reclassifying ISPs as utilities (like common carrier telephone services) would potentially give the FCC far greater control over ISPs and, potentially, help the FCC ensure an open Internet.

The internet is open now.

Put the FCC in charge of it and it will be like Ma Bell in the 1960's.

Only a complete fucking fool would support that.

 

[idb]

It would have been shorter to type "I can't".

Though not accurate.

What did the hate sites tell you the issue is?

I don't know any but I'm sure you'll be able to provide some links.

 

[orogenicman]

Is Making Broadband a Utility the Key to Saving the Internet

As it stands today, Internet service providers are classified as information services, which means the FCC cannot regulate them as it would landline phones, which are considered telecommunication utilities and under the FCC’s purview. Reclassifying ISPs as utilities (like common carrier telephone services) would potentially give the FCC far greater control over ISPs and, potentially, help the FCC ensure an open Internet.

The internet is open now.

Put the FCC in charge of it and it will be like Ma Bell in the 1960's.

Only a complete fucking fool would support that.

The internet is open now because of net neutrality. The providers want to end it. Only a complete fucking fool would support that.

 

[Dana7360]

What seemingly everyone fails to understand, or just isn't paying attention to, is the fact that the FCC is already engaging in regulatory behavior and is carving out sweetheart regulatory deals that specifically cater to large corporate interests at the expense of consumers and small business. These plans are moving forward as we speak, and if they come into effect it will be a big lose for everyone except Comcast, Time Warner, etc.

I preserving support net neutrality. I don't necessarily support Obama's approach to classify internet as a utility. In fact, I'd prefer an option that expressly keeps the FCC's hands away from it, because they clearly are not interested in preserving net neutrality and are deep in the pockets of the large telcom players.

But I ask everyone this simple question: Seeing as the FCC is going to bring about regulations one way or the other, which regulations are better? Plan A, where a few large corporate interests can strangle whatever they want whenever they want? Or Plan B, that necessitates that content not be discriminated based on a few corporations' whims?

Exactly.

The FCC has always regulated the internet. When the internet started, the only way to get on it was through the public phone lines. Which the FCC regulates so they've regulated it from the beginning.

What has changed is that big business has been able to put their people in those jobs at the FCC and buy off politicians.

All Obama is doing is reclassifying the internet so that it remains the same open internet we've known all along.

 

[Kosh]

First of all, the courts have stated that the internet can be regulated under title II. Secondly, placing it under Title II doesn't change the internet as it is today. It provides more consumer protections against corporate take over of the base function of the internet, which is to provide equality among users.

The internet is currently a title I utility. This means that it is loosely regulated. CHANGING it to a title II utility as Net Neutrality seeks to do makes it a tightly regulated utility.

You of the left see more government as better, and total government as perfect - I get it. But Cruz is right on the nose that this is the same shit as Obamacare, democrats are flat out lying about the issue and what you propose. You are NOT leaving things the same, you seek a drastic change that is not in the interest of the consumer.

{
The other road — which relies on Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 — would resuscitate decades-old public-utility regulations and enable the FCC (and a new layer of state agencies) to regulate prices and micromanage Internet services. This is the road back in time that the president endorsed.

Each year, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) prepares an “Investment Heroes” report identifying the companies that are investing the most in the United States. In 2013, the telecom and cable industry led the list with $46 billion in investment. Compare that with Europe, where Title II-style regulations have suffocated broadband innovation and investment. Indeed, even the president admitted in his announcement that “network investment remained strong” under the current rules.}

Obama s plan to regulate the Internet would do more harm than good - The Washington Post

Is Making Broadband a Utility the Key to Saving the Internet

As it stands today, Internet service providers are classified as information services, which means the FCC cannot regulate them as it would landline phones, which are considered telecommunication utilities and under the FCC’s purview. Reclassifying ISPs as utilities (like common carrier telephone services) would potentially give the FCC far greater control over ISPs and, potentially, help the FCC ensure an open Internet.

Leave it to the far left to post a far left blog that contradicts their own stance..

 

[Kosh]

What seemingly everyone fails to understand, or just isn't paying attention to, is the fact that the FCC is already engaging in regulatory behavior and is carving out sweetheart regulatory deals that specifically cater to large corporate interests at the expense of consumers and small business. These plans are moving forward as we speak, and if they come into effect it will be a big lose for everyone except Comcast, Time Warner, etc.

I preserving support net neutrality. I don't necessarily support Obama's approach to classify internet as a utility. In fact, I'd prefer an option that expressly keeps the FCC's hands away from it, because they clearly are not interested in preserving net neutrality and are deep in the pockets of the large telcom players.

But I ask everyone this simple question: Seeing as the FCC is going to bring about regulations one way or the other, which regulations are better? Plan A, where a few large corporate interests can strangle whatever they want whenever they want? Or Plan B, that necessitates that content not be discriminated based on a few corporations' whims?

Exactly.

The FCC has always regulated the internet. When the internet started, the only way to get on it was through the public phone lines. Which the FCC regulates so they've regulated it from the beginning.

What has changed is that big business has been able to put their people in those jobs at the FCC and buy off politicians.

All Obama is doing is reclassifying the internet so that it remains the same open internet we've known all along.

Wrong! But that is par for the course!

Obama wants the government to control the internet you know like they do in Communist China..

 

[Papageorgio]

Net neutrality means keeping it the fucking same as it is right now.

Keeping it the fucking same as it is right now by completely changing it!

War is peace, freedom is slavery.

You democrats and your doublethink.....

Changing it, my ass.

So why do we need a law to keep it the same?

Because they're trying to put in fast lanes. They want to create a 2 tiered system. What part of that don't you understand?

What a bitch, I was asking a question. What is your issue?

I have no opinion on net neutrality. I am trying to get info, not to worry, I'll ask people that aren't bitchy. Have a good night and I hope you get that stick out of your ass.

 

[SwimExpert]

Net Neutrality isn't about the ISP, it's about the backbone providers.

You say that as if the two were mutually exclusive.

Also, if what you were saying was even true, then explain why Comcast wants to charge companies like Netflix?

You don't keep things the same by passing laws to change them.

That's such an incredibly vague statement, it's meaningless at best, blatantly false at worse. I'll give you an example: Homeostasis.

Homeostasis is your body's natural reactions designed to keep everything "the same." That is, your body's attempt to maintain a stable internal environment, in response to new circumstances acting upon it. For example, your body at this moment is maintaining a certain internal temperature through a series of temperature regulatory functions. If you were put into a hot environment, your body's ability to rid itself of excess heat would be a new circumstance to which it would respond by initiating vaso-dilation. Dilation of blood vessels will allow more heat to escape to the skin's surface. However, it will also result in lower blood pressure. This lowered blood pressure will possibly result in yet another homeostatic response of raising your heart rate. By raising the heart rate, the body can help ensure that adequate amounts of blood continue to move through your blood vessels despite the lowered blood pressure. This may in turn result in yet another homeostatic response in the form of elevating your respiration rate, to ensure adequate oxygenation of your blood. Through the homeostatic response, your body responds to new circumstances, changing certain details, but maintaining stability of the things that matter most.

 

[orogenicman]

First of all, the courts have stated that the internet can be regulated under title II. Secondly, placing it under Title II doesn't change the internet as it is today. It provides more consumer protections against corporate take over of the base function of the internet, which is to provide equality among users.

The internet is currently a title I utility. This means that it is loosely regulated. CHANGING it to a title II utility as Net Neutrality seeks to do makes it a tightly regulated utility.

You of the left see more government as better, and total government as perfect - I get it. But Cruz is right on the nose that this is the same shit as Obamacare, democrats are flat out lying about the issue and what you propose. You are NOT leaving things the same, you seek a drastic change that is not in the interest of the consumer.

{
The other road — which relies on Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 — would resuscitate decades-old public-utility regulations and enable the FCC (and a new layer of state agencies) to regulate prices and micromanage Internet services. This is the road back in time that the president endorsed.

Each year, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) prepares an “Investment Heroes” report identifying the companies that are investing the most in the United States. In 2013, the telecom and cable industry led the list with $46 billion in investment. Compare that with Europe, where Title II-style regulations have suffocated broadband innovation and investment. Indeed, even the president admitted in his announcement that “network investment remained strong” under the current rules.}

Obama s plan to regulate the Internet would do more harm than good - The Washington Post

Is Making Broadband a Utility the Key to Saving the Internet

As it stands today, Internet service providers are classified as information services, which means the FCC cannot regulate them as it would landline phones, which are considered telecommunication utilities and under the FCC’s purview. Reclassifying ISPs as utilities (like common carrier telephone services) would potentially give the FCC far greater control over ISPs and, potentially, help the FCC ensure an open Internet.

Leave it to the far left to post a far left blog that contradicts their own stance..

I find it ironic that anyone who disagrees with you is "far left". Perhaps you want to make this a political issue. I hate to tell you but it really isn't. Now, I know this might burst your bubble, but so be it. Get over yourself already.

 

[Stephanie]

Net neutrality means keeping it the fucking same as it is right now.

Keeping it the fucking same as it is right now by completely changing it!

War is peace, freedom is slavery.

You democrats and your doublethink.....

Changing it, my ass.

So why do we need a law to keep it the same?

Because they're trying to put in fast lanes. They want to create a 2 tiered system. What part of that don't you understand?

What a bitch, I was asking a question. What is your issue?

I have no opinion on net neutrality. I am trying to get info, not to worry, I'll ask people that aren't bitchy. Have a good night and I hope you get that stick out of your ass.

no use it's permanent.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If this is just about Netflix and Apple why are so many other major companies in favor of Net Neutrality?

What businesses are against Net Neutrality? The Major ISPs and thats it. Why is that?

The content providers are in favor of new law which ensures a free ride for them. The backbone operators seek to recoup the cost of their investments by charging the heavy media users - specifically Google, Amazon, NetFlix, and Blizzard, for the load they place on the system.

Oh, and out here in the Peoples Republic, we weigh trucks and charge them based on that weight for using certain roads - so we are talking exactly the same thing here.

And yet, in South Korea, one can get Ethernet speed internet for about $29/month. Recoup the cost of their investments? What investments? We have the slowest, and the most expensive internet in the industrial world, run by some truly incompetent people (I.e., Comcast).

NO NO NO NO NO...We have the slowest internet in the world because Comcast doesnt have enough power. We should give the company voted the worst company in America more power and things will turn around.

Once they have a monopoly things will get better right?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Net neutrality means keeping it the fucking same as it is right now.

Keeping it the fucking same as it is right now by completely changing it!

War is peace, freedom is slavery.

You democrats and your doublethink.....

Changing it, my ass.

So why do we need a law to keep it the same?

Because they're trying to put in fast lanes. They want to create a 2 tiered system. What part of that don't you understand?

What a bitch, I was asking a question. What is your issue?

I have no opinion on net neutrality. I am trying to get info, not to worry, I'll ask people that aren't bitchy. Have a good night and I hope you get that stick out of your ass.

I apologize. You're right, that was rude. I thought you were being sarcastic, and I was getting tired of repeating myself.

This might help.

 

[The Rabbi]

When has government regulation ever made anything better?

Net neutrality means keeping it the fucking same as it is right now.

Why do we need regulation not to change something?
Do you understand that simple concept? If it aint broke, dont fix it.

 

[SwimExpert]

When has government regulation ever made anything better?

Net neutrality means keeping it the fucking same as it is right now.

Why do we need regulation not to change something?
Do you understand that simple concept? If it aint broke, dont fix it.

Tell that to the Time Warner and Comcast.

 

[Discombobulated]

Al Franken struggles to explain net neutrality to Ted Cruz: You are ‘completely wrong’

Explaining a moderately complicated policy to an extremist... a struggle.

But Franken told CNN’s Candy Crowley that Cruz had the concept of net neutrality “completely wrong.”

“CNN’s website, [and] a blogger in Duluth, Minnesota travels at the same speed… The New York Times, their website travels the same speed,” Franken pointed out. “That’s the way that it’s been from the beginning. And we want to keep it that way.”

“He has it completely wrong, he just doesn’t understand what this issue is,” the Minnesota Democrat said of Cruz. “We’ve had net neutrality the entire history of the Internet.”

Franken observed that “Obamacare was government program that fixed something, that changed things. This is about reclassifying something so it stays the same. This would keep things exactly the same as they’ve been.”

Watch the video below from CNN’s State of the Union, broadcast Nov. 16, 2014.

Teaching Ted Cruz anything must be an extremely daunting task.