Al Franken takes dummy Ted Cruz to School

[CrusaderFrank]

“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.”

That's Franken's quote, he admits there's no problem, so why do we need government to violate our rights to correct a non-problem???

Because cable companies want two speeds, a fast lane, and a slow lane. Right now the internet is a level playing field, which means start-up companies can supplant companies by having the superior product. That's how Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

Start up companies will not be able to compete, which will remove innovation from the internet. If we had two speeds before, we'd all be stuck on Myspace now, or watching Google video instead of youtube. Companies like youtube would not exist. Right now it's an open playing field, where we get to choose which product is superior.

Start up companies?? What the fuck are you babbling about??? What are they starting up? Wireless? Fiber? What? Telcos?

It's on open playing field because the government stayed the fuck out and the price on making a phone call collapsed to a fraction of a cent.

“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.”

That's Franken's quote, he admits there's no problem, so why do we need government to violate our rights to correct a non-problem???

Because cable companies want two speeds, a fast lane, and a slow lane. Right now the internet is a level playing field, which means start-up companies can supplant companies by having the superior product. That's how Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

I already pay more for a higher speed. That's not the point.

Youtube started out as 3 guys living over a pizza parlor. Without Net Neutrality, they would have never been able to compete with Google video on the fast lane. Right now we have a level playing field, where we get to choose the superior product. It's really not that hard to understand, Frank.

You're making less sense than Franken. We have a wide open Internet where ISP's are killing each other to deliver lower prices and increased bandwidth. How is that a problem that needs Franken and Obama to fix it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

as always the facts are to much for your fevered brain to handle

The fact that you are a feral baboon, mindlessly flinging shit?

Nah, that fact is easy to handle.

{. "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."} - some juicy slander from Harry Truman.

You thought you were the first of the demagogues for your filthy party, dinja?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're making less sense than Franken. We have a wide open Internet where ISP's are killing each other to deliver lower prices and increased bandwidth. How is that a problem that needs Franken and Obama to fix it?

No one EVER got a kickback from an open an honest business engaged in fierce competition. Now a nice government created monopoly provides LOTS of kickbacks.

Once you understand that Obama is a racketeer, every action he takes makes perfect sense.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because cable companies want two speeds, a fast lane, and a slow lane. Right now the internet is a level playing field, which means start-up companies can supplant companies by having the superior product. That's how Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

Start up companies will not be able to compete, which will remove innovation from the internet. If we had two speeds before, we'd all be stuck on Myspace now, or watching Google video instead of youtube. Companies like youtube would not exist. Right now it's an open playing field, where we get to choose which product is superior.

Start up companies?? What the fuck are you babbling about??? What are they starting up? Wireless? Fiber? What? Telcos?

It's on open playing field because the government stayed the fuck out and the price on making a phone call collapsed to a fraction of a cent.

“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.”

That's Franken's quote, he admits there's no problem, so why do we need government to violate our rights to correct a non-problem???

Because cable companies want two speeds, a fast lane, and a slow lane. Right now the internet is a level playing field, which means start-up companies can supplant companies by having the superior product. That's how Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

I already pay more for a higher speed. That's not the point.

Youtube started out as 3 guys living over a pizza parlor. Without Net Neutrality, they would have never been able to compete with Google video on the fast lane. Right now we have a level playing field, where we get to choose the superior product. It's really not that hard to understand, Frank.

You're making less sense than Franken. We have a wide open Internet where ISP's are killing each other to deliver lower prices and increased bandwidth. How is that a problem that needs Franken and Obama to fix it?

the problem is we are free to say whatever we want about oba and Franken and they can't stop us.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because cable companies want two speeds, a fast lane, and a slow lane. Right now the internet is a level playing field, which means start-up companies can supplant companies by having the superior product. That's how Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

Start up companies will not be able to compete, which will remove innovation from the internet. If we had two speeds before, we'd all be stuck on Myspace now, or watching Google video instead of youtube. Companies like youtube would not exist. Right now it's an open playing field, where we get to choose which product is superior.

Start up companies?? What the fuck are you babbling about??? What are they starting up? Wireless? Fiber? What? Telcos?

It's on open playing field because the government stayed the fuck out and the price on making a phone call collapsed to a fraction of a cent.

“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.”

That's Franken's quote, he admits there's no problem, so why do we need government to violate our rights to correct a non-problem???

Because cable companies want two speeds, a fast lane, and a slow lane. Right now the internet is a level playing field, which means start-up companies can supplant companies by having the superior product. That's how Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

I already pay more for a higher speed. That's not the point.

Youtube started out as 3 guys living over a pizza parlor. Without Net Neutrality, they would have never been able to compete with Google video on the fast lane. Right now we have a level playing field, where we get to choose the superior product. It's really not that hard to understand, Frank.

You're making less sense than Franken. We have a wide open Internet where ISP's are killing each other to deliver lower prices and increased bandwidth. How is that a problem that needs Franken and Obama to fix it?

the problem is we are free to say whatever we want about oba and Franken and they can't stop us.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

Start up companies will not be able to compete, which will remove innovation from the internet. If we had two speeds before, we'd all be stuck on Myspace now, or watching Google video instead of youtube. Companies like youtube would not exist. Right now it's an open playing field, where we get to choose which product is superior.

Start up companies?? What the fuck are you babbling about??? What are they starting up? Wireless? Fiber? What? Telcos?

It's on open playing field because the government stayed the fuck out and the price on making a phone call collapsed to a fraction of a cent.

“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.”

That's Franken's quote, he admits there's no problem, so why do we need government to violate our rights to correct a non-problem???

Because cable companies want two speeds, a fast lane, and a slow lane. Right now the internet is a level playing field, which means start-up companies can supplant companies by having the superior product. That's how Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

I already pay more for a higher speed. That's not the point.

Youtube started out as 3 guys living over a pizza parlor. Without Net Neutrality, they would have never been able to compete with Google video on the fast lane. Right now we have a level playing field, where we get to choose the superior product. It's really not that hard to understand, Frank.

You're making less sense than Franken. We have a wide open Internet where ISP's are killing each other to deliver lower prices and increased bandwidth. How is that a problem that needs Franken and Obama to fix it?

the problem is we are free to say whatever we want about oba and Franken and they can't stop us.

Wowza, that's some debating skills you've got there.

 

[kaz]

I do love a good liberal circle jerk. And the more inane the point, the harder you pump.

bold statement from the party of inanity

I don't belong to a party

 

[Carla_Danger]

Because cable companies want two speeds, a fast lane, and a slow lane. Right now the internet is a level playing field, which means start-up companies can supplant companies by having the superior product. That's how Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

Start up companies will not be able to compete, which will remove innovation from the internet. If we had two speeds before, we'd all be stuck on Myspace now, or watching Google video instead of youtube. Companies like youtube would not exist. Right now it's an open playing field, where we get to choose which product is superior.

Start up companies?? What the fuck are you babbling about??? What are they starting up? Wireless? Fiber? What? Telcos?

It's on open playing field because the government stayed the fuck out and the price on making a phone call collapsed to a fraction of a cent.

“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.”

That's Franken's quote, he admits there's no problem, so why do we need government to violate our rights to correct a non-problem???

Because cable companies want two speeds, a fast lane, and a slow lane. Right now the internet is a level playing field, which means start-up companies can supplant companies by having the superior product. That's how Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

I already pay more for a higher speed. That's not the point.

Youtube started out as 3 guys living over a pizza parlor. Without Net Neutrality, they would have never been able to compete with Google video on the fast lane. Right now we have a level playing field, where we get to choose the superior product. It's really not that hard to understand, Frank.

You're making less sense than Franken. We have a wide open Internet where ISP's are killing each other to deliver lower prices and increased bandwidth. How is that a problem that needs Franken and Obama to fix it?

You still don't understand what Net Neutrality is.

The first thing you need to do is learn about Net Neutrality. Hopefully this will help.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

Start up companies will not be able to compete, which will remove innovation from the internet. If we had two speeds before, we'd all be stuck on Myspace now, or watching Google video instead of youtube. Companies like youtube would not exist. Right now it's an open playing field, where we get to choose which product is superior.

Start up companies?? What the fuck are you babbling about??? What are they starting up? Wireless? Fiber? What? Telcos?

It's on open playing field because the government stayed the fuck out and the price on making a phone call collapsed to a fraction of a cent.

“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.”

That's Franken's quote, he admits there's no problem, so why do we need government to violate our rights to correct a non-problem???

Because cable companies want two speeds, a fast lane, and a slow lane. Right now the internet is a level playing field, which means start-up companies can supplant companies by having the superior product. That's how Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

I already pay more for a higher speed. That's not the point.

Youtube started out as 3 guys living over a pizza parlor. Without Net Neutrality, they would have never been able to compete with Google video on the fast lane. Right now we have a level playing field, where we get to choose the superior product. It's really not that hard to understand, Frank.

You're making less sense than Franken. We have a wide open Internet where ISP's are killing each other to deliver lower prices and increased bandwidth. How is that a problem that needs Franken and Obama to fix it?

You still don't understand what Net Neutrality is.

The first thing you need to do is learn about Net Neutrality. Hopefully this will help.

So it's wrong to charge extra for better and faster?

You see now why Progressive economies are the world's poorest.

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[SwimExpert]

Should grocery stores charge apple farmers extra if I eat so many apples that apples end up being the top cause of baggage expenses, travel, and cashier labor expenses?

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intern...EA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

 

[Avatar4321]

Start up companies will not be able to compete, which will remove innovation from the internet. If we had two speeds before, we'd all be stuck on Myspace now, or watching Google video instead of youtube. Companies like youtube would not exist. Right now it's an open playing field, where we get to choose which product is superior.

Start up companies?? What the fuck are you babbling about??? What are they starting up? Wireless? Fiber? What? Telcos?

It's on open playing field because the government stayed the fuck out and the price on making a phone call collapsed to a fraction of a cent.

Because cable companies want two speeds, a fast lane, and a slow lane. Right now the internet is a level playing field, which means start-up companies can supplant companies by having the superior product. That's how Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

I already pay more for a higher speed. That's not the point.

Youtube started out as 3 guys living over a pizza parlor. Without Net Neutrality, they would have never been able to compete with Google video on the fast lane. Right now we have a level playing field, where we get to choose the superior product. It's really not that hard to understand, Frank.

You're making less sense than Franken. We have a wide open Internet where ISP's are killing each other to deliver lower prices and increased bandwidth. How is that a problem that needs Franken and Obama to fix it?

the problem is we are free to say whatever we want about oba and Franken and they can't stop us.

Wowza, that's some debating skills you've got there.

you should see me when I'm actually debating and not just stating a fact

 

[eagle1462010]

This is part of the case history that has led to the new law being proposed..........The FCC used this in court to argue its case..........Courts don't care about might, if, and maybe comments..........they only care about facts that justify that abuse has happened. When the laws were changed in 1996..........FCC went from title II to title I jurisdiction. Even so, the FCC has had regulatory authority since then..............

The whole battle is over the FCC's fear of what this entire thread is about......That the providers may, maybe, if, do the things this Op says they will................but but but in court they didn't back it up.

In the ruling, they exceeded their authority under the 1996 law.............and made regulations that WERE NOT ALLOWED in the 1996 law...........The court stated that it might sound good and even be right............but the FCC can't arbitrarily change the law..........

This is why this is going on...............to basically change the FCC control back to title II authorization. So they can make legal INTERNET OPENNESS Regulations which basically say ALL EDGE PROVIDERS GET THE SAME SPEED......................

1. The argument that going to title II is going to end the world is crazy to me............as the FCC used to be title II anyway.............It was changed in 1996.

2. The entire argument is over forcing the Internet Openness regulation to ensure edge users get the same speed.

3. I haven't read the new law, to see what they may be hiding...........but from what I'm reading in the court case ensuring same speeds to edge users..........ultimately ensures we have the right to chose our sites at the speeds we pay for from our internet providers............If I buy so much speed.............then I am purchasing that speed...........and providers shouldn't have the right to slow down MY CHOICE OF SITES I visit on the internet............That is my choice...............Not theirs............and I'm paying for a set internet speed no matter what site I choose to visit.

The Commission purports to fear that broadband providers
might discriminate against, or even block, the Internet traffic of
specific edge providers or classes of edge providers, perhaps8
because broadband providers offer some competing services or
because they might charge certain edge providers for premium
services. The majority puts it even more starkly, asserting that
the Commission found that “broadband providers have the
technical and economic ability to impose . . . restrictions” on
edge providers. Majority Op. at 38 (emphasis added). But the
Commission never actually made such a finding. Its conclusions
are littered with “may,” “if,” and “might.” For example,
according to the Commission, a broadband provider:
• “may have economic incentives to block or
otherwise disadvantage specific edge providers”
• “might use this power to benefit its own or
affiliated offerings at the expense of unaffiliated
offerings”
• “may act to benefit edge providers that have paid
it to exclude rivals”
• “may have incentives to increase revenues by
charging edge providers”6
• “might withhold or decline to expand capacity in
order to ‘squeeze’ non-prioritized traffic”
25 F.C.C.R. at 17915-22 ¶¶ 21-29. To be sure, the majority
correctly observes that we should defer to an agency’s
“predictive judgments as to the economic effect of a rule,”
National Telephone Cooperative Ass’n v. FCC, 563 F.3d 536,
541 (D.C. Cir. 2009), but deference to such a judgment must be
based on some logic and evidence, not sheer speculation.

 

[eagle1462010]

BTW...........the court basically said that the FCC couldn't prove that limiting speeds to edge providers has happened................

My question is this...............If this is proven.............can the edge providers sue the providers themselves already. If that is the case would the providers not do it, fearing costly lawsuits.

Otherwise..........the new law should simply state.......that all edge providers get the same speed on the net............which would overturn the whole thing once and for all without a massive bill. The Congress just needs to pass that simple statement as an amendment to the 1996 law.

 

[eagle1462010]

As more business enters the market for internet service providers...............the competition is growing trying to attract customers to higher speeds as evident in the court ruling..............

The Commission, moreover, does not address whether the
trend in the broadband market is towards more or less
competition. Obviously the deployment of broadband
infrastructure is a capital-intensive process, and it should not be
surprising if, during a period of expansion, some areas are
served by fewer competitors than others. But there is no
evidence in the record suggesting that broadband providers are
carving up territory or avoiding head-to-head competition. At
least anecdotally, the opposite seems to be true. Google has now
entered the broadband market as a direct competitor:14
Google’s ultra-high-speed Internet service may finally
be scaring the big Internet providers into action.
Following Google’s announcement that it will expand
into Austin, Texas, AT&T announced it will offer fiber
Internet in the city, and Time Warner Cable announced
it would offer citywide wireless Internet service.
But smaller companies are also trying to head off
Google before the company even makes an
announcement in their communities. This week, for
example, the Lawrence, Kansas-based Internet
provider Wicked Broadband began taking pre-orders
for a residential fiber Internet service with speeds to
rival Google Fiber’s.

 

[eagle1462010]

My concern with this hypothesis is that the phrase “effectively
unusable” is subject to manipulation. I think it should mean that
whatever speed is generally offered to most edge providers is the
minimum necessary to be effectively usable. After all, it is
artificial to distinguish between what is “effective” and what
consumers expect. If a faster speed were to become standard, we
would likely consider a slower speed to be effectively unusable.
Thus, while there is a possibility that a “fast lane” Internet
service might be offered on a non-common carriage basis, the
service that most users receive under this rule would still have
to be offered as common carriage, at a regulated price of zero.
In any event, as the majority recognizes, the Commission did not18
make this argument, so the anti-blocking rules must fall.9
* * *
This regulation essentially provides an economic preference
to a politically powerful constituency, a constituency that, as is
true of typical rent seekers, wishes protection against market
forces. The Commission does not have authority to grant such
a favor

 

[daws101]

as always the facts are to much for your fevered brain to handle

The fact that you are a feral baboon, mindlessly flinging shit?

Nah, that fact is easy to handle.

{. "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."} - some juicy slander from Harry Truman.

You thought you were the first of the demagogues for your filthy party, dinja?

link please ...dick head

 

[daws101]

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

Start up companies will not be able to compete, which will remove innovation from the internet. If we had two speeds before, we'd all be stuck on Myspace now, or watching Google video instead of youtube. Companies like youtube would not exist. Right now it's an open playing field, where we get to choose which product is superior.

Start up companies?? What the fuck are you babbling about??? What are they starting up? Wireless? Fiber? What? Telcos?

It's on open playing field because the government stayed the fuck out and the price on making a phone call collapsed to a fraction of a cent.

“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.”

That's Franken's quote, he admits there's no problem, so why do we need government to violate our rights to correct a non-problem???

Because cable companies want two speeds, a fast lane, and a slow lane. Right now the internet is a level playing field, which means start-up companies can supplant companies by having the superior product. That's how Facebook supplanted Myspace.

Do you use tin cans and string to access the Internet? You sound totally clueless on the entire matter.

So you have to pay more for higher speed, what's wrong with that?

I already pay more for a higher speed. That's not the point.

Youtube started out as 3 guys living over a pizza parlor. Without Net Neutrality, they would have never been able to compete with Google video on the fast lane. Right now we have a level playing field, where we get to choose the superior product. It's really not that hard to understand, Frank.

You're making less sense than Franken. We have a wide open Internet where ISP's are killing each other to deliver lower prices and increased bandwidth. How is that a problem that needs Franken and Obama to fix it?

the problem is we are free to say whatever we want about oba and Franken and they can't stop us.

who's they?
that's and odd statement as your faith cannot be criticized by it's members.

 

[daws101]

I do love a good liberal circle jerk. And the more inane the point, the harder you pump.

bold statement from the party of inanity

I don't belong to a party

right .....

 

[JoeNormal]

I do love a good liberal circle jerk. And the more inane the point, the harder you pump.

bold statement from the party of inanity

I don't belong to a party

right .....

It's possible he's telling the truth. He probably considers himself libertarian which to the outsider looks like a republican only more dickish.