Al Franken takes dummy Ted Cruz to School

[HenryBHough]

Perhaps you didn't notice, but the government doesn't control what you talk about on the phone.

T'is true.

For now.

They're just content to monitor your every word. Nothing wrong with that unless you have something to hide, right?

 

[RDD_1210]

Great. Net neutrality does not regulate the internet. It simply prohibits companies like Comcast from restricting the free and fair exchange of ideas.

False, it changes the internet from a title I utility to a title II utility - allowing the FCC to regulate it the way they do telephone and cell phone service.

Having the FCC regulate the internet is the stupidest idea leftists have ever come up with.

How much stock do you own in Comcast anyway?

 

[mudwhistle]

Net neutrality is just a distraction so Obama can start censorship on the internet.

It'll be one more boondoggle hidden inside of tortured language. Massive increases in regulation.

Hey, trust the Democrats. They never lie!!

 

[TooTall]

False, it changes the internet from a title I utility to a title II utility - allowing the FCC to regulate it the way they do telephone and cell phone service.

Having the FCC regulate the internet is the stupidest idea leftists have ever come up with.

It establishes regulations that will prevent harmful changes. Doesn't change how anything would work. Cell phones are a good example. Perhaps you didn't notice, but the government doesn't control what you talk about on the phone.

It is my understanding that the government records what you say on the phone.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, it's not the heart of the issue at all. That's either a deliberate re-invention into a false claim or a profound lack of understanding. Hard to tell which.

In fact, it is entirely what the actual issue is.

I have a cable and internet plan that I pay for. I pay for the data I consume. My plan allows X usage, for a specific price per month. Content providers (like USMB, Netflix, etc) produce content, I consume it via the internet and pay for it.

USMB is not a content provider - you simply are ignorant of what the term mean.

If I consume Netflix, I'm the one doing the bandwidth consumption, not Netflix.

So, NetFlix sells you a subscription for $10 to stream unlimited video to you - this increases the bandwidth usage on the backbone (which is not your ISP - though I give up on trying to teach leftists even basic concepts) by about 75,000 times.

This is not a mistake, it is not an exaggeration - you read that right, the load placed on the backbone of the internet has increased 75,000 time - not percent, times - directly due to content providers such as Amazon Prime, NetFlix, Apple TV, Blizzard, and YouTube.

The amount that these huge users pay? Not a cent.

Verizon fought back, and said if they have to invest hundreds of billions into the backbone for NetFlix, then NetFlix has to help pay for it.

Now look, you have not a hint of a clue how technology works or the factors involved, you approach this as a partisan hack, promoting the goals of your party.

But I live and breath this - as I type this, I am monitoring packet distribution, rebroadcasts, route optimizations, fiber load, etc. You want to pretend that you have a clue, but you don't.

I'm paying for that consumed bandwidth. What ISPs like Comcast want to do is to double dip the payment pots, and collect double payment by charging me for my consumption, and then charging content providers for distribution. It's digital racketeering. And it's a behavior that will be highly detrimental to small businesses and consumers alike. And perhaps most evil of all is the fact that companies like Comcast aren't merely providers of internet connectivity, they also are content producers as well, which creates a huge conflict of interest. Do you think the public will benefit from Comcast throttling news websites with the exception of NBC?

Your question is as ignorant as asking why a store has to pay a freight train to haul goods - since you are paying for the goods when you buy them. NetFlix needs to pay transport costs, just as every other business does.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Cruz would wipe the floor with him. how funny

I can't believe Ted Cruz would let his picture be taken that way. What was he thinking?

i cant believe you would let them photograph you mounting him....what were you thinking?....

 

[RDD_1210]

True net neutrality might be a good thing.

Government control over what it is allowed to "carry" is not.

But you'll get used to that.

Hey, folks in North Korea, Iran and China already have.

There is nothing about it that is a good thing.

If Verizon and Time Warner, et al. are prohibited from charging content providers for the bandwidth they consume, those backbone operators will simply stop upgrading switches and fiber.

Oh, and having the FCC regulate the internet will lower cost to the consumer in exactly the same way Obamacare lowered health care costs.

If you couldn't argue strawmen, what would you have left?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Net neutrality is just a distraction so Obama can start censorship on the internet.

It'll be one more boondoggle hidden inside of tortured language. Massive increases in regulation.

Hey, trust the Democrats. They never lie!!

Even with title II regulation, it would be impossible to censor content.

The players in this are the Wired crowd who fear they will lose their torrents and all the illegal movies, music and games they download. Then there are lefties, prompted by the desire to give welfare to Apple and NetFlix. All of this happens at the transport layer - there is no way of knowing what the content is, unless you capture packets and reassemble them - which no one is doing (except maybe the FBI covertly).

No, this is purely about welfare for NetFlix. Censorship has nothing to do with it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you couldn't argue strawmen, what would you have left?

If you had so much as a hint of a clue what you're talking about - you wouldn't be a leftist...

 

[mamooth]

Almost everyone, conservative and liberal, is for Net Neutrality, including most businesses. The exceptions are:

1. The big telecomms

2. The ODS kooks who autohate anything Obama supports.

Like others have said, Obama better be careful not mention that drinking Drano would be bad, since so many ODSers would try to prove him wrong.

 

[mudwhistle]

Net neutrality is just a distraction so Obama can start censorship on the internet.

It'll be one more boondoggle hidden inside of tortured language. Massive increases in regulation.

Hey, trust the Democrats. They never lie!!

Even with title II regulation, it would be impossible to censor content.

The players in this are the Wired crowd who fear they will lose their torrents and all the illegal movies, music and games they download. Then there are lefties, prompted by the desire to give welfare to Apple and NetFlix. All of this happens at the transport layer - there is no way of knowing what the content is, unless you capture packets and reassemble them - which no one is doing (except maybe the FBI covertly).

No, this is purely about welfare for NetFlix. Censorship has nothing to do with it.

Potential for government abuse

George Mason University fellow Adam Thierer has argued that "any government agency or process big enough to control a major sector of our economy will be prone to influence by those most affected by it", and that consequently "for all the talk we hear about how the FCC's move to impose Net Neutrality regulation is about 'putting consumers first' or 'preserving Net freedom and openness,' it's difficult to ignore the small armies of special interests who stand ready to exploit this new regulatory regime the same way they did telecom and broadcast industry regulation during decades past."[99]

Grant Babcock, in the libertarian magazine Reason, wrote in 2014 that U.S. government oversight of ISPs could allow government agencies like the NSA to pressure ISPs into handing over private communication data on their users. He noted that there was a history of U.S. governmental abuse of regulation, including the Federal Reserve forcing some banks in 2008 to accept Troubled Asset Relief Program funding by threatening to use their regulatory powers against non-compliant banks.[100]

Net neutrality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm sure I saw a clip of Michelle Obama advising kids not to drink cleaning products.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Net neutrality is just a distraction so Obama can start censorship on the internet.

It'll be one more boondoggle hidden inside of tortured language. Massive increases in regulation.

Hey, trust the Democrats. They never lie!!

Even with title II regulation, it would be impossible to censor content.

The players in this are the Wired crowd who fear they will lose their torrents and all the illegal movies, music and games they download. Then there are lefties, prompted by the desire to give welfare to Apple and NetFlix. All of this happens at the transport layer - there is no way of knowing what the content is, unless you capture packets and reassemble them - which no one is doing (except maybe the FBI covertly).

No, this is purely about welfare for NetFlix. Censorship has nothing to do with it.

Potential for government abuse

George Mason University fellow Adam Thierer has argued that "any government agency or process big enough to control a major sector of our economy will be prone to influence by those most affected by it", and that consequently "for all the talk we hear about how the FCC's move to impose Net Neutrality regulation is about 'putting consumers first' or 'preserving Net freedom and openness,' it's difficult to ignore the small armies of special interests who stand ready to exploit this new regulatory regime the same way they did telecom and broadcast industry regulation during decades past."[99]

Grant Babcock, in the libertarian magazine Reason, wrote in 2014 that U.S. government oversight of ISPs could allow government agencies like the NSA to pressure ISPs into handing over private communication data on their users. He noted that there was a history of U.S. governmental abuse of regulation, including the Federal Reserve forcing some banks in 2008 to accept Troubled Asset Relief Program funding by threatening to use their regulatory powers against non-compliant banks.[100]

Net neutrality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

You are not capable of understanding this issue. You ought to stop trying to,pretend that you are.

 

[mudwhistle]

So basically, Obama wants our phone records, he threatens providers with regulatory blackmail. He then obtains our phone records without a warrant.

 

[haissem123]

let's not get the issue confused with the worship of these so honorable and great thinking men. ? Do the republicians here actually think taking away net neutralitiy is a good idea for them or any of us besides big money ceos etc? I refuse to believe honest and wise men, american men, would give away so many freedoms for a faulty few's idiology or idiotology. what's left of our children will curse us all for our cowardice ignorance and greed.

 

[haissem123]

So basically, Obama wants our phone records, he threatens providers with regulatory blackmail. He then obtains our phone records without a warrant.

lol that's funny. it's obama again.damned that president. he's make the night come quicker in the winter too. lol.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Franken to Cruz.....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.”

Yeahbut now we have to change it because Obama likes it

 

[Bush92]

Minnesota is an embarrassment.

 

[haissem123]

So basically, Obama wants our phone records, he threatens providers with regulatory blackmail. He then obtains our phone records without a warrant.

you really don't see how stupid your posts that obama is in control of is at fault for everything? they've had our phone info and much more for decades silly rabbit. grow up and wise up.

 

[RDD_1210]

Look at it like this.

Lets say the internet is our highway system. Anyone is free to use the roads but if you do, you will have to pay tolls as a driver of those roads, but no one is discriminated against as long as you pay the fee to access those roads. (Just the same as anyone who wants to access the internet). Anyone can drive on these roads and visit any store, big or small.

Now let's say that a big new mall opens and it attracts a lot of attention and people flock from all over to visit this mall. That's great for the mall and people will still have to pay the tolls on the roads to get there.

This is the way things have always been, the internet is open to all users who pay the access fee and they can go to any "stores" (websites) that they wish.

Comcast, Verizon, etc...want to now charge the "Mall" because they are attracting all of this traffic, so they want to charge not only the people who use the roads to get there but also the store / website because they are popular and have a lot of traffic. These ISPs are businesses after-all, and have identified an opportunity to greatly increase their bottom line by charging on both ends. This is called double dipping and kills what is essentially an open internet.

If suddenly the deepest pocket companies are paying for priority access, this will stifle small business and create monopolies within countless verticals from news to shopping. Imagine being a Comcast subscriber and now Fox News is extremely slow to load because Comcast has a news deal in place with NBC. Imagine being on Time Warner and their own streaming video service is blazing fast but the one you want to use is half as fast or slower. Imagine wanting to start your own shopping site but you can't afford the fees that Best Buy or Amazon can afford. How will you ever compete?

Net Neutrality is aimed at keeping things the way they've always been. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an employee of Comcast or has a direct vested interest.