Al Franken takes dummy Ted Cruz to School
- Thread starter hazlnut
- Start date
American Horse
AKA "Mustang"
In today's WSJ
Read this and get an education. Cruz's comment is mentioned in the 3rd paragraph below:
"What a Tangled Web Obama Weaves"
By
L. GORDON CROVITZ
Nov. 16, 2014 6:22 p.m. ET
Al Gore didn’t invent the Internet, but Bill Clinton deserves credit for the most important Internet policy: a bipartisan consensus reached during his administration in the mid-1990s to keep the Internet free of regulation. The Web would be permissionless, so that innovators could start sites and other digital offerings without waiting for regulatory approval.
In a surprise speech last week, President Obama demanded the end of the unregulated Internet, ratcheting up his campaign to subject the Internet to century-old regulations written to micromanage public utilities. Mr. Obama pressured the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which was based on railroad regulations from the 1880s and used to oversee AT&T when it was a telephone monopoly. Regulators set prices, terms and conditions and must approve new products.
Mr. Obama says Internet service providers will “limit your access to a website” without Title II oversight. Pro-regulation lobbyists have made this argument from the beginning of the Web—and every year are proven more wrong. The Internet boomed precisely because it wasn’t regulated. In 1999 the FCC published a paper titled “The FCC and the Unregulation of the Internet.” The study contrasted the dramatic growth of the open Internet with that of the sluggish industries subject to Title II’s more than 1,000 regulations. Sen. Ted Cruz got it right last week when he tweeted that Title II would be ObamaCare for the Internet.
Amazing as it seems, under these regulations federal bureaucrats in the 1970s decided whether AT&T could move beyond standard black telephones to offer Princess phones in pink, blue and white. A Title II Internet would give regulators similar authority to approve, prioritize and set “just and reasonable” prices for broadband, the lifeblood of the Internet.
When Apple first offered Internet access on the iPhone, Steve Jobs didn’t have to ask regulators for permission. Instead of network operators prioritizing traffic based on technical optimization, as they do today, under Title II regulators would prioritize streaming video from Netflix , pornographers or church services. Title II would invalidate “nonneutral” practices such as T-Mobile offering mobile phones with free music. Surgeons operating remotely via robotic systems may no longer have access to a latency-free (no lag time) connection to the Internet.
Title II regulation would also be a hidden tax increase: Broadband consumers would pay the 16.1% tax on interstate revenues under the Universal Service Fund. State utility commissioners would also get oversight of the Internet.
Mr. Obama claims that regulators can always “forbear” from the more onerous regulations of Title II. But the nature of regulators is to regulate, not to forbear. And as FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly explained at a Free State Foundation policy seminar last week, regulators can’t forbear even if they want to. The law, he said, sets the “bar so high for forbearance that it is nearly impossible to meet, especially when the Commission deals with core common carrier provisions on a nationwide basis,” as with the Internet.
Title II wouldn’t even get net-neutrality advocates what they say they want. They object to “paid prioritization” by Netflix and YouTube, which at peak times account for more than half the broadband capacity in the U.S. These bandwidth hogs couldn’t function without fast lanes on the Internet. They invest in huge networks of computer servers in many data centers to ensure smooth delivery of their content. Title II would bless these different tiers of service.
Everyone agrees that broadband providers should not discriminate based on the content of a website or other digital service, but broadband providers already pledge to their users that they won’t discriminate. If they did, regulators can enforce this version of “neutrality” without the draconian Title II by prohibiting “commercially unreasonable” network management practices.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who was appointed by Mr. Obama last year, knows that Title II would be a disaster for the Internet. He has never supported it. The New York Times reported that the pressure from Mr. Obama last week made Mr. Wheeler “testy, defensive and a bit angry that he might be seen as a political pawn.” He deserves to be angry: The president is making him choose either to run his independent agency independently or to become a political lackey for the White House.
Last week, Senate Republicans warned the FCC that Title II is “last century’s rules” and they would fight it. Some Democrats went further, with the Progressive Policy Institute, run by policy advisers from the Clinton administration, questioning Mr. Obama’s motives. They warned that the “likely rationale for imposing Title II is to pursue an aggressive regulatory agenda unrelated to net neutrality.”
The last time net neutrality became a big political issue was in the 2010 midterm elections, when all 95 congressional candidates who campaigned for net neutrality were defeated. Americans like their unregulated Internet, and they want to keep it.
Read this and get an education. Cruz's comment is mentioned in the 3rd paragraph below:
"What a Tangled Web Obama Weaves"
By
L. GORDON CROVITZ
Nov. 16, 2014 6:22 p.m. ET
Al Gore didn’t invent the Internet, but Bill Clinton deserves credit for the most important Internet policy: a bipartisan consensus reached during his administration in the mid-1990s to keep the Internet free of regulation. The Web would be permissionless, so that innovators could start sites and other digital offerings without waiting for regulatory approval.
In a surprise speech last week, President Obama demanded the end of the unregulated Internet, ratcheting up his campaign to subject the Internet to century-old regulations written to micromanage public utilities. Mr. Obama pressured the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which was based on railroad regulations from the 1880s and used to oversee AT&T when it was a telephone monopoly. Regulators set prices, terms and conditions and must approve new products.
Mr. Obama says Internet service providers will “limit your access to a website” without Title II oversight. Pro-regulation lobbyists have made this argument from the beginning of the Web—and every year are proven more wrong. The Internet boomed precisely because it wasn’t regulated. In 1999 the FCC published a paper titled “The FCC and the Unregulation of the Internet.” The study contrasted the dramatic growth of the open Internet with that of the sluggish industries subject to Title II’s more than 1,000 regulations. Sen. Ted Cruz got it right last week when he tweeted that Title II would be ObamaCare for the Internet.
Amazing as it seems, under these regulations federal bureaucrats in the 1970s decided whether AT&T could move beyond standard black telephones to offer Princess phones in pink, blue and white. A Title II Internet would give regulators similar authority to approve, prioritize and set “just and reasonable” prices for broadband, the lifeblood of the Internet.
When Apple first offered Internet access on the iPhone, Steve Jobs didn’t have to ask regulators for permission. Instead of network operators prioritizing traffic based on technical optimization, as they do today, under Title II regulators would prioritize streaming video from Netflix , pornographers or church services. Title II would invalidate “nonneutral” practices such as T-Mobile offering mobile phones with free music. Surgeons operating remotely via robotic systems may no longer have access to a latency-free (no lag time) connection to the Internet.
Title II regulation would also be a hidden tax increase: Broadband consumers would pay the 16.1% tax on interstate revenues under the Universal Service Fund. State utility commissioners would also get oversight of the Internet.
Mr. Obama claims that regulators can always “forbear” from the more onerous regulations of Title II. But the nature of regulators is to regulate, not to forbear. And as FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly explained at a Free State Foundation policy seminar last week, regulators can’t forbear even if they want to. The law, he said, sets the “bar so high for forbearance that it is nearly impossible to meet, especially when the Commission deals with core common carrier provisions on a nationwide basis,” as with the Internet.
Title II wouldn’t even get net-neutrality advocates what they say they want. They object to “paid prioritization” by Netflix and YouTube, which at peak times account for more than half the broadband capacity in the U.S. These bandwidth hogs couldn’t function without fast lanes on the Internet. They invest in huge networks of computer servers in many data centers to ensure smooth delivery of their content. Title II would bless these different tiers of service.
Everyone agrees that broadband providers should not discriminate based on the content of a website or other digital service, but broadband providers already pledge to their users that they won’t discriminate. If they did, regulators can enforce this version of “neutrality” without the draconian Title II by prohibiting “commercially unreasonable” network management practices.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who was appointed by Mr. Obama last year, knows that Title II would be a disaster for the Internet. He has never supported it. The New York Times reported that the pressure from Mr. Obama last week made Mr. Wheeler “testy, defensive and a bit angry that he might be seen as a political pawn.” He deserves to be angry: The president is making him choose either to run his independent agency independently or to become a political lackey for the White House.
Last week, Senate Republicans warned the FCC that Title II is “last century’s rules” and they would fight it. Some Democrats went further, with the Progressive Policy Institute, run by policy advisers from the Clinton administration, questioning Mr. Obama’s motives. They warned that the “likely rationale for imposing Title II is to pursue an aggressive regulatory agenda unrelated to net neutrality.”
The last time net neutrality became a big political issue was in the 2010 midterm elections, when all 95 congressional candidates who campaigned for net neutrality were defeated. Americans like their unregulated Internet, and they want to keep it.
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.
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
American Horse
AKA "Mustang"
Viz: "- 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. - "
Your final paragraph quoted above is right on point, and it's blatant in this thread. It has one saving quality in that it is instructive and shows what any intelligent and productive dialogue is up against.
Carla_Danger
Platinum Member
Al Franken explained it perfectly in the video.
We want to keep the internet the way that it is now. It's not broken, so we don't need to fix it.
Franken stated that Google video sucked, which is why everyone went to youtube. Youtube was the superior product. That's the innovation we want to keep on the internet. What part of that is hard to understand?
Franken goes a little more in depth in this video.
Carla_Danger
Platinum Member
Who knew NeoClowns would be against open and free internet?
Carla_Danger
Platinum Member
Carla_Danger
Platinum Member
Dana7360
Diamond Member
- Aug 6, 2014
- 15,147
- 13,605
- 2,405
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.
Carla_Danger
Platinum Member
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.
SwimExpert
Gold Member
- Nov 26, 2013
- 16,247
- 1,683
- 280
- Banned
- #135
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 support 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?
I support 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?
Last edited:
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
He is trying to keep things the same by changing them - war is peace. freedom is slavery.
SwimExpert
Gold Member
- Nov 26, 2013
- 16,247
- 1,683
- 280
- Banned
- #137
That's a positively false characterization. The ISPs are the ones who are changing things. Obama wants to prevent those changes.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Net Neutrality isn't about the ISP, it's about the backbone providers.
You don't keep things the same by passing laws to change them.
War is not peace.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Zone1 Former judges side with Anthropic and raise concerns about Pentagon’s use of supply chain risk label- Started by NewsVine_Mariyam
- Replies: 0
-
-
🇫🇷 Hittler faces Zielinski in a local municipal election in France- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
Loony Tunes: The Democrats' OFFICIAL position is now that President Trump "stole" the 2024 election- Started by marvin martian
- Replies: 4
-
Another point that lends Credence to the idea that Trump is controlled- Trump shills for Mark Levin- Started by Andrew_Jackson_FTW
- Replies: 3
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
NO EXIT? How will the U S be able to extricate itself from Trump's "little excursion"?- Latest: Fort Fun Indiana
