Sen Al Franken (D-Minn.) responded on Sunday to a Washington Post op-ed in which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) wrote that net neutrality is "Obamacare for the internet".
Franken said Cruz "doesn't understand" what net neutrality is.
"He has it completely wrong and he just doesn't understand what this issue is," Franken told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union".
Read the article here: Al Franken Explains Net Neutrality To Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz isn't a stupid guy but he's totally wrong on this issue.
I believe that we'll hear more from him on this. This is a very important issue to a lot of people.
Here's what I know about net neutrality. It's fine now. Don't screw with it.
Sen Al Franken (D-Minn.) responded on Sunday to a Washington Post op-ed in which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) wrote that net neutrality is "Obamacare for the internet".
Franken said Cruz "doesn't understand" what net neutrality is.
"He has it completely wrong and he just doesn't understand what this issue is," Franken told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union".
Read the article here: Al Franken Explains Net Neutrality To Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz isn't a stupid guy but he's totally wrong on this issue.
I believe that we'll hear more from him on this. This is a very important issue to a lot of people.
Sen Al Franken (D-Minn.) responded on Sunday to a Washington Post op-ed in which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) wrote that net neutrality is "Obamacare for the internet".
Franken said Cruz "doesn't understand" what net neutrality is.
"He has it completely wrong and he just doesn't understand what this issue is," Franken told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union".
Read the article here: Al Franken Explains Net Neutrality To Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz isn't a stupid guy but he's totally wrong on this issue.
I believe that we'll hear more from him on this. This is a very important issue to a lot of people.
All I know is I like the internet the way it is. If this law changes something I don't want it. If the law guarantees the internet will remain as is and codifies it, then that is good.
I really know nothing about the act, but I do know I don't trust either Cruz or Franken and I would never take either's word as gospel.
All I know is I like the internet the way it is. If this law changes something I don't want it. If the law guarantees the internet will remain as is and codifies it, then that is good.
I really know nothing about the act, but I do know I don't trust either Cruz or Franken and I would never take either's word as gospel.
it's sad that not ruining the internet by adding slow lanes is even debatable, and that it has been reduced to food for hyperpartisans. sad, but not unexpected. our duopoly sucks so much. national interests seem to take a back seat to partisanship by default.
How is he wrong?
If the NCL's support it, it's ****ed up.
How about a no party system?
Franken is an idiot.Sen Al Franken (D-Minn.) responded on Sunday to a Washington Post op-ed in which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) wrote that net neutrality is "Obamacare for the internet".
Franken said Cruz "doesn't understand" what net neutrality is.
"He has it completely wrong and he just doesn't understand what this issue is," Franken told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union".
Read the article here: Al Franken Explains Net Neutrality To Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz isn't a stupid guy but he's totally wrong on this issue.
I believe that we'll hear more from him on this. This is a very important issue to a lot of people.
Right. The internet was just fine with net neutrality, so let's keep it the way it was.
Debatable?it's sad that not ruining the internet by adding slow lanes is even debatable, and that it has been reduced to food for hyperpartisans. sad, but not unexpected. our duopoly sucks so much. national interests seem to take a back seat to partisanship by default.
Uhh, no it wouldn't. A tax on internet access would be a tax.Franken is an idiot.
Cruz's word are correct.
Obama Care is a tax on the citizens just as classifying the internet as a utility would be a tax on the citizens.
I'm aware that net neutrality doesn't currently exist, (it did, until recently) but what you write here seems to imply that you misunderstand net neutrality. Maybe I misunderstand, but what you seem to imply is that net neutrality means everyone has to have the same amount of bandwidth. Net neutrality does not require that ISPs only offer certain speeds or certain prices. That's not what net neutrality is. Let me know if that's not what you meant.There is no neutrality at this time.
The amount of data sent and received, as well as the available bandwidth (speed) to do so, can be charged separately and differently and is a paid for throttle.
It is the way that Obama wants to accomplish it which is wrong.
It does not have to be, nor should it be classified as a utility.
:dohUhh, no it wouldn't. A tax on internet access would be a tax.
:doh Double d'oh!I'm aware that net neutrality doesn't currently exist, but what you write here seems to imply that you misunderstand net neutrality. Maybe I misunderstand, but what you seem to imply is that net neutrality means everyone has to have the same amount of bandwidth. That's not what net neutrality is. Let me know if that's not what you meant.
While "neutrality" is actually a misnomer, you are correct that Congress could pass legislation to not allow the specific type of throttling in question.No, congress could write a law enforcing net neutrality that doesn't require reclassification. That would be a better method.
How is he wrong?
How about you find out what net neutrality means? Then you find out what Ted Cruz said.That way, by informing yourself, you make an educated decision on why comparing net neutrality to Obamacare is downright stupid.
It might be improbable right now, but it's not impossible.
How about you tell us?
How about the Christian Coalition of America?
Questions and Answers on Net Neutrality | Christian Coalition of America
All I know is I like the internet the way it is. If this law changes something I don't want it. If the law guarantees the internet will remain as is and codifies it, then that is good.
I really know nothing about the act, but I do know I don't trust either Cruz or Franken and I would never take either's word as gospel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?