Ted Cruz’s Worst Nightmare Is Al Franken Explaining The Internet

[@honestchrismcg]

More comedians should run for office. They're so much better at telling the truth than lawyers.

[@lastguyminn2324]

Al Franken has become one of the finest senators in this nation. I'm proud to have voted for him.

[@thephantomeagle2]

Last Guy Minn I love Al Franken and knew he'd make a fine Senator.

[@richtrost2676]

The more I read about Ted the more I'm beginning to believe he's more dangerous than Trump.

[@Thumbs_up_]

Best way to explain net neutrality; in grocery store there are candy bars in the checkout aisles, almost every kind they sell are there. Now imagine you create a new candy bar and go to sell them at the store. Instead of your candy bars going in the checkout aisles where they are easily found, and can become easy impulse buys, the store says they are placing them in the farthest corner of the store where most don't walk to, unless you pay extra or twice as much. That's what net neutrality prevents. With net neutrality, the candy all goes in the same place, for the same fee, by law & regulation.

[@JTempleton]

+Erin Costello I think we all want the same thing. My concern (and the concern of other libertarian leaning folks, I believe) is that the well intended laws and regulations will end up backfiring on us in ways that we never foresaw.

[@fingerfucktittysuck3428]

+John Templeton Could you give any examples of how net neutrality laws would backfire some day?

[@UncommonSenseUSA]

+John Templeton I can, the website that use very little bandwidth will see their rates go up to pay for the website that use 10x or 20x more bandwidth (Netflix). Under the current system (no government imposed net neutrality) websites are charged for the bandwidth they use. Under a government imposed net neutrality system companies will not be allowed to charge a site higher fees for using more bandwidth. Its like prohibiting a H2O delivery company from charging you more when you use more H20. It means the people who use more will pay a flat low rate and get a great deal. Those who use less will pay the same high rate. People should pay for what they use. This is a pretty standard free market principal. Not complicated.

[@cyninbend]

+UncommonSenseUSA You are WRONG!!! Check the lengthy Wikipedia articl on N.N.--it specifically states that nothing in N.N. prohibits charging based on bandwidth consumed. Why lie to people?

[@UncommonSenseUSA]

Not talking about charging regular people (consumers) but websites and servers... This is the whole point of net neutrality to not charge more for websites who use more bandwidth on their sites.

[@TheSensfan09]

Would you by a car from Ted cruz? I wouldn't, he seems as cheasy as a used car sales man, and dresses like it also.

[@yoyo103queenan5]

yessss...he looks like a used car salesman that would sell anyone a lemon😅😅

[@donaldhetrick6802]

+yoyo103 queenan He makes my face pucker, like a lemon, everytime I see him talk out of the side of his mouth. Like Cheney...

[@yoyo103queenan5]

Donald Hetrick lmbooo😅😅😅 pucker up!!

[@cyninbend]

+Mike Kingsbury He looks like the car salesman who is paying people in the back to file VINs off stolen cars, run cameras from the ladies room to websites, and who knows what other truly evil scams...

[@tylerhurson8515]

Price fixing is despicable. The FCC should be eliminated completely. The "fast lanes" nonsense is pure propaganda.

[@jjdude5531]

It's all propaganda until it actual happens and once it does there won't be anything you can do about it. That's why we need to defend net neutrality now.

[@tylerhurson8515]

***** I agree. Let's just not get the government involved. They have a pretty back track record.

[@kathykelly5930]

***** why hasn't this mass throttling nightmare happened, we've never effectively had title 2 enforced when it was on the books? Because the internet was always meant to have prioritization and fast lanes.

[@tim211292]

kathy kelly are you brain dead? it did happen.... the major US telecoms throttled Netflix until they paid ransom. even if your argument about whether the internet was designed to have fast lanes is true or not that doesn't mean it SHOULD.

[@kathykelly5930]

tim211292 except that's not the worst nightmare scenario that we are being told will happen without net neutrality.

[@SFO14]

I see some people simply fail to understand that regulations are supposed to protect consumers from large corporations - not the other way around. Even with this idiotic notion of "corporate personhood" - corporations have "more voting rights" when it comes to influencing legislation or policy because they have *more capital* and since that is inherently unfair to the little guy (whether it's a small business or a consumer group), regulations must be created and enforced to discourage predatory business practices (i.e. vulture capitalism).

[@SFO14]

RaidrWolf And how are the Unions doing now? In the past 50 years, the participation rate has gone from 1/3 to 10% approximately.

[@SFO14]

RaidrWolf The fact that Union participation rates are down actually proves the opposite of your point. Corporate influence could very well be minimizing Union influence. The government (supposedly voted into power by the people) is there to impose regulations upon large companies in order to protect consumers (Dodd-Frank much?)

Um, unions are not consumers, but employees, so, again, irrelevant.

[@SFO14]

RaidrWolf Employees are "internal customers" (or haven't you ever run a business before)? Not only that, but Union members *consume* goods and services as well - as does every other citizen. But hey, it's irrelevant since you say so, right?

+SFO14 So you have to change the terms to make your comment look valid. You FIRST said "consumers". Now you are saying "customers". Employees are not "internal CONSUMERS" and you know it because you didn't say, "internal CONSUMERS" but "internal CUSTOMERS". But you are lying that you know that there are no "internal consumers" and since there is no such thing as "internal consumers" that first question is irrelevant at best and a lie at worst. And since NO employee is an internal "consumer" the rest of your comment is, like you said, irrelevant, since no law covers internal employees as "internal consumers" because there is no such thing. You sure are grasping at straws aren't you?

[@ArcticTemper]

Don't take this the wrong way Americans, but as a Brit, I'm glad you're losing Net Neutrality first. Then the rest of the world can see how terrible life is without it, and we can all keep it. Afraid you just may have to take one for the team on this one, Comrades. Don't worry, you can keep calling yourself the 'Land of the Free' if it helps you get through it.

[@TheLivirus]

I just read an article emphasising on the distinction between *good and bad regulation*. One example was a comparison between how USA and Scandinavia regulated bleeching in the pulp paper industry. In USA they implemented an immediate fine, forcing the entire industry to panic and implement the best technology available at the time. In Scandinavia they warned the industry in advance of an upcoming small fine that would be increased each year for a decade. Instead of implementing the first technology at hand, they started preparing and innovating, gaining competitive advantages over the US competitors. *Good regulation rewards innovation and punishes stagnation.*

[@greenjelly01]

1. Good point, but not at all related to the issue here. 2. In US politics, if the government makes the announcement for small fines to the industry, the office holders would get elected out and replaced in the next cycle, and no further regulation would ever pass. However, they will pass a regulation that will screw the average citizen and that will stay forever.

[@TheLivirus]

greenjelly01 Yeah, I guess it's not just lack of better knowledge but a systemic flaw.

[@synapse131]

And a lot of bad regulations are put into place by corporate lobbyists; ostensibly for health and safety concerns but often to create monopolies (cab companies come to mind.)

[@someonegetsteve]

How much does Murdoch/Fox now own of the US media? Versus prior to removal of government protection? Can you start up a competitive news company now without hundreds of millions in backing? Only on the internet. So let's shut that down.

[@PasadenaMMZ]

What Cruz is actually advocating for is PRIVATE companies REGULATING the internet. Cruz's suggestion would actually lead to MORE regulation, not less. And it would be the most stifling regulation possible.

[@4exgold]

is Cruz Bill O'Reilly's lovechild? I mean they have similar demeanour , looks and of course not forgetting the smugness.

[@nenafan1]

Ted Cruz... go preach your message to the moose of your native Canada, waaaaaaaaaay up north, and see if they agree with you about things 'freezing.' The worst part isn't that Ted Cruz exists, the worst part is that people listen to him and think he's right.

[@frost1947]

Republicans have a belief in freedom...for big business.

[@alphacause]

It doesn't matter whether Ted Cruz understands the Internet or Net Neutrality. The vast majority of his supporters, who are elderly, probably don't understand it either, and don't care to understand it. Furthermore, Cruz's analogy about unregulated cellphones vs LAN line telephones is self-defeating. People with cellphone contracts are actually subject to long term contracts, and pay enormous overage charges that LAN line telephones are not subject to. I wish the cost savings that one sees in LAN line telephones translated over to my cellphone contract.

[@ameteuraspirant]

I love that bit where he's like "telephones were put in title 2 and because of that they never innovated" and then immediately pulls a smartphone out of his pocket.

[@Pythos_Sapunov]

If Canada had to take one back, which one would you choose Ted Cruz, or Justin Beiber

[@Pythos_Sapunov]

Quagglle what are we gonna do with Cruz?

[@Pythos_Sapunov]

Quagglle i thought north korea would be better, he's damn good at lying, maybe he could lie for the Great Rolo

[@cne08]

I'd take Bieber back since he didn't renounce his Canadian citizenship.

[@gap949]

Bieber to Canada and Cruz to North Korea ...with his dad !

[@focusstick]

Beiber, he is an ass but harmless. Cruz is evil.

[@bradleygustafson2675]

Ted Cruz is really Mr. Hainey from Green Acres.

[@michaelkenney3333]

+Bradley Gustafson a young Grandpa Munster

[@yoyo103queenan5]

@bradley gustafson....lmboooo too funny!!

[@herbertwells8757]

That old phone that Ted Cruz derides was virtually indestructible. You could throw it across the room as much as you like, and it would emerge completely unscathed. Its transmission would never break up, and it never stopped working because of a dead battery. It never stopped working at all, for any reason. It never annoyed you in public places. You didn't have to suffer people talking into on buses or shopping lines or airports. In every respect I can think of it was much superior to the thing Cruz is idiotically waving in the air. Let's remember by the way, though, that the digital computer was invented by the United States government and so was the Internet. That gives the United States government the right to regulate these things.

[@michaelfreda1410]

+Herbert Wells Idiot alert!

[@jgyuri]

Lol healthcare and internet in the USA sucks. You pay a lot and you get very poor quality. In Europe we pay way less for healthcare and Internet and get much more. We have 1000 Mb internet speeds for 20$ / month. Where do you get that in the USA?

[@Tikayy]

Can you link me the 1000Mb internet deal for $20/month? I'm from Europe aswell, and yes, we get more and pay less than Americans, but I haven't seen it to that extend. I've got a 200/10 connection, costs €60/month ($75/month), and that's the best we can get in Belgium right now (they're working on a 1GB connection, but won't be finished in the next 5 years). Denmark has a 500/500 connection deal, which costs a bit more than what I have. But 1Gbps internet, for $20 (€16) per month I haven't seen anywhere in Europe. Would love to see a link of a provider giving such a deal.

[@jgyuri]

Tikay I live in Romania an we have awesome Internet speeds. Rcs-Rds is the company that sells 1Gb/30Mb connection for 55 Ron =15$ per month! rcs-rds(dot)ro/internet-digi-net/fiberlink?t=internet-fix&pachet=digi_net_fiberlink_1000

[@Tikayy]

jgyuri Thanks, and damn man, you lucky son of a ~ :P Would love to pay just that for the internet I got. Still have to wait 5 years here for 1gig connection, but atleast glad we're working towards it :)

[@AlanMichael0]

The companies that own the internet are holding back. They could have been had it where we could have 1TB of data. Google is implementing it in a few states now. The others wont do it because they basically have a monopoly by area (meaning in most areas there is only one option of internet - that leads to less competitive pricing and infrastructure.)

[@SadisticSenpai61]

The thing that pisses me off the most about the net neutrality debate is that, as a customer, I'm paying the ISPs for a certain speed on *all* websites. And now they want to be able to slow down/speed up websites based on how much ransom they pay to the ISPs? I'm paying for a certain speed - I expect *all* websites to be delivered to my computer/smart phone/etc at that speed. And if it isn't? Then what the fuck am I paying the ISPs for?! I pay for a certain speed, I had better fucking get it no matter which website I'm on!

[@SnipeSpace]

I like how he brings out an iPhone when Apple is supporting net neutrality.

[@Brimar7]

Isn't the net neutral right now? What problem are they trying to solve? I honestly don't understand the argument against net neutrality.

[@lozman67]

There isn't a valid argument against neutrality - the GOP are just looking for more campaign funds from the largest players to allow them to drive smaller net companies and new start-ups out of business by screwing up people's internet access to them.

[@hyperopinionated1138]

Basically the government wants more regulation of the internet because it's been too successful. It would give them avenues for taxation.

[@reidwallace4258]

HyperOpinionated Your an idiot... did you watch the video your commenting on?

[@hyperopinionated1138]

Kell Iroya The video is propaganda. Net Neutrality will lead to more regulation of the government. Guaranteed,

[@carioca56]

don't give alex jones any validity

[@Henchman_Holding_Wrench]

The problem with the reasoning at the end there is that since Libertarians are for less regulations against everyone and everything, some of them are seeing this as an intrusion into telecom companies' right of pricing their own services. The last thing they want is to add another rule that does that so some of them are stuck on that position without looking further at what could happen.

[@TentaclePentacle]

Cenk is wrong on this one, To a libertarian. The free market isn't about the freedom to compete. Its about the freedom to crush your competition, dominate the market and thus eliminating any free competition. This is the so call "Free Market" to a libertarian.

[@urduib]

The voices in your head told you that. You need help mate.

[@TentaclePentacle]

urduib By voice in my head, you mean all the libertarian comments in this video. Yep we all need help, if those libertarians get their way.

[@Fjandr]

You probably shouldn't put words in the mouths of others. What you call libertarian is actually an anarcho-capitalist. They are lumped in with libertarians, and even many who describe themselves as an-caps will split hairs to distinguish themselves from the definition as stated. A corporation is a legal fiction, so likely would not exist at all in a libertarian society. That means if anyone operating under the authority of a business would expose the owners to criminal prosecution for any wrongdoing by any employee.

[@TentaclePentacle]

***** You don't need a corporation to dominate a market. Corporation is just another method for bunch of people pooling their investments into a business. In a libertarian market with no rules personal business can crush other competition and dominate the market as well.

[@Fjandr]

An anarchist market has no rules. A libertarian market has rules against all forms of coercion, force, fraud, etc.

[@glennfrazier4873]

Cenk I love the show, and you are a smart guy. One thing that happens a lot that bothers that you do, is say something that may or may not be disrespectful ,you follow it with "no disrespect"....well, if it's disrespectful then it's disrespectful.. and deserves more than that empty platitude. if it's not then it still doesn't need excusing. love the show!!

[@allanrichardson1468]

It's called irony. Just like Antony in his speech at Caesar's funeral calling Brutus and the rest of the conspirators "all honorable men." Or the members of Congress referring to the members they are about to insult and condemn as "the distinguished gentleman from State X."

[@MrThepatrickshow]

In this day and age, data is very much a public utility. Access to it is as necessary as access to water, natural gas, and the good old land line, when it comes to modern survival. This net neutrality battle is perhaps *the* most important issue we're facing today, in terms of how it will effect all our lives for the next hundred years. It's the difference between a potential Utopia of brilliant new innovations, along with a cultural renaissance...and yet another shitty, stagnant return to the dark ages, where creativity is stifled and everybody's focus is put on bare survival under some hugely oppressive corporate oligarchy. Obama's plan to classify data as a utility stands to be the one *defining* act of his presidency. Forget helth care and all the rest. If he can save net neutrality before his term is out... he'll be remembered forever for it, and bards will sing his praises in oft sung carols unto the end of tyme.

[@kathykelly5930]

We literally have never had net neutrality enforced even when Title 2 has been on the books, so where is this dystopian private ISP censorship? How is essentially banning fast lanes and more gov't regulation and oversight going to increase competitiveness?

[@sharper68]

kathy kelly Net neutrality takes the ISP's out of the equation of picking winners and losers in the market. It guarantee's all sites new and old equal access regardless of their ability to pay off the providers for preferential service. There is literally no upside for the consumer to letting any of these clowns pick what is fast and what is slow.

[@lastguyminn2324]

kathy kelly Do you really believe there will be "fast lanes?" That's the biggest lie in this entire farce. The "fast lane" will be the too-slow speed we are already being overcharged for, and every site that doesn't pay the ISPs' extortion will be throttled down to speeds so slow that they might as well be completely blocked. The cable companies have always been stupid and short-sighted when it comes to their internet product. They are now freaking out because so many of us are cutting the cord and no longer paying for their overpriced video services because they offered another product (high-speed internet) that rendered their main product redundant. So now they are going to make us all pay...same high prices for access, extortion from their streaming competitors, and higher prices for all of us using those competitor's services. This is a shake-down that the Mafia would drool over.

[@ty4750]

Will other countries be affected if the states removes net neutrality?

[@emarie6742]

Lyin' Ted, "Lucifer in the flesh!

[@toplobster740]

What're y'alls thoughts on Franken now?

[@Drachnon]

Am I the only one hearing a high pitched noise in the clip from 0:47 to 1:48 ?

[@systemstartup8987]

So is there a chance for net neutrality or no

[@ChannelMath]

This is the #1 problem with our system: even in the face of almost complete ignorance, people tend to have strong opinions

[@mikebrowne7450]

No, Ted. The properly named Communications Act of 1934 was for the licensing of broadcast stations and to keep them from operating on the same frequency, limiting power, and the licensing of operators to ensure technical competence. Dummy.

[@USVIsteve]

I had an actual argument with a republican voter today. the absolutely infuriating thing was that she actually agreed with the majority of the democrats or progressive agenda. ie abortion,contraception,enviroment,gay marriage etc etc. I finally was able to drill down to her basic problem with liberals. it turned out that she couldn't stand the idea that their are some people getting stuff (in the form of food stamps or welfare) that didn't necessarily deserve it. so I asked if she supported drug testing recipients of food stamps and welfare and she was fully for it. then I told her that drug testing welfare recipients would actually cost the tax payer MORE money than just making food stamps available to those that apply. she got a brain cramp and had to admit that it is better to allow a small percentage to get stuff that they don't deserve and spend less than spend MORE and catch those near do wells.

[@synapse131]

Remind her that conservatives use more welfare services and ask her to find out what welfare provides. It will BLOW HER MIND; it's not at all what they think it is.

[@kimberlygreenland3785]

Ooh, I don't like it when you guys overgeneralize with comments like "stopping Netflix to watch the country music awards" - it's biased and lowers your credibility, and it's not that funny. You have no idea that some liberals might like country music or that conservatives might not. Not a smart comment.

[@mackjonsey4999]

Ted Cruz’s worst nightmare is *anyone who sets the record straight* immediately after Ted Cruz speaks.

[@Stevieboy130664]

Ted Cruz' catchphrase is 'I'll get you, Penelope Pitstop! (evil laugh)'

[@tylerhurson8515]

Imagine that in 1995, the government passes a bill requiring all furniture be made from oak wood. In the present day, the government considers dropping this regulation. Now imagine people protesting the decision to drop this regulation on the grounds that furniture manufacturers may construct mahogany furniture instead of constructing oak furniture. Imagine an oak wood supplier (who has benefited greatly from the regulation) protesting the decision on the grounds that he'll have to compete with non-oak wood suppliers.

[@slayeristhebest94]

Your analogy is incorrect. Without Internet neutrality your store would have to pay it's regular fee plus a fee for you to going to there website (this is not including the fee you pay to use the Internet). If the website does not pay the they(ISPS) could slow down your access to that website.

[@chrissyhammerer7019]

Your analogy sucks. Because the regulation is made about price not about material. So if you want to use your Oak analogy. Lets say oak would be the only wood you can make furniture of. In addition you would have to invest billions before you could even make oak wood so the number of companies you can get oakwood from in some regions would be exactly 1. Now the government would have made a regulation that this Oakwood producers have to take the same price for the oakwood they sell, regardless who they sell it to. That they can not make contracts where companies that pay more for the oakwood get it quicker while others have to wait for it. You can easily see that, if such a regulation would fall, small new companies who have a good idea for new furniture, would have a significant disadvantage towards already existing big companies who can pay to get their delivery of Oak wood faster. Especially if someone comes up wit an idea to use less oakwood in furniture, the big Oakwood companies could delay the deliverance of oakwood to this company , ruining it and the idea with it.

[@minnowshark]

Tyler Hurson That's the worst analogy I've ever heard. A better analogy would be that in 1995 the government didn't impose any regulations on wood at all;. But today, the largest delivery companies want to charge you more for oak over mahogany because they own mahogany forests and mills. Now the government has to step in and impose regulations that forbid delivery companies from discriminating against their competitors. That's why the ISPs are doing it. They compete directly with Netflix.

[@greenjelly01]

Way to get the analogy ass backwards!!

[@takanara7]

It's more like regulation requiring stores to sell furniture made of any type of wood, and new laws being proposed to ban the sale of furniture not made out of rosewood when one guy just happens to own 90% of all rosewood farms. Or something.

[@RobotShlomo]

I've been noticing more lately that Ted Cruz just throws a bunch of buzzwords together, and then tells you it's bad by association. Nobody is smart enough to see through this?

[@MagnesDrachen13]

Ted Cruz wouldn't know a truthful statement if it bought him a drink, took him home, plowed him like a midwestern field, and left its phone number on the nightstand in the morning.

[@michaelfreda1410]

This stupid TYT keeps beating up on Cruz..... that tells ME Cruz may be JUST the guy that NEEDS to be President.

[@EricLing64]

What is that odd feedback noise in the CNN interview?

[@PersonalPariah]

There are ridiculous amounts of manufacturing, marketing and design standards that a modern smartphone has to "contend with". Presumably he also doesn't want patent law stifling technological progression?

[@virginiachris80]

I'm not opposed to a "fast lane" so long as there isn't a "slow lane".

[@rcreative1]

Actually, we have MCI and the Sherman Antittrust Act to thank for smartphones. It was the corporation AT&T that wanted to force everyone to continue leasing rotary phones. The Federal government broke up the Ma Bell monopoly in the 1980s to allow innovation to flourish, which is very similar to Net Neutrality today.

[@w67bv2cxm]

The electromagnetic field, something that logically belongs to all of us, was sold off long ago to the highest bidders for use in broadcast TV and radio. Each of us is "donating" the space occupied by our homes, businesses, and even our own bodies for use in propagation of electromagnetic waves spewed out by TV, radio, cell phones etc., whether we like it or not. Do you really WANT microwaves and millimeter waves passing through your body and your children's bodies 24/7 ? Personally, I think FOX should be paying rent to me and my kids. Selling rights to the electromagnetic broadcast spectrum is like selling the Pacific Ocean. Republicans are filthy thieves. And now, the Republicans want to sell off, piece by piece, another of the U.S. public's crown jewels, the internet. The same internet whose invention and development was financed by your and my tax dollars. It certainly wasn't conceived or developed by the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson or the Walton family. And you can bet that if these slime-balls get their greasy rug merchant hands on it, it will go to some rapacious piece of GOP shit, and the people of this country will only lose.

[@msimon6808]

Having the FCC controlling the 'net is a good idea? In what universe?

[@NxDoyle]

You have likely either read it in Senator Franken's book, or heard Senator Franken say it in interviews. He has a stock line about Ted Cruz: "I like Ted Cruz more than all of my colleagues like Ted Cruz and I hate Ted Cruz".

[@meligoth]

If it was not for American citizens preventing corporate communications companies to control pricing and services to the common people, AT&T would have controlled all facets of telecommunication services.

[@RobertoBlake]

I don't want a clown shoe conservative who barely understands technology drafting policy on it. I'd rather let Zuckerberg do it if it has to be done at all. Why can't we just have the free and clear competitive internet we've enjoyed for all this time? It's not be been broken, letting the money grubbers get involved is the surest way to break it.

[@hyperopinionated1138]

If it ain't broke, the government's job is to fix it. I'm confused why so many people are buying the government's line?

[@ardillarojo]

HyperOpinionated So if the "government's line" is to say 'do not consume rat poison' you'll be defiant and proceed to eat rat poison?

[@hyperopinionated1138]

Radio Ardilla The government says marijuana is bad for you. I guess it's the same logic?

[@ardillarojo]

HyperOpinionated You're the one saying: "why so many people are buying the government's line?", so first you need to be stick to your views and eat rat poison to show your defiance. If not, then you have to admit that you made a bad argument.

[@DaiQibao]

Radio Ardilla " So if the "government's line" is to say 'do not consume rat poison' you'll be defiant and proceed to eat rat poison?" *The government says whatever the highest paying crony corporatism wants it to say. Government does for itself at everyone else's expense. Look around.*

[@kevin122759]

Not sure why democrats are so focused on this when there are about 10,000 more pressing issues. Anytime the government gets involved in anything it is all about control.

[@Kermit_T_Frog]

This is easily the best Young Turks video I've seen. Less moaning and groaning over how stupid conservatives are. More reasoned explanations and presentations of the facts.

[@TheJerbol]

Damn, you guys dropped the hammer on this one! Nicely done! I felt the power, right down in mah plums

[@itsmeekers]

I'm a Mexican Conservative but id support Franken returning to the House.

[@TaddiestMason]

Ted cruz's real name is Oswald Cobblepot. he is...The Penguin!!!

[@screamingphoenix8113]

5:50 You know something you'll never see a republican do. Hold up a musket and say "This is covered by the second amendment." Then pick up an Ar-15 and say "This is not"

[@WilliamHunterII]

Ted Cruz is a psychopath. Why isn't Al Franken running for President. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. How about this? How about Bernie Sanders as President and Al Franken as VP.

[@chapter_black3234]

Libertarians should hate the elimination of net neutrality because it is anti-market? That is where you are wrong Cenk. The market is money and money is power. The market is power. The notion of an even market would imply that everyone is making the same amount of money. That would be a ridiculous stereotype of Communism. Libertarians should love the notion of the elimination of net neutrality, because Libertarians support liberty, but also false liberty, ie bourgeois liberty. That kind of liberty states that if you don't want to be spied on my Google, Yahoo, AT&T, etc then just don't use them. Of course all of the corporations are wiretapping their customers for profits, but the solution that is given by bourgeois liberty is to do without instead even though you can't even apply for various jobs without Internet access. The logic is that we as a collective community have no right to create our own standards of living that interfere with the way an "individual" decides to operate. Of course a corporation is not an individual, but that irony is thrown out the window, because they whine and complain about government without understanding that corporations are governments in of themselves. A government is much more abstract than they understand. A government is a body that acts as a buffer between ruling and oppressed classes and reflects that conflict that is history. When you eliminate "government" as it currently exists, do you honestly believe you are getting rid of government because there is no longer a Department of Education or welfare programs? Does that not ignore the military or police or the various private institutions that reflect those things? (Blackwater, Academi, various private prisons, and defense contractors) All getting rid of what "Libertarians" conceive of as government would merely replace those same means of oppression and domination with "for-profit" institutions, which is frankly much worse than some political quarrel. After all, since when was peace ever profitable for "defense" contractors?

[@sharper68]

Libertarians are supposed to want liberty for all not just corporations who want to fuck everyone over and crush innovation in service to the ISP's and the big players. Your spin is a fail.

[@joesatube]

I used to think Libertarians were for the people. I agree with them on the issue of ending endless wars. But I think right wing conservative corporatists have co-opted the movement to push the agenda of MORE POWER to giant corporations with ridiculous amounts of cash to corrupt the govt, the election process, and now the Internet. Look we already have WAY TOO MUCH representation of the corporate interests. Their profits are at all time highs while ordinary people are eeking out an existence and can't find affordable housing, healthcare, education, etc. It's time to put a brake on their never ending grubbing of power over the consumers and limit their ability to do whatever they want to do.

[@dcdellwo]

Why not just equate this to hospital stays where all service is priced out to maximize the profit. We have all experienced this and see this as a way to control and increase profit.

[@RadarKat73080]

Al Franken: comedian turned politician. Ted Cruz: politician turned comedian.

[@AndiDuck]

The cure for capitalism's failing would require that a government would have to rise above the interests of one class alone . ~Robert L. Heilbroner

[@jakepreston8622]

As I remember, the brains behind breaking up the phone companies was Bill Saxbe, a Republican from Ohio. What came later was communication chaos, ever more expensive as time goes by.

[@Navillus.55]

*I believe Al Franken is one of the smartest people in Congress. You can always trust people from Minnesota...*

[@ianutube22]

How can creating a regulation keep something (the internet) the way it is before the regulation existed?

[@DemothHymside]

+Ian B Because companies are currently attempting to throttle internet speeds for websites and consumers who don't pay a premium. This mean, in essence, that no matter how fast your ISP speeds may be, they can make certain websites load incredibly slow, unless those websites pay a premium to that ISP. Things in the market don't always needs to be regulated if things are going smooth. Regulation starts to crop up when companies get greedy, and start dicking over everyone for no other reason than to make an even bigger profit. And considering that there aren't always alternatives to certain products (I'm in Ohio and Time Warner Cable is really the only high speed ISP in my area), you get stuck with what you can get.

[@ianutube22]

Why doesn't another provider come in and pick up Warner's business? That is the part I don't get. What is stopping a company like Comcast, Charter or some other company from taking their business? Companies only act that way when they can and their is no incentive for them to compete. The big question that I have is, why is there no competition?

[@TheCrassEnnui_2501]

+Ian B They collude with each other to prevent competition. Comcast avoids competing in areas where Time Warner exists and vice versa. This allows them to hold a monopoly in their respective areas and thus artificially inflate the price of access and speed. If you look at this chart from 2015 (www.valuepenguin.com/infographics/comcast-timewarner) you can see how it operates. They constantly lobby to prevent local municipalities from building their own network even when they don't service that area. This is why Google Fiber is scaring the pants off them. Google is big enough to throw some real lawyers at them and force them to open up areas for fiber development. Google also sells access very cheaply. (fiber.google.com/cities/austin/) For 70 dollars you get 1000Mbps. With Time Warner, (www.timewarnercable.com/en/plans-packages/cable-internet.html) you pay 65 dollars for 50Mbps. It's a rip off of epic proportions. However, since most of Congress are so out of touch with the average citizen, they don't understand how badly we are being fucked over. The kind of innovation that would be possible when a substantial portion of the populace have real high speed access is difficult to imagine. One example might be Google Earth Pro with Gigapixel maps. The adoption of 4K TV is slower than expected due to low access speeds. With fast enough streaming, more producers would see the value of creating 4K content, not to mention 8K and beyond. It also adds room for some of the more interesting things like appliances that self monitor and can recommend settings and maintenance schedules by checking in with a server in real time.

[@ianutube22]

They can only collude together when others are unable to come in and compete. Why can't other new (or existing) companies come in and compete? I get the part about colluding together but that is only possible if and when other companies are unable to compete with them. Everybody is saying "yes, the governments needs to step in" but it is likely there is something else going on preventing other new ISPs from entering the market forcing fair competition between the companies.

[@DemothHymside]

Ian B look at how legislation, from big oil lobbies, helped to make selling cars like the Tesla almost impossible.

[@dontsettlefor500mill]

You guys always trick me into thinking im about to get merely a video clip, in youtube tradition, as the thumbnail suggests, instead of a drawn out segment, over explaining someone elses' assessment of the clip i wanted to see.

[@pmyou2]

Another reason Ted's analogy is bogus. He showed two phones. The old black phone was under a public utility. If it were not, then the possibility of the competition could be shut out. It the phone was not a public utility, then the new cell phone would never have happened! We need net neutrality to preserve a level playing field!

[@eatmorenachos]

Yes land lines were so regulated that no one ever had them, right? Cell phones are regulated too. Net Neutrality would simply codify what is already pretty much standard practice today: treating all web traffic the same and not letting providers create fast lanes or slow lanes or worse---controlling web traffic based on a site or an organization's political views.

[@chillinhippification]

Everyone keeps saying they just want it left alone but with increasing data consumption its getting hard for an ISP to make a profit without help through prioritization. They should not allow for paid prioritization but it should be allowed to help with utilization and be customer driven. However getting paid for providing a fast lane may be more advantageous to a subscriber than the added cost to keep up with increased consumption be drawn from raised subscription rates. It's like this. If a neighborhood has 500 broadband customers running off lets say two fibers. As data consumption increases the two fibers(and its associated equipment) may not be able to handle all the data. So a ISP has three choices. Either let the customers deal with slow speeds, increase the bandwidth by adding fiber and equipment or discontinue service in that area. Investing capital to upgrade may be a losing investment and they would generally choose to maintain a slower service over discontinuing service up until the point where the costs in maintaining the service begins outweighing the subscriber revenue.

[@55otter]

As a Canadian, I am sad to say that Ted Cruz was born in Canada: But happy to say that he moved to the U.S...

[@LBNLDC1]

Thanks for the San Mateo plug, Al.

[@jfh667]

Al Franken just explained why corporate America WANTS a fast lane. We dont want creative nobodies making better things and having a fair chance. That would be GOOD capitalism. We dont want those guys to have a chance so that those with money, means and power to be in control. Not innovation...

[@skyeplus]

It will not only change in US,it will change on around the world. Stay strong, America.

[@blmastiffable]

This is why Glenn Beck needs to get back on tv. The internet providers will charge the hell out of him to be in the fast lane.

[@pmyou2]

Ted's analogy is totally bogus on the face. The old black land line telephone is hardware. The hardware was NEVER regulated as a public utility. The nice new cell phone is also hardware and is not a public utility. It is the source of the signal that is the public utility. The internet is currently a public utility in everything but the classification. The nice new cell phone works so well BECAUSE it operates like a public utility. We need net neutrality to preserve this into the future!

[@alexwestconsulting]

Cenk annoys me enough when talking politics because he wears his partisanship on his sleeve, but having him overly simplify the battle of net neutrality is just too much for this technology professional.

[@ChrisSudlik]

Ending net neutrality is the equivalent of letting roads charge users based on their race, religion, or income. A private road could then extort rent from all who use it and absorb every last cent of their income above what they need to persist in their position. Could you image a toll road refusing to allow black people on it? Could you imagine the consequences? That is what these conservatives want out of this fight, the ability to control content. Common carrier means simply that you ignore traffic, you simply charge for services. No discrimination, no price fixing, none of that crap.

[@russianbot2179]

Al Franken barely said anything in response to Ted Cruz and yet everyone is claiming he 'ripped' or 'blasted' Ted Cruz. Al Franken did not say a single thing that refuted what Ted Cruz said other than just insult him and basically calling him ignorant without backing it up.

[@DEAD-FROM-NY]

Ted KNOWS what he said is a lie. He really DIDN'T CARE that he demostrated a total lack of knowledge of the issue to impress morons like you. What are missing? If you can't comprehend simple sentence you should not post and dis[lay your ignorance.

[@MrApplewine]

Charles Almon Ted Cruz nailed it. He cut to the fundamentals. The details of regulation aren't important the fact is the internet is not regulated and the difference is regulation vs. freedom and when people are free there is competition and innovation. We need MORE competition which means we need to remove the local regulations so we can choose from MORE ISP's !

[@DEAD-FROM-NY]

You're as clueless as Ted.

[@russianbot2179]

Charles Almon You have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you tell me exactly what Ted Cruz said that was wrong? Go on. I am waiting. Oh wait, you can't. Every last thing he said in that statement was entirely true. Seriously. Watch this video again, and tell me where Al Franken objectively took apart Ted Cruz statement. Franken only said "Cruz does not know what he is talking about, and that Net Neutrality has been around forever", which is misleading at best if not a blatant lie. Go on, look up the history of Net Neutrality, and it is a *fact* that government regulations make things more expensive for the consumers, and/or stifles innovation, not to mention the increase in taxes. Again you are just blindly calling Ted Cruz a liar just because he has an (R) next to his name when he appears on TV.

[@south6bt]

***** Ted Cruz is wrong because he's wrong, it wouldn't matter if he was the most Liberal Democrat because honesty, politics should have nothing to do with this important issue. I know exactly what is going to happen if Ted Cruz gets his way and it will affect you and me in the process. You need to do your own research on this independent from Al, independent from Ted and independent from people on the internet that you think hate Ted Cruz because he has an (R) next to his name. Net Neutrality is to keep the internet free and open the same way it's always been, Ted Cruz wants to stop this so that big business can put costs on internet content providers for profiteering purposes. We are going to lose content and innovation because of this control that big business has over the internet and eventually we are going to have to pay more for the content we already enjoy today. But I already know you don't give a rats what I have to say, because you're already convinced in your own mind that Ted is right. Which is why I'm telling you to do your own INDEPENDANT research on this issue. It's bigger than any political ideology and you need to know and understand the truth about it because it is actually going to affect your internet reality in the years to come if Ted gets his way.

[@barbourgirl78]

These days, the internet is as essential as electricity, which is a public utility

[@freedomfighter628]

Anyone remember during the debates when Trump turned aside and said "We'll have to do something about that". (referring to the internet that he didn't like). He meant it. He wants to shut up anyone who doesn't say they like him. If we have "Net Neutrality", we will have more big monopolies who will jack up the prices of the internet!

[@ericconnor8251]

Jon Iadarola's rant in this video was perfect, which doesn't happen often.

[@TheBeardedTrombonist]

Al Franken is the man. One of the brightest guys in politics.

[@gggreggg]

now go look at title 2 and see why the regulations were put in place in the first place.

[@ryanwc67]

it's too bad that Ted Cruz does not know the entire internet began on that regulated phone system! It was the beginning of all of the innovation.

[@qhsperson]

+Ryan W You are assuming that he doesn't know, which is not the same as he doesn't care. He doesn't have the kind of followers who fact-check.

[@ryanwc67]

+qhsperson 👍

[@silveravnt]

LOL @ thinking the government will "leave it alone" once they get regulatory power. No government has ever done that, especially if they see a revenue opportunity.

[@mberg1974]

It's very simple, there are less potential for bribes if you are a politician who support net neutrality. That is pretty much how every single issue is decided among republican politicians, bribe potential. Not that the democrats are much better, Hillary is a horrible example of that...

[@anythingafter10]

I'm not a fan of Ted Cruz, but Cenk calling another human being smug is unbelievable.

[@suvariboy]

If you believe Cenk is smug, who better than him to identify smugness in another.

[@septic55]

Ted Cruz totally looks like a 1930s Dracula.

[@naoani1989]

if classifying telephones as telecommunications service hurt telephones so much then wouldn't that have stopped or impeded the cell phones? I mean if you think for 2 seconds about it, Ted Cruz's argument was horribly flawed. Because the classification of telephones didn't stop the advent of cell phones. How do people get taken in by that!? I have to admit Cruz must be something... to convince so many people to believe what he says and be wrong while doing it.

[@kathykelly5930]

we actually did have big problems with monopoly and slow innovation in Phones, Look at Ma Bell and AT&T

[@naoani1989]

True. I had forgotten about that... Still I find the comparison Cruz did flawed.

[@lessgovernment.morefun.768]

Glad I found this. Two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl. Good luck with that. Big Government is yesterday and if here tomorrow, it will sink us.

[@captsirl]

LOL What is the FCC sticker on the back of my cell phone. Unregulated my ass.

[@ameleh61]

Some people here are not aware, or are ignoring, that this is not about buying more speed or bandwidth from your service provider. That's not what this is about, and is not threatened. Companies want to look inside packets, and route them differently depending on . . . their own needs/desires/profits. Title II status would prevent that.

[@LordStickMax]

however, that's not really how it works. the law and there intentions are two different things.

[@UncommonSenseUSA]

If I own a website that uses 10 x the bandwidth as a normal cite (Netflix) I should pay more for the bandwidth. The government has no right to keep internet providers from charging an appropriate price for the higher bandwidth that is being used. I watch your video and you never explain what is happening. It's funny that you are for charging people more when they use more H2O in their homes but your are against letting internet providers charge websites more when they use more bandwidth.

[@UncommonSenseUSA]

Tell you what if you don't like the way someone uses a network they built, you have the freedom to build an alternative network. When you do, I won't tell you how to run it or how much profit you are allowed to make.

[@culobandoolo]

Davis should have come out as Ted Cruz and debated Al Franken.

[@marcelopacheco2479]

The reality is more complex than both sides state. Reclassifying the Internet under the same rules as POTS would incur a lot of extra burdens on large ISPs. My first ADSL line was back in the first year that ADSL was rolled in the US, I had a Bellsouth phone line and Mindspring ADSL over the same copper wire, which meant that Bellsouth had to unbundle its copper (in my case a partial unbundling), so I could purchase Mindsprint ADSL over Bellsouth Copper. This was undone after Bush son won (a year or two after) and it was a major loss for consumers and a major win for large ISPs. That was freeing Intenet access from common carrier obligations. Its not by accident that after this proposal (to again classify the Internet under common carrier regulations) got some public traction AT&T dialed back its anti net neutrality stance as they know they will loose more than the right to impose fast lanes. Senator Al Franken could have said: The ISPs can avoid this regulation by voluntarily signing a document that there will be no fast lanes for at least 10 years, this would avoid the extra regulatory burden. The other option is the FCC only imposes NET neutrality on the US Internet without reclassifying the Internet under common carrier regulations. PS: The common carrier regulations were essential to avoid the big telcos from squeezing the little ones out of the market. Per the usual the democrats are much closer to the truth, but never quite 100% clear about it.

[@rabbitphobia]

So Ted Cruze claims to not know anything about Net Neutrality but is happy to make decisions regarding it, doesnt anyone in the USA find that unacceptable???

[@ella5024]

I don't get the last 20 seconds of this video. It doesn't go along with Libertarian philosophy, at all.

[@jamesbrown5728]

Ted Cruz knows exactly what the debate is about, he's not an idiot. He just clearly has supporters who don't want it

[@YemYum]

Does anyone know how i can support net neutrality? I really love the internet, and want to keep the internet as it is. Please do help.

[@margaretmattina9851]

Thanks to the existing internet, the public now has a voice! Just what the Republicans don't want. Maggie M

[@tedlemoine5587]

Does he not think that almost 100 years of technology has made a rotary phone to a smartphone ? He really thinks people are dumb (and they are ). Older people watch this and think yes this young man is right !!!!! The smartphone is faster I'll give for him. So dishonest on every issue