Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

SonicSpike writes with news about another bump in the road for net neutrality. U.S. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican presidential hopeful, on Wednesday introduced a resolution to block new regulations on Internet service providers, saying they would 'wrap the Internet in red tape.' The 'net neutrality' rules, which are slated to take effect in June, are backed by the Obama administration and were passed by the Democratic majority of the Federal Communications Commission in February. AT&T Inc and wireless and cable trade associations are challenging them in court. Paul's resolution, if adopted, would allow the Senate to fast-track a vote to establish that Congress disapproves of the FCC's new rules and moves to nullify them.

Comments

I like this guy but...

[EmperorOfCanada]

I like this guy but he seems to come along with the occasional show stopper. For instance in Canada we have a Double Plus Good Patriot Act called Bill C-51. We also have effectively 3 parties, 2 of whom support Bill C-51. Can you figure out which one I am voting for?

Re: I like this guy but...

[cdrudge]

While the end result is that the average citizen gets fucked in the end (and not the way that makes you feel good and sleepy), how can you say that the US only has a 1 party system? Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it.

Re: I like this guy but...

[jythie]

In general if you look at the donor list, they all come from the same strata of society but represent opposing cultures within that strata. Granted, picking either party is a vote for the wealthy controlling the country, but they are still a fairly diverse bunch and you can pick and choose who's goals align with your own.

Re: I like this guy but...

[tmosley]

No, it really doesn't. Words have meaning. Please use them appropriately. Yes, every organization is out for its own best interests, but the vast majority don't pretend to be two seperate diametrically opposed organizations that are fighting each other. Show me the Koch Brothers funding environmentalists, or the NSF giving grants to climate change "deniers", or something along those lines, and you might have an argument.

Not sure this is deserved in this case

[barlevg]

Less government regulation is pretty much what Libertarianism is all about, so this is more him sticking true to his ideals.

This is not a matter of neutrality

[marcello_dl]

As usual, the hotly debated themes are ill structured, intentionally I guess.

The problem is not what the telecom companies should do about their packets.
The problem is that if you sell me INTERNET access I should be expecting:
- a way to send/get packets to all internet peers, at my own risk and responsibility
- an IP with the ability to open the ports I want
- if technically feasible, and now it is, symmetric band I/O

If telcos decide to meddle with anything above they should
- lose common carrier status and become co responsible.
- not call it internet. Youtubenet facebooklink flixnet for netflix or whatever, sell it at reduced price and get the new generation of imbeciles on board there and off the real net.

It's a win/win.
Back to topic, Rand Paul should focus on freedom of communication, which sidesteps this debate once and for all.

Re:This is not a matter of neutrality

[Bigby]

The problem with the "net neutrality" issue for those looking for "freedom", like Libertarian minded individuals, is the complexity of the industry.

One could argue that it is more "free" to allow the companies to control it how they wish. (Rand Paul's position.)
One could argue that it is more "free" to allow the customers to use it how they wish.

The (only) problem with Rand Paul's position is that the companies are using a government granted charter (monopoly) to run these Internet connections to the homes and government granted eminent domain to run these Internet backbones. If the government granted these items, then the government has oversight on these lines. If these telecom built the lines using their own capital and without the use of special government laws, then they shouldn't be subject to net neutrality red tape and regulations. However, the fact is the opposite. There isn't one telecom that did not rely on the government for their infrastructure. So those telecoms should not be allowed to do with that joint-property how they wish.

The problem with the current law is that it will push this regulation across the industry, whether or not the company should conform. What if a company shoots a satellite into space without using eminent domain or acquiring any monopolistic charter and that satellite can deliver great Internet access (I know, rare, right?)? That access should not be subject to these regulations.

Re:This is not a matter of neutrality

[mjtaylor24601]

And it would not matter IF NOT FOR GOVERNMENT REGULATION...because I would have several, if not dozens of competitors to choose amongst.

Tell me, what color is the sky where you live?

No matter what the government does no one is going to have dozens of competitors to chose from because running wires to peoples houses is expensive and it would not be cost effective to do so for a chance at 1/24th of the market (and that's assuming that it were even practical to dig up the streets every 5 minutes to run new cables).

Not to mention that without evil GOVERNMENT REGULATION to force right-of-way land usage it would be almost impossible for anyone to build a comprehensive network because one old coot in the wrong location that refuses to let you run cables over his land could cut off whole segments of the population.

He also wants to roll back civil rights too.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

He is the guy who believes businesses are sacrosanct and if they want to ban blacks from sitting in lunch counters, they should be able to. He thinks such businesses would naturally go bankrupt without any government intervention, and civil rights legislation went too far.

In the long run of history, such businesses would go bankrupt, but the invisible hand of the economy dispenses justice in a collective average statistical sense over a long period of time. Generations of blacks would go discriminated against for decades before the invisible hand acts against the bad actors.

Humanity has experienced such total free economy. It took 1000 years for Europe to break out of the feudal system where inherited property based on land concentrated power at the very top. It took four centuries of combined effects of the renaissance, age of exploration, the industrial revolution and new found serfs in the colonies to break the feudal system. Pure libertarian solutions take centuries to take effect, they require seismic paradigm shifts and the breakdown is very violent. Culminating in a 30 year world war. (According to Churchill world war I and II are just one war spread over three decades).

Pure libertarianism is just marginally more practical than communism. Communism simply will not work because it disconnects incentives from effort. Libertarianism naturally leads to oligarchy. Liberal democracy, founded on acknowledging the usefulness and sinlessness of the profit motive to the society but moderated by large number collectively holding more power than any small group of oligarchs is what would work to give justice, peace and liberty to most people.