Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
A very small part of me wants to see a Rand Paul / Hillary Clinton contest. The disconnect would be so great as would the fireworks. You could probably sell tickets. The adult in me realizes that would be a Bad Thing, though.
Less government regulation is pretty much what Libertarianism is all about, so this is more him sticking true to his ideals.
I think people on here forget that he is affiliated with the Tea Party (and pretty much follows the party line on like 99% of the issues).
Title 2 isn't Net Neutrality. Calling it that and watching people support it is one of the greatest branding thefts ever.
Ohmygod, that's commie tape, right?
There's something I'd like to see this guy wrapped in: TAR AND FEATHERS!
Looks like ole' Rand here got some good brib... donation money from 'Big Telecomm'! More after this break!
Like most of the accounced candidates for POTUS, Paul is 'fucking clownshoes' as well!
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.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Rand Paul: I want to be president...whats a guy gotta do?
Republican Party: We're glad you asked rand and happy to hear youve considered being a republican brand president. In order to best serve the interests of our constituents, their yachts, and various institutions named in their honour, we're going to ask you to toe-the-line with our conservative fiscal policy and principal of small government. Please select from one or more of the following principles we believe assists in small government and lower taxes:
1. Repealing affordable healthcare for millions of americans and replacing it with a faint mumbling noise.
2. Outlawing homosexual marriage
3. Outlawing abortion
4. obstruct or repeal a meaningful federal regulation: EPA, FDA, FCC.
5. Funnel billions of dollars into a foreign war with no clear objective other than amorphous freedom/patriotism/democracy
6. oppose decriminalization of marijuana and/or prison reform.
as a bonus you may call for a government shutdown but only while affirming 'in god we trust' on the currency.
Good people go to bed earlier.
This is called Kansas city shuffle. While you be having fun watching debates for 6 months during presidential debates, most of us will be robbed both from right pocket and the left pocket.
Adult in you should realize that the show organizers and those emptying the pockets are part of coordinated efforts.
He's only the friend of the rich and powerful. Don't kid yourself.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I've yet to have anyone explain clearly why having the internet under the same regulatory regime as the telephone system would be a, net, positive thing.
Because the FCC is calling it "net neutrality" - that's why. Just like the "Patriot" Act inspires patriotism. See? I'm sure I'll get modded troll, but I don't care. Just don't complain to me when the FCC messes up internet for everyone if you supported this under the guise of net neutrality.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Well...he just lost my vote.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I've yet to have anyone explain clearly why having the internet under the same regulatory regime as the telephone system would be a, net, positive thing.
Because telephone service is guaranteed to every American, no matter how poor, or how remote, for a fixed price.
I don't respond to AC's.
I've yet to have anyone explain clearly why having the internet under the same regulatory regime as the telephone system would be a, net, positive thing. Title II explicitly permits a lot of bad behavior. To me, it fixes one problem and introduces a few dozen others.
Wink.
Seemingly every law, movement, action, or drug comes with these side effects. I believe the skill associated with doling them out so they cause more good than harm is quite rare indeed.
It is conspicuously absent in the hands of a politician.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
You have 2 parties. 1 party : the oligarchic, with 3 or more sub flavor : the oligarchic democrate the oligarchic independent and the oligarchic repubblican. Then You have the losers : anybody else.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The Tea Party is not a grass roots organization. They are corporately funded, organized and supported.
Typical attitude of those, who only want freedom for themselves, while ready to trample that of others.
Hint: in a free country, businesses exist not because the Collective needs their services, but because their owners choose to pursue happiness that way.
Libertarians remember that and fight any attempts to coerce citizens into some kind of Greater Good[TM].
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
As are ALL senators and to a lesser extent representatives...
Proof
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
thought this guy was interesting, but this kills it for me...and sours me on any other repub candidates that might sympathize with his position. republicans the party of repressing the people and supporting corporate america.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Do you really want the FCC regulating the Internet? An organization headed by a cable company guy? A
That "cable company guy" was a "small ISP guy" first, and literally everything he has done has been better for the small ISP than for the big one. That is not the concern, and suggesting that it is would be ignorant at best. Congratulations, you're ignorant or disingenuous. There is the concern that he won't be in that position forever, and of course that people do change.
If there is a significant problem that requires giving the FCC more authority to regulate the Internet,
Look, the FCC already has the authority to regulate the internet in many ways. This hasn't been a problem until they've tried to do it in a way that's pro-consumer, and now you're complaining about it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Rand Paul is not the Libertarian messiah after all. Just another whore for corporate interests.
Showing his true colors.
Just how is blocking net neutrality a libertarian point of view?
no, I don't have a sig
I like Rand Paul and when it comes right down to it he can see the forest for the trees. He is basically right on this one, although I would prefer it if he came out and also strongly condemned the local monopolies that are undermining free market competition and clearly linked the issues.
As far as I have read, the FCC rules create red tape without providing the simple meaningful protections for net neutrality and protections for competition and connectivity of networks that are needed. The FCC net neutrality rules specifically excluded the practice of providing insufficient bandwidth to peer networks to handle requested content, which if you recall was how Comcast successfully shook down and squeezed Netflix/Comcast customers for more money because their network peering was insufficient to handle Comcast customer demand for Netflix content.
So, moving forward the FCC will continue to allow networks to effectively block and throttle content provided on other networks as long as they throttle the entire peer network and not specific content. That is Net Neutrality in name only and will lead to further consolidation of corporate control over the Internet as people won't be able to afford not to pay the local monopolies to host their content on those networks because the various stove piped networks are all connected via 56k modems in a broom closet unless their network owners have come to some "arrangement".
Worse, the very competition which could alleviate the problem will be further stifled instead of enabled by the FCC Net Neutrality regulations.
While there are some good symbolic nuggets in the regulations, allowing networks to provide half-assed peering to other networks that provide the content that their customers are requesting is the glaring loophole in the FCC regulations which undermines the entire house of cards.
All you can eat internet is going to drive up prices.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://nypost.com/2015/02/12/n...
http://www.techtimes.com/artic...
http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog...
love is just extroverted narcissism
I'm keen to see how the techn-libertarian crackpots that infest this board are going to explain THIS away...
While I support net neutrality as a concept and as a form of regulation (with a big dash of hope, too), none of this would be an issue if there was any competition for residential high speed internet access.
Caps, quotas, asymmetry, prohibitions on "servers", crippling of web sites like Netflix -- none of this would be happening at all if there was meaningful high speed Internet competition. Providers who did this would be gutted by the market for vendors who didn't do these things. This is all rent-seeking behavior by monopolists, and worse, by monopolists whose business model can see its own funeral on the calendar.
And the lack of viable competition in most markets is why regulation is necessary, otherwise the monopolists would just keep manipulating the market.
I've yet to have anyone explain clearly why having the internet under the same regulatory regime as the telephone system would be a, net, positive thing.
Because the FCC is calling it "net neutrality" - that's why. Just like the "Patriot" Act inspires patriotism. See? I'm sure I'll get modded troll, but I don't care. Just don't complain to me when the FCC messes up internet for everyone if you supported this under the guise of net neutrality.
If the FCC actually implemented technical net neutrality rules for inter-connectivity between networks it would help ensure that the customers of any one network would be provided sufficient peering to access content and communicate with other people on other networks.
Just as with the break up of ATT that you needed regulations to make sure that customers of one network would be able to call customers of another network and expect a sufficient level of service between the networks would be provided. The Internet is primarily a communications platform and not merely a cable content delivery network.
The problem with the Orwellian "net neutrality" as has been put forward by the FCC is that it does none of that necessary work to mandate sufficient network peering and focuses on content instead of substance. Prohibiting packet discrimination based on content or deep packet inspection would be a good thing (somewhat easily thwarted with some encryption and use of dynamic IP ranges by the way), but that wasn't the main issue of net neutrality which really is about providing sufficient peering bandwidth for content and communications requested by an ISP's own customers.
You're acting like this is something new, but the FCC was already regulating the internet... this just changed the requirements, and I think everyone (except ISPs or their investors) will say it was a change for the better. Whether future changes will be better or worse is not germane.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Libertarianism is about the correct amount of regulation and no more.
Which is where they go off the rails because there is no such thing as "the correct amount of regulation". There is a range of regulations that work and beyond it they don't work. There is no one right answer. You can have a more socialist country or a more capitalist one and both can work just fine. This isn't supposition on my part - there are plenty of real world examples of both. There is a range of what works. Some amount of regulation is absolutely required for a society to function. Beyond that there is a range of quantity of regulation that works. Further on you can over-regulate things to death.
The problem libertarians frequently have is they tend to confuse less regulation with being better. Sometimes that's true but frequently it isn't. It's the same mistake a lot of conservatives make regarding taxes - thinking less always equals better when that is demonstrably not true. Sometimes the regulations we have exist for very good reasons but some let ideology get in front of what actually works. You might prefer less regulation to more and that's a fine viewpoint to have but when one gets to the point where you are screeching that all regulations are bad then you no longer are arguing the facts.
If you think all regulation is bad, congratulations, you are an Anarchist.
Exactly. And thinking all regulation is good is just as stupid.
Uhhh, no. That is completely wrong. Libertarians are very strongly against government granted monopolies at any scale. It's just that there aren't enough of them in any one jurisdiction save maybe New Hampshire to do anything about it.
Net Neutrality boils down to a basic concept. Who do you trust to maintain order and prevent abuse? An industry that has demonstrated an inability to do that with itself, or a government revolving door that has demonstrated the same thing? I lean toward letting the government get their paws on it from a regulatory standpoint just because in theory it's more accountable to the people and we already know the path we're on won't end well for consumers. It's only the lesser of two evils, and admitting that once regulatory bodies get their hands into an industry rarely do they ever let that power go in the future.
Good FCC regs would get the hell out of the way of the ISPs who -- really -- have done nothing to deserve what they're getting.
Who is your ISP? Mine is Comcast and they very much deserve to be regulated rather heavily. I have a "choice" of precisely one ISP where I live and I can assure you that they abuse the privilege. I want them to provide me a pipe to my house and get out of the way. They do not need to be in the business of determining what speed packets should be delivered to my location. Particularly if they start prioritizing their own content (Comcast owns NBC for instance) over what I actually want to watch. There is NO benefit to me as the consumer for my local telecom monopoly to not be regulated. None.
So much for being a Libertarian.
I thought Libertarians wanted few, small, sensible regulations. I thought they were for small government, small businesses, market pressures, and local control. Unfortunately Rand Paul thinks that these government-enabled monopolies remaining government-enabled monopolies is a good thing. That means that either the Libertarian platform is completely different from how it's been pitched to me or he's a full of shit big-business statist.
In theory, the FCC shouldn't need to regulate the internet at all, but because other government has created a wholly fucked up system, I agree that it's necessary at this point for them to step in.
If any branch of government should step into this, it's the FTC and the Justice Department, not the FCC.
Network Neutrality conflates two issues: Traffic management and anticompetitive behavior. Some packets SHOULD be treated differently than others, in order to make diverse services "play well together". (Example: Streaming vs. File Download.)
The problem arises when an ISP uses the tools to penalize the competition to its own company's and partners' services, extort extra fees, and otherwise engage in non-technical nastiness through technical means.
The proper regulatory regimes are antitrust and consumer fraud. These are the province of the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, not the FCC.
The FCC is using this as a power-grab on the Internet, in direct contravention of Congress' authorization. THAT is what Rand Paul is opposing.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Let me try....Basically, unless you live in an already heavily-wired are with several combinations of fiber, cable, and DSL it is economically unviable for anyone to expand the physical infrastructure of the internet. This leads to monopolies of the existing, legacy telecom companies. Here in North Georgia where I live, I have exactly one choice (omitting satellite because the cost and latency is horrible) which is Windstream DSL. Over the last several years, Windstream has had several lengthy outages caused by edge route rupgrades blowing up and so forth. Absent net neutrality, no other ISP can connect to Windstream's existing wires (paying for that access, of course) and offer me an alternative. Real free-market access to the physical infrastructure much like, say, a shopping center can open along a publicly built and maintained highway. Good for everyone except the companies who want to maintain their monopoly. PS - I used to gate-bang DG Nova III CPU, memory and controller cards. Fun days!
Really? Tell me, what kind of anti-consumer Internet regulation has the FCC been engaged in so far.
You're starting from the premise that "net neutrality" is "pro-consumer". But the only beneficiaries I know of are going to be Netflix and YouTube, who end up not having to pay more. Seems pretty "pro-corporate" to me.
What's actually going on is that the FCC kept its fingers off the FCC, and now engages in a bit of crony capitalism to help some big corporations that have donated big bucks to Democrats. And a couple of years down the line, the cable companies will simply demand their cut; they'll say that these regulations hurt them and demand that the FCC engage in a bit of price fixing on their behalf. And consumers will be footing the bill.
Yeah, with all the stagnation and minimal innovation that arises in such a system.
http://www.spiegel.de/internat... How is this for a curve? Perhaps people will play nicely with each other without big brother.
While Rand Paul is proud to inherit the cult so lovingly built by his father, he doesn't seem to feel entirely obligated to actually stray far from the party message. Rand Paul is well aware of who butters his bread, and takes actions to make sure they are taken care of. In other words, he is making the choices he needs to make to see that his policies bring more power for the powerful, and facsism for the people.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
well, I know who I'm not voting for in the presidential elections. I guess he didn't care to distance himself from Ted "Obamacare for the Internet" Cruz.
The day of the internet savy republican voting libertarian is now officially over.
There is enough money in the world to say, it's time for an international Internet. An internet that is neutral. And it's time for internet access to be equitable.
Why do Europeans pay from $20/mo for gigabyte connections, and in the USA, it is ten to fifty times that amount. And in Europe, its all network neutrality.
When I visited Riga Latvia, my son had standard network connection to the apartment. He had 8 gigabyte/sec burst speed and sustained 10megabytes per second of download speed. (Actually, the longer the download, the more the speed declined). We could download a DVD in under 10 minutes.
The USA is going to find organizations leaving the USA to do their hosting elsewhere. And you can be assured that there are financially capable entrepreneurs that will compete with AT&T, Verizon, and thank uninformed "Rand Paul". RP should be, as one post earlier stated, working for neutral network communicaitions.
Maybe its time to go data all the way. Cell phone networks are pretty cheap to establish. And you can obtain gigabyte speeds.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Yup, nothing's perfect. But I certainly think that the telephone system in the US has served it's citizens very, very well over the years. Anybody can still get a phone in their house for about $25/month, no matter where you live. That, to me, is much more important than any kind of "telephone innovation" that the US system may or may not be missing.
That's supposed to be the point of our government: To provide equal access to basic services to *all* citizens, not to be a competitive, money-making machine that sells products or services to it's citizens. When something is decided to be a public good, such as basic telephone service, that means that every citizen, no matter how poor or remote, has access to the same service that everybody else does. The US telephone service has done that well, and it's time that Internet access is handled the same way, as well.
If you want "innovation", nothing is stopping you from purchasing that "innovation", but your ability to purchase it shouldn't come at the expense of the poorest members of our society having nothing at all.
I don't respond to AC's.
...it is any entity bent on hijacking too much control of it that needs regulation! There is the infrastructure that needs to be maintained (and fairly funded). Use of it is not the same by all entities. So, does it make sense to charge accordingly? Consider the highway system as perhaps a relevant analogy. Generally, major toll roads tier toll rates based on usage; big trucks generally pay more than passenger cars for the same route. Trucks wear out the road much more than passenger cars. Likewise, small private users that check email and occasionally browse websites use far less bandwidth than, say, moderate-to-larger private users that perhaps stream movies and or game a lot. Similarly, corporate users also vary in needs. So, it seems to make sense that the more you use, the more you pay. Would you be okay if Netflix paid the same rate as you do, even though you may not even subscribe to Netflix. It is important to keep the perspective in full context. ESPECIALLY for the politicians pushing legislation. THE POINT: Do the politicians REALLY understand the full context of the issues? ...enough to make well-informed decisions?
Do the people that may get to vote on legislation affecting the aspects of a system also have adequate knowledge to have a say?
If we were to fix the corrupt capitalists, perhaps many other things would, indeed, take care of themselves.
And I digress from here!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Yeah. He is a failure, like his father before him.
I find it sad, pathetic and overall anger inducing that people will side for a political party regardless of absolute wrong they are. Republicans and Democrats are many decades out of date and want to force us backwards, not forwards. So, because anachronisms like Rand Paul and the Grand OLD Party (LOL TeaBag Party!) don't understand how the internets work but are more than happy to take cash from the Telecos, of course they will ignore the fail of the ideas they promote.