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).
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.
Title 2 isn't Net Neutrality. Calling it that and watching people support it is one of the greatest branding thefts ever.
Indeed.
What Title 2 should be seen as is a reversal of the Kevin Martin policies which made it possible for monopolies like Comcast to come into existence surviving off the right of ways of the American people.
Of course, if anyone would like to use the example of today's industry driven, for-profit, internet infrastructure to point out how awesomely a "free market" solution functions, I'd honestly like to hear that.
Addressing your assertion directly, without Title 2, the FCC would have next to no control over these largely unregulated monopolies. This would eventually lead to Net Neutrality vanishing at whatever point industry leaders felt a larger profit could be had and/or when it was to their benefit to be able to regulate content for their personal gain.
Well...he just lost my vote.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
The Tea Party is not a grass roots organization. They are corporately funded, organized and supported.
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
In a free country, businesses don't get massive government subsidies and de-facto monopolies. Also, in a free country, governments can decide no business serves their constituents well and decide to serve their constituents directly.
But that's not the ISP landscape right now.
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.'"
Well, yes, that is how representation works. Even in an ideal situation, the general public has to choose between supporting one of a number of representative entities who hold direct power. Each of those entities has its own priorities and philosophies, and one generally choose which of them align best with their own interests.
Title 2 is how you get neutrality. Without it you cannot get it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Ahm, libertarianism at its core is the desire to have power for themselves and trample others, with the focus being on preventing government from protecting those weaker than themselves.
He never was the Libertarian messiah. Anyone who thought he was just wasn't paying attention. He has a marginally more interesting back-story than most congresscritters (Joker killed his parents and then he spent his teenage years spanking it to Ayn Rand novels,) but he's really only qualified to be a Fox News android.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
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.
There's always limits on freedom due to conflicts, eg the classic conflict between my waving my fist and your right not to get punched.
Huh? Can you elaborate on the logical chain that lead you to this statement? What sort of freedom is it, that allows the Collective to arbitrarily prohibit an Individual to offer a service?
Staying on topic, there is limits to how many Individuals can erect telephone poles and how many wires/fibers can go on the poles so the collective can put up the poles, run the fiber and allow anyone to use them for a reasonable fee. Much like how the road networks work today (there's also a limit on the number of roads that are possible so they're run by the collective)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Replacing the government boot, which has to at least pretend to care about me, with the corporate boot, which is legally obligated not to care, doesn't seem like a good trade.
Really? How many of your financial relations with the government are voluntary on your part?
How many of your financial relations with corporations are voluntary on your part? (and for the ones that aren't, could it possibly be due to a government-granted monopoly?)
I choose to remain an American citizen, that choice has consequences which include things like taxes. The government, even in a Libertarian society, provides necessary services and those have to be funded somehow. So yes, I consider that voluntary. I may have some things to say about the level of taxes and how they're being spent, but I do get express my opinion at voting time. My vote may influence the government about as much as voting my couple of shares of a mega-corp, but that's how it works in both cases.
In private life I have a number of needs which MUST be filled, for example I don't own enough land to raise my own food so I have to buy food. I can choose between a limited number of oligopolistic providers who tend to collude and to whom my personal business is miniscule so it's pretty much take it or leave it. Don't like it? Feel free to starve. I'm really feeling the freedom there.