Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

Posted by samzenpus on from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-isps? dept.

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.

21 of 438 comments (clear)

  1. I like this guy but... by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re: I like this guy but... by jd2112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Effectively 3 parties? That's effectively 2 parties more than we have in the US.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    2. Re: I like this guy but... by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re: I like this guy but... by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, we have two parties here:

      1) The rich & powerful
      2) Everyone else

      But since #1 always wins, it's an easy mistake to make.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:I like this guy but... by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People think he's the citizenry's friend because he occasionally backs some civil liberties bill that he knows will never pass anyway. In reality, his only real masters are the rich & powerful. He just tosses the occasional meaningless symbolic bone to the public to pretend he isn't just another Republican. "Here, I'll back this civil liberties bill that I know has no chance of ever passing, so you won't notice that my REAL agenda is just abolishing taxes on the wealthy and letting corporations do whatever the fuck they want to this country."

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    5. Re:I like this guy but... by Dredd13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ProTip: Nobody who's going to get a lick of camera time in the upcoming election isn't someone whose "masters" are the "rich and powerful."

      They make sure to make it impossible for anyone other than the Janus Party to participate.

    6. Re: I like this guy but... by morgauxo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it."

      So long as those two topics are popular yet inconsequential.

    7. Re: I like this guy but... by 605dave · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's "you're an idiot".

      --
      Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
    8. Re: I like this guy but... by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it.

      Only the ones that don't matter, but make for good sound bites. On the actual important topics, both halves of our oligarchic regime enthusiastically agree:

      1. Both parties love the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping and Gitmo.
      2. Both parties think corporate "rights" -- particularly "imaginary property" -- are more important than the real property rights of actual people.
      3. Both parties love pork and wealth redistribution (albeit not necessarily to the same groups).
      4. Both parties love Federal control, and hate Federalism (i.e., separation of powers between the Federal government and the States).
      5. Both parties abuse the Commerce Clause and the Elastic Clause.
      6. Both parties feel free to ignore various parts of the Bill of Rights.
      7. Both parties are big fans of restrictive ballot access laws, gerrymandering and first-past-the-post voting systems (to hamstring third parties).

      And that's just off the top of my head, not anywhere close to a complete list.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re: I like this guy but... by jythie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:I like this guy but... by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's difficult to have a functioning market when local municipalities grant monopolies to individual companies and then turn around and get the state to ban municipal networks entirely.

      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.

      Paul is just blindly sticking to principles without considering the reality of the situation. If he wants to block the government from regulating the internet, first he needs to remove the roadblocks that prevent such government regulation from being necessary. You can't have a market-based solution when there is no market and the chances of having one have been made practically impossible.

  2. Re: Paul / Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, you ever notice how you never see Rand Paul and Ru Paul in the same room together? Kinda makes you think, eh?

  3. This is not a matter of neutrality by marcello_dl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:This is not a matter of neutrality by Bigby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  4. the choice was clear. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:Not sure this is deserved in this case by codealot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right, so, unchecked corporate power takes the place of government regulation.

    At least with the government we hold elections. I think there are good reasons Libertarianism has never been fully implemented anywhere.

  6. Re:Rand Paul seems to get a pass here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A CEO, a Tea Party member, and a union worker are sitting around a table. In the middle of the table sits a plate with a dozen cookies. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, then turns to the Tea Party member and whispers "I think he wants your cookie."

  7. He also wants to roll back civil rights too. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  8. Re:LIbertarian principle by CrankyFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:LIbertarian principle by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:bye bye rand paul by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    lol you made up your mind long before that and just wanted an excuse to generalize and bash a party you do not agree with.
    Okay, so you're saying lumping an entire party together and generalizing and bashing them is a bad thing. That's a reasonable argument to make.

    That's why we refer to you democrats as "sheeple" and you fit the status quo.
    And yet you lump both yourself ("we") into one camp, and others you disagree with into another camp, and use childish* name-calling to bash the ones you disagree with and have preconceived notions about? You're either a brilliant troll or have the self-awareness and memory of a goldfish**.

    * yes, I am generalizing about children being immature
    ** and goldfish