Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1-Year Rule Anniversary (dslreports.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the happy-anniversary dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Presidential hopefuls Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have joined six other Senators in pushing the new Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which would dismantle the rules, walk-back the FCC's Title II reclassification of ISPs as common carriers, and prevent the FCC from trying to pass net neutrality rules in the future. In a statement posted to the Rubio website, the presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment. "Through burdensome regulations and tight control like the net neutrality rule, the government only hinders accessibility and the diversity of content," said Rubio. "Consumers should be driving the market, and we can help by encouraging innovation, incentivizing investment, and promoting the competitive environment this industry needs."

31 of 390 comments (clear)

  1. "Destroy ing innovation" by ArylAkamov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."

    Examples plz

    1. Re:"Destroy ing innovation" by gweilo8888 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're Republicans. Evidence isn't necessary, only hand-waving and dire predictions. The Chicken Little Party is entirely in the pockets of big business, and will do and say whatever is necessary to please their corporate overlords, even if it directly contradicts all available evidence.

    2. Re: "Destroy ing innovation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Failing campaigns gotta get that Telco money

    3. Re:"Destroy ing innovation" by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So those radical left wing professors egging students to the brink of chaos over 'racism' and 'sexism' aren't also chicken littles? Hillary Clinton isn't backed by big business? Bernie Sanders doesn't want to sacrifice liberties/raise taxes on the middle class in return for more government nannying?

      There're plenty of problems with both parties.

    4. Re: "Destroy ing innovation" by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Global megacorps dodge taxes, destroy local businesses and move employment to the places where people are more easily exploited.

      In short, they do whatever maximizes profits and which we permit them to do.

      Corporations are wonderfully flexible machines; they adapt whatever way they have to to maximize profits. That's why the notion that regulation will destroy profit and wealth generation is practically superstitious.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re: "Destroy ing innovation" by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporations are wonderfully flexible machines; they adapt whatever way they have to to maximize profits. That's why the notion that regulation will destroy profit and wealth generation is practically superstitious.

      Depends on the kind of regulations, of course. Contract enforcement? Preventing fraud? Standardizing weights and measures? Preventing abuse of monopoly? All of that is straight-up beneficial.

      Most other things are a trade-off. Some trade-offs are worth it, some aren't. Any new regulation in this environment, where all the low-hanging fruit is long gone, is likely to have a real cost in creation of jobs and wealth. Still might be worth it, of course, but it's nonsense to take an extreme stance in either direction.

      If we actually had a competitive free market for ISPs, I'd be right there with Cruz and Rubio on this. If consumer choice was a real thing in the ISP market, net neutrality would be a terrible trade off. But of course, monopolies created and enforced by local governments are the norm, which is of course the root problem here, so the trade-off looks very different.

      Vastly better to fix the root problem, and make last-mile service a utility like any other, but until that glorious day, Cruz and Rubio are smoking crack on this one. Clinton's biggest donors after the investment backs are the cable companies, so we know where she'll come down on this. I'm sure Trump has a comically entertaining position here - anyone know what it is?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re: "Destroy ing innovation" by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well if you stipulate "over" regulation it's logically impossible to disagree that that would be too much. But that doesn't actually tell you anything; it's just a tautology.

      Too much/too little regulation seems a simplistic way of framing the problem. I think it makes more sense to start with does a regulation serve a legitimate purpose; then you proceed to whether it is likely to accomplish that purpose, and whether it's costs and unintended consequences are reasonable, what the alternatives are for accomplishing the same thing, etc Many regulations are clearly poorly conceived or can't justify their costs. You could call that "too much- but really what's going on is that such a regulation accomplishes too little for its costs or distributes costs unseasonably.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re: "Destroy ing innovation" by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they will still make a profit. It's just that most of it will be realized without us.

      It already is you dumass. You're defending Comcast...

      What the over regulation will end up doing is destroying the possibilities for competition to start up

      Again, this is Comcast. They HAVE no competition because of policies pushed by the GOP.

      Truly Sum Dum Ass.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    8. Re: "Destroy ing innovation" by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Over regulation will and has destroy profit and wealth generation in the areas.

      You mean like regulations that mean they can't force you to work 18 hour days? Or the regulations that force them to offer safety equipment in dangerous work environments? Or maybe the regulations that ensure you get paid at the end of the week?
      I know the right like to throw around 'regulations' as some bogeyman, but all those rules came about because without them, the little guy was getting fucked over in some way. And unless you are the 1%, you are also the little guy. So be thankful those regulations exist.

    9. Re:"Destroy ing innovation" by mysidia · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They're Republicans. Evidence isn't necessary,

      No... that's not why... that is not the problem. THE LOBBYISTS who specialize in these officials GOT TO THEM. The democrats will scrap network neutrality just as fast.

      We need an outrages populous from both their own party and their own party to speak to them about the publics' concern on network neutrality issues.....

    10. Re: "Destroy ing innovation" by Falconhell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, hers a real simple point, we in Australia had good bank regulations, that prevented to behaviour that caused your economic meltdown not so long ago, and we even avoided recession.
      Surprisingly, complex industries that sail as close as possible to the edge of legality, need complex laws to control their behaviour.
      I'm constantly surprised at your need to have the bleeding obvious explained to you.

    11. Re: "Destroy ing innovation" by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you really think complex regulation allows corporations to not sail as close as possible to legalities?

      If anything it allows them to avoid the spirit of laws and exploit the complexities in ways largely unavailable to firms not already entrenched. Regulation should be succinct and clear as possible to not create undue burdens while still achieving the goals intended.

      Oh, I'm not against regulation, I'm against over regulation.

    12. Re:"Destroy ing innovation" by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Aaah yes, the classic libertarian fairy tale.

      In the real world, it's bullshit. You could possibly argue that consumer demand created them, but there's a point where it ceases to be a factor because choosing NOT to buy no longer has any actual impact on the corporation - in fact even killing it would have zero impact on the founders. A point where punishing it for doing wrong is almost useless because the people who actually have the authority to be responsible for the wrongdoing feel no pain - they just respond to the fines by cutting wages and salaries so you end up punishing a bunch of people who had no power or authority to prevent the bad behavior.

      You end up in a scenario where they are the largest employer so everybody HAS to keep them happy, or face a major unemployment issue, they biggest bank account so they can buy more political influence in a minute than you can get with a decade's worth of campaigning. More money than almost any government. And the ability to shuffle themselves around the world picking the laws they like - so instead of competing for our demand - our elected governments are competing for the privilege of letting them be the most lawless.

      Corporations are what happens when you take all the worst evils humans are capable off - and remove the fucking leash.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  2. "Consumers should be driving the market" by iCEBaLM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can consumers drive the market when not only are most ISPs local monopolies, but there are so many stealthy ways for ISPs to fuck with your connection? There's no choice, and no transparency, that's the whole fucking problem. If customers actually had real choice for their ISP, and could make informed decisions, then they would gravitate to the one who doesn't fuck with their connection.

    1. Re:"Consumers should be driving the market" by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention the passing of the rules was based on numerous consumer complaints.

  3. The only hope by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's easy to fall into hoping that that the fascist buffoon Trump doesn't win the candidacy. But then when you get reminded of the policies of the rest of them, you realise there is no good alternative there.

    The only real hope is that the Democrats win the presidency again.

    1. Re:The only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who are you rooting for then?

      Hillary "Vote for me because I have a vagina" Clinton, or Bernie "Let's raise taxes and give everyone Totally Free Stuff*" Sanders?

      Not that I think the R's are any better. I just don't see any good choice available.

    2. Re:The only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Higher taxes and more government spending != liberty

    3. Re: The only hope by jxander · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bernie. He seems to be the only one with the genuine goal of improving the country. Everyone else seems to be more interested in the power, money, prestige, money, and money that come with a successful campaign.

      Case in point: this article. Dollars to donuts says Cruz and Rubio don't sincerely hold the beliefs espoused in the proposed bill. Hell, I'd be honestly surprised if either of them could explain the basic concepts of net neutrality and the ramifications of gaining/losing it.

      That's not to say that I fully agree with Sanders' plan. Not even remotely. But I'll vote for sincere optimism instead of cynical money-grabbing any day. And twice on Tuesday.

      --
      This signature is false.
    4. Re: The only hope by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Democrat Team has a big dilemma at the moment.

      They have to consider the very real possibility of the DOJ bringing the hammer down on their favorite candidate. It is no surprise it hasn't happened yet, they're waiting to see if she gets the nomination or not.

      If she does, then you bring the inditement and watch the Democrat hopes for the Presidency go down like a ship who just tangled with an iceberg.

      They KNOW this is a very good possibility so they have a difficult decision to make. Their favorite candidate ( Hillary ) comes with a lot of risk. Their secondary ( Bernie ) may not be able to overcome Trump.

      My guess is Hillary will get the nod, the DOJ will play their ace and it will get real stupid real fast.

      Ultimately, it will probably be Bernie vs Trump in the end. Bernie has some great ideas but:

      Without congressional support they'll never come to pass and I really don't want to pay more taxes than I already do to fund them. If they can find other ways to pay for them then great. ( back off that defence budget a bit would be a great start )

      Pushing me into paying 1/3 of my salary into a bloated and inefficient system without some serious oversight on their wasteful spending isn't going to win a vote from me anytime soon.

      As it stands, I might have enough to retire on. Maybe. Voting for someone who wants to take even more money from me makes no sense at all as I prefer not to work until I die.

    5. Re:The only hope by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look Hillary, you and I both know this "raise the taxes" is bullshit.

      I never understood why everyone just accepts 'raise the taxes' as a bad option?
      Sure no-one likes to spend more money than they have to, but at some point if you want better services, you have to pay more for them.
      I would quite happily accept a modest rise in taxes, if they were reasonably even across the board, and they offered a benefit to society.
      How about instead of spending $1trillion on a war, we spend $1trillion on education? Can you imagine how much stronger the country would be if the education budget was boosted by $1trillion? You could almost argue the cost of it would almost pay itself back, but that would create too many arguments. Much easier to blow stuff up and keep throwing people in jail. It's so much easier to sell...

    6. Re:The only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have no real stake in this contest, but I'm curious as I see this point often trumpeted. I don't think anyone believes that increased government services are free, obviously they require an increase in taxes - isn't a moderate increase in taxes for healthcare better than the current system you have now? Every other first world country has this and their systems are leagues ahead in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. A good healthcare system that runs on your taxes would lower private insurance costs too (if you decide you need it).

      You're trading a social healthcare system (among other things, but this is the big one) for a false image of 'liberty' that you don't really have.

  4. Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And You believe her ?

  5. Consumers should be driving the market by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are. And it's reflected in the corrupt politicians they vote for and reelect.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. More doublespeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's restore internet freedom by preventing government regulatory authorities from guaranteeing it. Perfect doublespeak.

  7. Yeah, right by Rujiel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even in the presidential race, only one potential candidate out of seven doesn't have friendly ties with the cable and phone industries. Good luck having better odds on the federal legislative level. I'm wondering who all you expect people to vote for on this issue when their choices are shit, since you seem so convinced that it's the voters who are the problem.

  8. The only hope by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's easy to fall into hoping that that the fascist buffoon Trump doesn't win the candidacy. But then when you get reminded of the policies of the rest of them, you realise there is no good alternative there.

    The only real hope is that the Democrats win the presidency again.

    Let's recall the summer of 2008, when Obama flip-flopped on telecom immunity, got more campaign contributions from the telecoms, was able to spend more on campaigning, and was able to win the presidency.

    If the leader of your party can be that blatant, why should *anyone* vote for them?

    You are falling into the false dilemma of R versus D. The real dilemma is "us" versus "them", or "people" versus the "elites".

    The people are on one end of a long spectrum of political issues, and both the Republicans and Democrats are on the other. Arguing that D is better than R is pointless, neither represents the interests of the people.

    Extreme rhetoric, which is what you're using (viz: fascist buffoon), is only relevant to that distant end of the spectrum. The elites make more or less contributions, depending on how much extreme rhetoric gets aimed at any candidate.

    It's a game that only mainstream politicians play.

    Both Donald and Bernie have populist views, their political positions would benefit the people.

    Bernie is a mainstream politician, and is somewhat dependent on contributions from the elites. If he can overcome that burden and win the nomination, then he'd be one candidate to back.

    Donald needs *no* contributions from the elites, so he's free to promise benefits to the people.

    Right now Donald is our best hope for getting government on our side. He's not the only hope, Bernie is still in the game, but there's no hope in any of the other choices.

    Or, to quote Charles Koch: "You’d Think We Could Have More Influence’ on 2016 Race".

  9. Restoring Internet Freedom Act by Edis+Krad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Holy shit, that newspeak.

  10. any bill with Freedom in the name by surd1618 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Watch out

  11. Re:turn-about is fair play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Net neutrality is like dictating that public roads is open to everyone.

    Without net neutrality it's like having different speed limits and restrictions depending on which brand of car you use.

  12. Killing net neutrality is anti-competitive by ajyand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Killing net neutrality will give well established businesses an edge over the new entrants thus leading to anti-competitive practices. An obnoxious form of monopoly is sure to follow the death of neutrality. Does it require a PhD to understand that?