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

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."

Comments

"Destroy ing innovation"

[ArylAkamov]

"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

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[gweilo8888]

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.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Anonymous Coward]

Failing campaigns gotta get that Telco money

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[hey!]

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.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[lgw]

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?

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[hey!]

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.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Jack Griffin]

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.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Falconhell]

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.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[sumdumass]

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.

"Consumers should be driving the market"

[iCEBaLM]

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.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[Lunix Nutcase]

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

The only hope

[BasilBrush]

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.

Re:The only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: The only hope

[jxander]

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.

Re:The only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Consumers should be driving the market

[fustakrakich]

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

More doublespeak

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Restoring Internet Freedom Act

[Edis Krad]

Holy shit, that newspeak.

any bill with Freedom in the name

[surd1618]

Watch out