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!]

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.

"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.

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

[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.

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