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"

[cyber-vandal]

Global megacorps aren't those people. You're thinking of local businesses that employ the majority of people, pay taxes and generally provide a useful service to the community. Global megacorps dodge taxes, destroy local businesses and move employment to the places where people are more easily exploited.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[epyT-R]

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.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Anonymous Coward]

There're plenty of problems with both parties.

Good point - absolutely true. However this article is about Cruz and Rubio. Two people whose personal philosophies seem to hinge on be on the wrong side of every issue.

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"

[vjl]

I would actually say, on the side of the GOP, the most moderate and sane one in that group, is Kasich. He would be willing to work with a Congress that's not from his political party, and his ideals line up to that of the Republicans, rather than the Tea Party [so they are far less right-wing].

I don't vote Repub, but if I had to recommend someone for that side, he would get my recommendation and vote.

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"

[pixelpusher220]

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.

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"

[cold fjord]

"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

There seem to be some problems.

Net Neutrality - Issues

Strict Net neutrality legislation would limit the terms, conditions, and potentially prices set by broadband Internet service providers. This could restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service, and deliver new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs.

Cisco believes that allowing the development of differentiated broadband products, with different service and content offerings, will enhance the broadband market for consumers.

Net neutrality for dummies

Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. The reader has probably not encountered much difficulty accessing even the smallest web sites. Big sites that deliver huge amounts of multimedia content with blistering speed pay extra for their performance, but this happily leaves ISPs with plenty of lower-cost extra bandwidth to sell. Net Neutrality would be movement, at gunpoint, away from efficient Internet capitalism, and into dreary online socialism. Imagine what would happen to Internet traffic if ISPs were required to treat obscure cat blogs the same way they handle Fox News, CNN and Netflix.

Net Neutrality would foul things up on the user end of the Internet experience, too. Most basic Internet services have some sort of usage cap, beyond which performance is automatically slowed down. The caps are very high, so average users are perfectly happy with this arrangement. Even cell phone users, with more aggressive usage caps than household cable or DSL access, rarely encounter their service limits. Those who desire more bandwidthâ"most commonly for downloading large amounts of multimedia content, like high-definition moviesâ"can pay extra to raise or remove their usage limits.

This kind of multi-tiered service is the reason cheaper, "lower-tiered" service exists at all. It would be silly to charge the same rate to an average home user who fiddles with email and Facebook for a couple of hours each day, versus a movie fanatic who wants to download a hundred high-def movies a month.

At worst, Net Neutrality would "redistribute" bandwidth, so that network hogs have no reason not to download everything in creation, at all hours. Meanwhile, those average users would be reduced to hammering their keyboards in frustration, and wondering why even simple everyday websites took several minutes to load. The past would become a bygone age of wonders.

Net Neutrality waivers

As always, vast power would accrue to those who control the "redistribution" of Internet bandwidth. It wouldn't be long before the first Net Neutrality waivers appeared, the same way ObamaCare is riddled with special exemptions for the politically connected. Like so much else in our centrally planned economy, Internet access would become a boon granted by politicians, rather than a commodity sold by businesses.

The proponents of Net Neutrality sell their agenda by inverting the language of freedom, warning darkly of evil ISPs "blocking" content from website proprietors if they don't pay a ransom. This is true in precisely the same sense that motorists who drive a Chevy Volt are "blocked' from driving as fast as a Porsche can. Net Neutrality "solves" this "problem" by outlawing Porsches . . . and spending taxpayer money on an army of regulators to ensure that every car dealership sells nothing but Volts.

Net Neutrality shares many attributes of the Left's other favored causes. It's steeped in anti-capitalist rhetoric, and d

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[vjl]

Carson won't because of what the Cruz camp did to him. It's the only thing I agree with Trump on - in Iowa, before the polls closed, the Cruz camp told people Carson had dropped out, and many of Carson's supporters therefore voted for Cruz. Making those comments before the polls closed is against the rules, and Trump was not happy.

Neither was Carson, who vowed to stay in it as long as Cruz was in it, to take as many votes away from Cruz as he could.

Kinda feels like 3rd grade recess out there...

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.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

Over regulation may cost somebody a paycheck in a few years.

Under regulation WILL kill a thousand people tomorrow. It has never failed to do so.
And whom it doesn't kill - it enslaves.

One of the last bastions of bona-fide "grabbed from their homes and chained up" slavery in the world is the cocoa bean farms of the DRC - staffed almost entirely by kidnapped child slaves. They are a source of nearly all the chocolate that Hershey's, Cadburrys and Nestle sell. This was first exposed in 2000. All three companies pledged to clean up their act. Bernie Sanders used the popular sentiment to drive through a law prohibiting US companies from importing goods produced by child labour. Then GW pointed at the marketing blitz of "cleaning up our supply chain" ads the the companies were running, said "clearly this industry is self regulating so there's no need to enforce the law" and never enforced the law - 8 years later it was basically languishing in the realm of the forgotten.
It's now 16 years later, not one of the companies have done anything about the problem - in fact, it's only gotten MUCH worse. There are now tens of thousands of these kidnapped child-slaves working those farms under whip, with no payment, little food and no adequate shelter. Almost all of them dying on the job before they hit puberty.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

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.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

He is also on the wrong side... just further along. He's the guy who said he wants to have government effectively curate the internet remember - great firewall of china style.
Because literally the only thing worse than ISPs deciding what internet services do or do not work well for you (based on double-pay kickbacks) is having government decide which services you can access.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Jason Levine]

That and "too much regulation" is entirely subjective. Let's suppose a company wants to dump its waste into a local river. Doing this is cheap and they don't need to worry about any cleanup. Unfortunately, people get sick due to the waste dump and regulations are written about proper waste disposal. This will cost the company money, which eats into profits. Of course the company will call these regulations "too much." To the people who are getting sick, though, the regulations might even be not enough. (e.g.. There isn't a strong enforcement provision or there's a loophole that lets them subcontract to another company who dumps the same waste into the same river.)

"Too much regulation" could be that the regulations really are burdensome and don't serve a valid purpose. Or "too much regulation" could mean that the company just wants to take the quick and easy path regardless of who gets hurt in the process because that will make them a few bucks more in profits.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[sudon't]

Out of the folks on the right, he was (still is) the most sane one on offer.

Which is why his campaign is failing. The Right loves Trump because he eschews the dog whistle Republicans have using to lure the racist, the lunatic, and the paranoid into their party, the party of the rich. Instead, he's saying it out loud. The Republicans have long been throwing sops to these people, as they worked on their true agenda, but these people are not sitting quietly anymore. We, on the left, ought to take a cue from them.

Incidentally, I love how all these bills are given doublespeak titles: "Restoring Internet Freedom Act", "Right to Work", "Defense of Marriage", etc. It would be hilarious in a novel.

"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.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[fustakrakich]

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?

Well gee! They can start by not reelecting the politicians who grant and enforce those monopolies. It's pretty easy to be informed these days.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[GuB-42]

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.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure. Nerds like us don't want ISPs to fuck with our connections but I'm sure many people will take say 5GB internet + free Netflix over unlimited internet but you have to buy your own Netflix subscription.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Bernie. He's the only one who has a sane plan and who seemingly gives a shit about liberty. The rest of them outright want to strip you of privacy and rewrite the constitution.

Re:The only hope

[NotInHere]

I think Trump makes lots of facist noise in order to appeal for the republican voters so that he gets the candidacy. Once he is candidate he will talk more about his other topics, which are mostly left from popular republican positions. Think of obamacare, he does want a system like that (with small adjustments, which probably even make sense), while rubio and cruz don't.

But the danger in voting for Trump is that it would promote and introduce more facist talk into the political business.

Hillary is establishment. Bernie says that evil evil word "socialism" but he also calls europe socialist, and as an european I pretty much like the systems we have, so I'd probably vote for Bernie if I were american and must chose between all candidates in the race.

Re:The only hope

[hairyfeet]

Nope sorry not gonna happen and here is why...the DNC is NEVER EVER gonna let old Bernie have the nomination, he isn't in bed with the right insiders (in a way he is the left's Trump, disliked by his own side for not playing their reindeer games) while Hillary never met a check she didn't like so Hillary will get the nomination....and then promptly get SLAUGHTERED in the general election.

She is 1.- Waaay too stiff and uptight, even when she is trying to come off as friendly her body language just screams "get away from me you peasant!" and her discomfort can be seen a mile away, 2.- she has done even more shady deals than trump has in the past, see Goldman Sachs, the deal with the private prison corp, and the worst one, the one that guarantees her failure in the election? 3.- She has done waaaaay too many flip flops right on camera which makes her look like nothing but a slimy liar trying to say whatever it takes to win. Just look at how quickly that 16 year old kid completely screwed her with the #whichhillary hashtag where they use her own words against her by showing her in the 80s, 90s, and 00s kissing these corps and right wingers by spewing hard right rhetoric, which of course she is now trying to run a campaign where she is against everything she was for.,...not gonna work.

So unless something happens to take Trump out of the race, where Hillary has to face Cruz or Rubio, both of which are even worse at performing than she is? You better get used to saying President Donald.

Re:The only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Higher taxes and more government spending != liberty

Re:The only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

We're always going to get higher taxes and more government spending. Cruz's tax plan gives huge cuts to the wealthy and increases taxes on the poor. But his plan doesn't give me anything. It gives the rich plenty. I'm not out "to get" the rich, but why should I vote for someone who tells me he's going to support them and hope I see some benefits? At least with Sanders wants to give me, a member of the middle class, something. I'll take increased taxes as long as I know what I am getting in return and not what the RICH are getting in return. The rich can handle themselves; it's about time the middle class voted for themselves instead of worrying about how much money we give to the already wealthy.

And if you don't like Sanders or the other candidates there is always Gov Johnson the Libertarian candidate. I like some of Sanders' stuff and some of Johnson's stuff. Don't much care for the rest.

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

[nehumanuscrede]

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.

Re:The only hope

[Jack Griffin]

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...

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.

Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[Crashmarik]

Trump is likely the GOP nominee #RIP_PartyOfLincoln
Hillary is almost certainly the Dem nominee after SC, hopefully someone will douse her with a bucket of water. #WhatAWorld

Does anyone think Net Neutrality is going to survive past November no matter what ?

Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[BasilBrush]

Yes.

"Hillary Backs Strongest Net Neutrality Rules"
http://time.com/3721452/hillar...

Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[Crashmarik]

And You believe her ?

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[mjpollard]

More than I believe any Republican, any time, anywhere. But please, feel free to believe that Hillary Clinton is pure evil from the lowest depths of hell if it makes you feel better.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[sumdumass]

You do not have to believe that Hillary Clinton is pure evil from the lowest depths of hell. Just that she is a self centered liar looking out only for herself. Or that anything she does for others is ancillary to getting hers in the process.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[avatar avatar]

You don't run for president if you aren't self centered and you don't stay in national politics for long if you aren't willing to lie/change positions/etc. That said, it sounds like you don't like the fact that she's a viable candidate for POTUS.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[ScentCone]

Not sure where this comes from. All evidence from people who have worked with her points to her being an incredibly caring and selfless person.

Yes, for her family and inner circle - she "selflessly" lets them in on the Clinton machine's heaps of money, power, and access (as long as they stay loyal, or don't have a fling with her husband, in which case they are publicly ruined or end up killing themselves or going to jail).

She has a long list of accomplishments that meaningfully have helped people.

Yes, she has a long list of events at which she used her position of power as Secretary of State in order to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for her family business from foreign governments that are notoriously abusive when it comes to "the people."

Seriously, on the level of politicians, who almost universally have suspect motivations, she's got to be one of the better ones.

No, not really. She's a corrupt serial liar, a poll-driven drive-by policy position holder with completely contradictory underlying philosophical premises, and would appear to be incredibly negligent if not outright criminally abusive in her handling of more-than-top-secret information while working her personal money making operation at the State Department. She looks you in the eye at public events, picks a phony accent out of her hat depending on what color your skin is, and then lies to you completely obvious ways that don't even pass the smell test. And that's who you are defending.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[ClickOnThis]

Hillary tells the truth about 25% of the time.

Citation:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Actually, your link claims Hillary Clinton's statements are true or mostly true 51% of the time. You're ignoring the graded nuance in the ratings.

Furthermore, compared the the ratings of the other major candidates on the same website, Hillary Clinton doesn't look so bad:

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Re:Rubio and Cruz

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry - soon Trump will send them home.

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.

It Follows

[PopeRatzo]

Of course Ted Cruz is trying to kill the net neutrality rules. He's the fucking Zodiac Killer.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/20...

Comma comma comma comma comma chameleon

[wonkey_monkey]

Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1 Year Rule Anniversary

Slashdot, using commas in place of the word "and" is a stupid, pointless tradition, and in this case it looks like you're tweeting Rubio to warn him about Cruz's plan (in bad English).

Drinking Water

[Etherwalk]

"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

They just realize the market will sort itself out better if utilities are unregulated and the Republicans are able to Bribe ISPs to load Democratic content slower.

Re:Drinking Water

[Etherwalk]

"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

They just realize the market will sort itself out better if utilities are unregulated and the Republicans are able to Bribe ISPs to load Democratic content slower.

So this was rated troll (perhaps because it seemed to demonize the party whose members are suggesting this), but actually points out the fundamental problem with deregulation--information pipes *are* common carriers and should have obligations to serve the public without discriminating on the basis of who wants to use them, just like bus companies have to treat passengers similarly.

does not work

[matushorvath]

"consumers should be driving the market"

In a country where a limited number of internet providers have a virtual monopoly? How well did it work when it was tried with the phone companies in last century? I'm all for free market, when it works, but in this case it clearly does not. Just look at the prices and compare them with any country with a real internet provider competition if you don't believe.

Yeah, right

[Rujiel]

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.

Re:Yeah, right

[zephvark]

The voters make the choices between the small selection of dimwits and psychopaths that they're offered. I understand that is not what your high school civics class taught you. Of course, the government probably funded that school.

Re:Yeah, right

[fustakrakich]

The voters make the choices between the small selection of dimwits and psychopaths that they're offered.

Exactly! That's the problem. They wait for the first clown with the flashy suit to be shot out of the cannon. It's the result of strategically voting for the 'lesser evil' side of a monolith. The voters choose the most charming psychopath. The selection is larger than it appears on mass media.

Re:Yeah, right

[danbert8]

The voters make the choices in the primaries*

* well the voters in Iowa, NH, and SC anyway. How many candidates have already dropped out and over 90% of the country hasn't voted yet...

Wake me when 2016 is over

[93 Escort Wagon]

Man, it seems like every Slashdot discussion thread lately has almost immediately devolved into a Democat versus Republican bash-fest. I realize this story is about what a couple Republican senators did; but can't you guys manage to discuss any issue without turning your brains completely off?

The only hope

[Okian Warrior]

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".

Restoring Internet Freedom Act

[Edis Krad]

Holy shit, that newspeak.

FCC is the wrong agency. Give it to the FTC.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The correct agency for handling Net Neutrality issues is not the FCC. FCC is welcome to set standards on technological issues. But it's subject to regulatory capture and neither empowered, nor competent to handle, issues related to monopolization, bundling, throttling, fast-lane-service, preferential treatment of partners' content, and on and on and on.

It's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), under antitrust, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and similar doctrines, that has the mandate, cluefullness, and track record to do this job.

Remember that it's FTC, not FCC, the broke up Bell (as it broke up Standard Oil) and forced "foreign attachments" onto IBM.

The FTC doesn't strike often. But when it does it has a DAMN big hammer.

any bill with Freedom in the name

[surd1618]

Watch out

Re:turn-about is fair play...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Killing net neutrality is anti-competitive

[ajyand]

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?

Re:Ah, the Left, always the home of racism

[Crowd Computing]

The Democrats owned all the black slaves, started the KKK, racially segregated the government [etc]

The first part of your rant might all be true. I'm too lazy to review my US history, so let's assume that it is. But you should be aware that the Democratic party of Lincoln's time is a different donkey from the Democratic party of today. Parties aren't static entities, especially those with a longer apparent history than the parties of Lenin and Mao. They're made of people, and their ideological orientation could flip-flop like the poles or a bisexual in search of love.