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"

[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

[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

[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:Rubio and Cruz

[Anonymous Coward]

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

More doublespeak

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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).

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.

Restoring Internet Freedom Act

[Edis Krad]

Holy shit, that newspeak.

any bill with Freedom in the name

[surd1618]

Watch out