Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules 438
SonicSpike writes with news about another bump in the road for net neutrality. U.S. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican presidential hopeful, on Wednesday introduced a resolution to block new regulations on Internet service providers, saying they would 'wrap the Internet in red tape.' The 'net neutrality' rules, which are slated to take effect in June, are backed by the Obama administration and were passed by the Democratic majority of the Federal Communications Commission in February. AT&T Inc and wireless and cable trade associations are challenging them in court. Paul's resolution, if adopted, would allow the Senate to fast-track a vote to establish that Congress disapproves of the FCC's new rules and moves to nullify them.
I like this guy but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:5, Interesting)
While the end result is that the average citizen gets fucked in the end (and not the way that makes you feel good and sleepy), how can you say that the US only has a 1 party system? Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it.
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are the "Janus" party... two faces of the same organization -- those who want to consolidate power in their own hands.
Certainly the two "branches" of the Janus party each work on land-grabbing *different* areas of power, but look at their donor lists -- they're both consolidating all that power at the behest of the same people.
Think of it when like ... Sales and Engineering have radically different ideas about how something should work.... they both fixate on their personal world-views, but ultimately, they're both part of the same organization and power-structure.
Re: (Score:3)
They are the "Janus" party... two faces of the same organization -- those who want to consolidate power in their own hands.
That pretty much describes every organization everywhere in every country and every time period.
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gave its 2009 SmartWay Excellence Award to Georgia-Pacific, a Koch Industries company. “I commend Georgia-Pacific for its leadership in promoting sustainable transportation practices through the SmartWay Transportation Partnership,” said Margo T. Oge, director of EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality. “These actions demonstrate a commitment to a cleaner environment and more secure energy supply.”
EPA gives an environmental award to a Koch Industries business unit. What Koch does is not cater to the Far left viewpoint of Environmentalist / anti Capitalist / socialist agenda. You know the "build wind farms, just not where I can see them" Kennedy types
Re: (Score:3)
The problem arises when 95% of the population is fooled into voting for a single party with two wings, both of which are working against them.
Frankly, I doubt you understand politics. Despite your claims the parties are different entities although with very similar goals (power and control). In some areas, the policies of the parties are indistinguishable because they are appealing to same people for funding and trying to get same people to vote for them. Both parties need a majority of votes to win so they are by necessity fighting over the same people in the American center.
Frankly, in the current American system, large differences are not s
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In general if you look at the donor list, they all come from the same strata of society but represent opposing cultures within that strata. Granted, picking either party is a vote for the wealthy controlling the country, but they are still a fairly diverse bunch and you can pick and choose who's goals align with your own.
Yeah, either you can vote for the Democrats, who create new regulations to freeze competition out, or you can vote for the Republicans, who give away corporate welfare to freeze the competition out. That's why it always makes me laugh when people say libertarians are for big business, when libertarians would be the first to eliminate regulatory barriers to entry & corporate welfare. The reason corporations are so powerful is because they're propped up by the government, but most people just don't get th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, as of this point, neither of the parties is currently Left enough for you?
That's pretty much it. The United States has two major political parties: a right-wing party, and a far right-wing party.
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep in mind that authoritarianism is an orthogonal concept; you can have right-wing authoritarians (e.g. most current Republican politicians), and you can have left-wing authoritarians (usually what most people think Communism is, such as the USSR). As always, I point people to Political Compass [politicalcompass.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it."
So long as those two topics are popular yet inconsequential.
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only the ones that don't matter, but make for good sound bites. On the actual important topics, both halves of our oligarchic regime enthusiastically agree:
And that's just off the top of my head, not anywhere close to a complete list.
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:4, Informative)
Excuse me; let me clarify: I'm talking about laws restricting people's ability to get on the ballot as a candidate (especially when said candidate lacks affiliation with the Democrat or Republican Party).
Having laws restricting who can vote is a different issue.
Re: (Score:3)
And that is the solution. TAX Intellectual Property.
Sony bitches about $200 million lost in piracy? Let the IRS tax them on their new made up bullshit number. Suddenly IP "losses" go to sane levels.
I want IP taxed at 15% of the value claimed, and any claim in court asking for more due to piracy, is charged RETROACTIVELY by the IRS.
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite public views of it.
FTFY
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Support of big government spending: check
Support of intrusive government surveillance: check
Poor understanding of economics: check
Favor policies that benefit the rich: check
Support of gerrymandering: check
They look pretty similar to me.
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we have two parties here:
1) The rich & powerful
2) Everyone else
But since #1 always wins, it's an easy mistake to make.
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The rich must be awfully good at promoting their own agenda and making it look like it's in the interests of those people.
A little sophistry goes a long way.
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you can afford the very best (and totally amoral) marketing ...
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:5, Informative)
The rich must be awfully good at promoting their own agenda and making it look like it's in the interests of those people. A little sophistry goes a long way.
Americans have an intriguing tendency to vote as the social class they want to be, not the social class they are which seems heavily linked in to the American Dream. When you work hard, become a big success and make lots of money they don't want socialists to come take their money and give to slackers who haven't risen above the pack. Where in other countries workers allied together to get higher wages and better conditions on the bottom of the ladder, US workers are all about getting up the ladder and into a better job, those who can't don't deserve more.
Which might not be such a bad thing, if everybody started at zero. Reality is that most people are busy just making a living, while those with lots of free cash to invest make even more money so the rich get richer and the poor rarely make their dream come true. I think it goes far beyond rich men's propaganda, it's a cultural thing deeply embedded in Americans. What you've made is your own, I don't want it and when I get mine I don't want nobody taking it either. The rich just float on that attitude.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
“Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.”
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/415646-politics-is-the-gentle-art-of-getting-votes-from-the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you also forgot to mention that they confuse the gullible with "gun crime is at an all time high", or outright bribe them with "wouldn't you like this government program to give you back some of the money we stole from you", or "we need to protect you from internet censorship that isn't even happening."
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:5, Informative)
It's "you're an idiot".
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean He's still an idiot.
And it seems to me that even an idiot would realize that using bad grammar while calling someone an idiot can make you look like an idiot too.
Re: I like this guy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
'Threatened' gun rights are a red herring
As someone who has had to divest myself of lawfully owned property to accommodate new gun-control measures - no, they are not a "red herring".
And 'gun rights' are, to a large extent, the corporate interest of gun and ammo manufacturers, by the way
No, they're not. They've existed since the 18th century, long before there were corporate interests of gun and ammo manufacturers.
The proportion of the electorate that needs gun rights to extend to the building of personal arsenals is minuscule (well, maybe not that minuscule), but the outrage machine manages to get the whole gun loving cohort on board.
The proportion of the internet users who "need" Net Neutrality is minuscule, but the outrage machine manages to get the whole internet on board.
So, assuming you favor net neutrality, and are reading this thread because you want it preserved
Definitely assumes facts not in evidence.
The Democrats' agenda is far less corporatist than the Republicans'.
Nonsense, they just get funded by different corporations. I'll remind you that unions are corporations, too.
Who do you think is more likely to fix that...?
Anarchists. Would you like one of our fliers?
Re: (Score:3)
This is a provably false assertion. I know a large number of free citizens who do not own weapons.
I would put it that way. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I like this guy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I like this guy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
People think he's the citizenry's friend because he occasionally backs some civil liberties bill that he knows will never pass anyway. In reality, his only real masters are the rich & powerful. He just tosses the occasional meaningless symbolic bone to the public to pretend he isn't just another Republican. "Here, I'll back this civil liberties bill that I know has no chance of ever passing, so you won't notice that my REAL agenda is just abolishing taxes on the wealthy and letting corporations do whatever the fuck they want to this country."
Re:I like this guy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
ProTip: Nobody who's going to get a lick of camera time in the upcoming election isn't someone whose "masters" are the "rich and powerful."
They make sure to make it impossible for anyone other than the Janus Party to participate.
bye bye rand paul (Score:4, Insightful)
thought this guy was interesting, but this kills it for me...and sours me on any other repub candidates that might sympathize with his position. republicans the party of repressing the people and supporting corporate america.
Re:bye bye rand paul (Score:5, Insightful)
lol you made up your mind long before that and just wanted an excuse to generalize and bash a party you do not agree with.
Okay, so you're saying lumping an entire party together and generalizing and bashing them is a bad thing. That's a reasonable argument to make.
That's why we refer to you democrats as "sheeple" and you fit the status quo.
And yet you lump both yourself ("we") into one camp, and others you disagree with into another camp, and use childish* name-calling to bash the ones you disagree with and have preconceived notions about? You're either a brilliant troll or have the self-awareness and memory of a goldfish**.
* yes, I am generalizing about children being immature
** and goldfish
Re: (Score:2)
I think you made a wrong turn somewhere... this is Slashdot, not godlikeproductions.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now we live in a world where the internet sometimes sees something go "viral." Its just possible that one of these days a video will go viral around election time with someone with NO money getting on the stump and telling people why they should vote for him/her as a write in candidate.
That is the path to breaking the money cycle in american politics.
But it only works as long as we have a free internet. I sure
Re: (Score:2)
he is showing his value by creating crap for his handlers to screw up your future.
Yeah, I totally hate the Internet too. If only the FCC had been regulating it since it's inception, it would be so much better now!
Classic example of a market failure.
Re:I like this guy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
In theory, the FCC shouldn't need to regulate the internet at all, but because other government has created a wholly fucked up system, I agree that it's necessary at this point for them to step in.
Paul is just blindly sticking to principles without considering the reality of the situation. If he wants to block the government from regulating the internet, first he needs to remove the roadblocks that prevent such government regulation from being necessary. You can't have a market-based solution when there is no market and the chances of having one have been made practically impossible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I considered FCC net neutrality the worse of two possible solutions:
1) Actual competition in the marketplace
2) Government regulation of a virtual monopoly
I'd totally be okay with this action if breaking up the internet cartels we current suffer from was part of the deal. The fact that these providers basically told users to bend over and take it when they were fighting with Netflix showed the darker side of the current system. The US internet is most certainly NOT flourishing at this point, as the corpora
Re:LIbertarian principle (Score:5, Insightful)
In a free country, businesses don't get massive government subsidies and de-facto monopolies. Also, in a free country, governments can decide no business serves their constituents well and decide to serve their constituents directly.
But that's not the ISP landscape right now.
Re: (Score:3)
There's always limits on freedom due to conflicts, eg the classic conflict between my waving my fist and your right not to get punched.
Huh? Can you elaborate on the logical chain that lead you to this statement? What sort of freedom is it, that allows the Collective to arbitrarily prohibit an Individual to offer a service?
Staying on topic, there is limits to how many Individuals can erect telephone poles and how many wires/fibers can go on the poles so the collective can put up the poles, run the fiber and allow anyone to use them for a reasonable fee. Much like how the road networks work today (there's also a limit on the number of roads that are possible so they're run by the collective)
Re:LIbertarian principle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LIbertarian principle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Really? How many of your financial relations with the government are voluntary on your part?
How many of your financial relations with corporations are voluntary on your part? (and for the ones that aren't, could it possibly be due to a government-granted monopoly?)
I choose to remain an American citizen, that choice has consequences which include things like taxes. The government, even in a Libertarian society, provides necessary services and those have to be funded somehow. So yes, I consider that voluntary. I may have some things to say about the level of taxes and how they're being spent, but I do get express my opinion at voting time. My vote may influence the government about as much as voting my couple of shares of a mega-corp, but that's how it works in bot
Paul / Clinton (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Paul / Clinton (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Paul / Clinton (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, you ever notice how you never see Rand Paul and Ru Paul in the same room together? Kinda makes you think, eh?
This is called Kansas city shuffle (Score:2)
This is called Kansas city shuffle. While you be having fun watching debates for 6 months during presidential debates, most of us will be robbed both from right pocket and the left pocket.
Adult in you should realize that the show organizers and those emptying the pockets are part of coordinated efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
A very small part of me wants to see a Rand Paul / Hillary Clinton contest.
Wow, talk about the epitome of a lose/lose situation. But then, all elections pretty much are.
Rand Paul seems to get a pass here (Score:2, Insightful)
I think people on here forget that he is affiliated with the Tea Party (and pretty much follows the party line on like 99% of the issues).
Re:Rand Paul seems to get a pass here (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
News at 5! (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks like ole' Rand here got some good brib... donation money from 'Big Telecomm'! More after this break!
Like most of the accounced candidates for POTUS, Paul is 'fucking clownshoes' as well!
This is not a matter of neutrality (Score:5, Interesting)
As usual, the hotly debated themes are ill structured, intentionally I guess.
The problem is not what the telecom companies should do about their packets.
The problem is that if you sell me INTERNET access I should be expecting:
- a way to send/get packets to all internet peers, at my own risk and responsibility
- an IP with the ability to open the ports I want
- if technically feasible, and now it is, symmetric band I/O
If telcos decide to meddle with anything above they should
- lose common carrier status and become co responsible.
- not call it internet. Youtubenet facebooklink flixnet for netflix or whatever, sell it at reduced price and get the new generation of imbeciles on board there and off the real net.
It's a win/win.
Back to topic, Rand Paul should focus on freedom of communication, which sidesteps this debate once and for all.
Re: (Score:3)
You realize that nothing you describe above precludes the poster-child for the Net Neutrality movement, the Comcast/Netflix situation, right?
Nothing in your agreement with the ISP requires them to peer with the people you want them to peer with, at the capacity you want them to have.
Re: (Score:2)
And nothing in the net neutrality rules requires your ISP to peer with the people you want them to peer with, at the capacity you want them to have.
The operational phrase being "at the capacity you want them to have"....
Re:This is not a matter of neutrality (Score:4, Interesting)
And it would not matter IF NOT FOR GOVERNMENT REGULATION...because I would have several, if not dozens of competitors to choose amongst.
Tell me, what color is the sky where you live?
No matter what the government does no one is going to have dozens of competitors to chose from because running wires to peoples houses is expensive and it would not be cost effective to do so for a chance at 1/24th of the market (and that's assuming that it were even practical to dig up the streets every 5 minutes to run new cables).
Not to mention that without evil GOVERNMENT REGULATION to force right-of-way land usage it would be almost impossible for anyone to build a comprehensive network because one old coot in the wrong location that refuses to let you run cables over his land could cut off whole segments of the population.
Re: (Score:3)
Good FCC regs would get the hell out of the way of the ISPs who -- really -- have done nothing to deserve what they're getting. This is a bad solution to solve a problem which doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Good FCC regs would get the hell out of the way of the ISPs who -- really -- have done nothing to deserve what they're getting. This is a bad solution to solve a problem which doesn't exist.
The problem of stove piped networks clearly exists as smaller networks have been squeezed and squeezed using inadequate peering to force them to consolidate or go out of business. This has been a clear trend over the last two decades.
I see the problem as government regulations (including the current FCC version of Net Neutrality) being captured by monopolies to further their consolidation of power, not that there isn't a role for government regulation of the free market.
Unregulated free markets don't r
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about freedom, it's about letting corporations do whatever the fuck they want. It's only freedom if you don't have to give a shit about anyone else.
Re:This is not a matter of neutrality (Score:4, Informative)
If telcos decide to meddle with anything above they should
- lose common carrier status and become co responsible.
ISPs are already not classified as common carriers. That's why this whole debacle is even being discussed. The most obvious solution is for the FCC to classify them as the common carriers that they are.
Re:This is not a matter of neutrality (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with the "net neutrality" issue for those looking for "freedom", like Libertarian minded individuals, is the complexity of the industry.
One could argue that it is more "free" to allow the companies to control it how they wish. (Rand Paul's position.)
One could argue that it is more "free" to allow the customers to use it how they wish.
The (only) problem with Rand Paul's position is that the companies are using a government granted charter (monopoly) to run these Internet connections to the homes and government granted eminent domain to run these Internet backbones. If the government granted these items, then the government has oversight on these lines. If these telecom built the lines using their own capital and without the use of special government laws, then they shouldn't be subject to net neutrality red tape and regulations. However, the fact is the opposite. There isn't one telecom that did not rely on the government for their infrastructure. So those telecoms should not be allowed to do with that joint-property how they wish.
The problem with the current law is that it will push this regulation across the industry, whether or not the company should conform. What if a company shoots a satellite into space without using eminent domain or acquiring any monopolistic charter and that satellite can deliver great Internet access (I know, rare, right?)? That access should not be subject to these regulations.
It's the missing competition (Score:3)
While I support net neutrality as a concept and as a form of regulation (with a big dash of hope, too), none of this would be an issue if there was any competition for residential high speed internet access.
Caps, quotas, asymmetry, prohibitions on "servers", crippling of web sites like Netflix -- none of this would be happening at all if there was meaningful high speed Internet competition. Providers who did this would be gutted by the market for vendors who didn't do these things. This is all rent-seek
Re: (Score:3)
If telcos decide to meddle with anything above they should - lose common carrier status and become co responsible. - not call it internet. Youtubenet facebooklink flixnet for netflix or whatever, sell it at reduced price and get the new generation of imbeciles on board there and off the real net.
It's a win/win.
No, I think that's insufficient. The real issue here is that we need real, fast, high quality, unfettered telecommunications infrastructure. It's an economic issue, an issue of technological development, and First Amendment issue. There can be no compromise there.
Unfortunately, infrastructure development can only be left to the "free market" in limited ways. We can't have businesses developing completely independent roadways. Cities can't have a bunch of different electrical companies all laying down
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, and Rand is really stand up guy. He didn't want to go through the opthamologists boards in Kentucky, so he created his own board and self-certified under that. He's also claimed he has a biology degree, which he doesn't. He does have a medical degree from Duke, though, maybe he got them confused. He's also been caught plagiarizing wikipedia.
For all those who think he's the citizen's friend (Score:2)
He's only the friend of the rich and powerful. Don't kid yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
As are ALL senators and to a lesser extent representatives...
Proof [thewizardsmanse.com]
I thought about voting for him (Score:5, Insightful)
He also wants to roll back civil rights too. (Score:5, Interesting)
In the long run of history, such businesses would go bankrupt, but the invisible hand of the economy dispenses justice in a collective average statistical sense over a long period of time. Generations of blacks would go discriminated against for decades before the invisible hand acts against the bad actors.
Humanity has experienced such total free economy. It took 1000 years for Europe to break out of the feudal system where inherited property based on land concentrated power at the very top. It took four centuries of combined effects of the renaissance, age of exploration, the industrial revolution and new found serfs in the colonies to break the feudal system. Pure libertarian solutions take centuries to take effect, they require seismic paradigm shifts and the breakdown is very violent. Culminating in a 30 year world war. (According to Churchill world war I and II are just one war spread over three decades).
Pure libertarianism is just marginally more practical than communism. Communism simply will not work because it disconnects incentives from effort. Libertarianism naturally leads to oligarchy. Liberal democracy, founded on acknowledging the usefulness and sinlessness of the profit motive to the society but moderated by large number collectively holding more power than any small group of oligarchs is what would work to give justice, peace and liberty to most people.
Re: (Score:2)
Pure libertarianism is just marginally more practical than communism
There is no such thing as pure libertarianism. The thing you want to describe that way is called anarchy. Libertarianism does not preclude the creation of laws to maintain a fair playing field. Some fascists have argued that and attempted to take over the party along those lines, but that doesn't make it so. There's no liberty in a world in which anyone with more money than you can do anything to you.
There are only different kinds of libertarians. You can have a pure anarchist, but you can't have a pure lib
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with liberty is that human nature ensures we can't ever actually have it. There's always some dick that thinks he's got a god-given right to tell everyone else what to do.
Even if you could create a a free environment, some fucktard will just take advantage of it to recruit an army (a.k.a police force) then declare himself the boss of everyone by force. Kinda like the government already does and the leaders of most religions try to do.
Wow. Who knew? (Score:2)
Re:Wow. Who knew? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure this is deserved in this case (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with "sticking true" in this case is that other people have had their hands in the system and liberalizing as single, small part of it will not do anything good. Among the anti-Libertarian features of the current ISP landscape: limited liability corporations, exclusive agreements with local governments, tons of existing regulation, etc. It may very well be that we would all be better off with the libertarian ideal of a free and open market where individual liability and property concerns keep ev
Re: (Score:3)
It may very well be that we would all be better off with the libertarian ideal of a free and open market where individual liability and property concerns keep everything self-regulated...
Uh we tried that once you know. Ended up with things like Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel, and the anti-trust laws that followed and broke up the monopolies. Free and open markets do self-regulate, right into monopolies and all sorts of abuse. That would be much worse than what we have now. We've been there, we done this already. We have scars to show for it. If you need a more recent example, take at look at what Bell was doing before the government stepped in. Free and open markets simply do not wo
Re:Not sure this is deserved in this case (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, so, unchecked corporate power takes the place of government regulation.
At least with the government we hold elections. I think there are good reasons Libertarianism has never been fully implemented anywhere.
Re: Not sure this is deserved in this case (Score:3, Insightful)
Well natch, most people grow out of puberty and become grown-ups.
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarianism has never been fully implemented anywhere.
Oh, but it has in a few places, most of them last less than a year before they are destroyed by a neighbour or internal struggles. Although, I hear that the government of Honduras [salon.com] is fond of libertarianism, and it's working out quite well, if you are either rich and can afford your own private army, or have your own guns and want to work in a private army...
Re: (Score:3)
No "-ism" is implemented completely anywhere. Ideology can only be a goal or guiding principle - reality will always prevent a full implementation.
Incidentally, the limited liability corporation runs counter to Libertarian ideals, so don't lump the corporate mess we are in along with the libertarians. Limiting liability completely screws up the personal property based incentive system.
Re: (Score:2)
When I say "anywhere", I mean anywhere on Earth. US political parties aside.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Which is true right up until it stops being true, right?
Everything is unheard of and impossible until some folks actually, y'know, do it. It just hasn't happened yet. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it's not a good idea....
Or did the (admittedly flawed, but much improved for the era) 18th-century American ideal of individual freedom suck just because prior the the mid 1700s it hadn't been done.
Re: (Score:2)
Except this the government going back and undoing what it had previously done. Originally ISPs were to be treated as common carriers but the government got bigger by using its power to say they weren't common carriers.
If the government had the power to say ISPs weren't common carriers, it most certainly has the power to say they are. No contradiction or overstepping of auth
Re: (Score:2)
I consider myself a true Libertarian but I still support neutrality at least until such time this organizations are stripped of their rights-way across MY property and local, state, and federal governments surrender the right to use eminent domain to facilitate anything that will have private ownership.
Lift the restrictions on me from demanding a rent on pain of eviction from the cable co to use my property to host their wire, then they can use their wire however they like, once I am being fair compensated
Re: (Score:3)
No such thing as a "correct amount of regulation" (Score:4, Insightful)
Libertarianism is about the correct amount of regulation and no more.
Which is where they go off the rails because there is no such thing as "the correct amount of regulation". There is a range of regulations that work and beyond it they don't work. There is no one right answer. You can have a more socialist country or a more capitalist one and both can work just fine. This isn't supposition on my part - there are plenty of real world examples of both. There is a range of what works. Some amount of regulation is absolutely required for a society to function. Beyond that there is a range of quantity of regulation that works. Further on you can over-regulate things to death.
The problem libertarians frequently have is they tend to confuse less regulation with being better. Sometimes that's true but frequently it isn't. It's the same mistake a lot of conservatives make regarding taxes - thinking less always equals better when that is demonstrably not true. Sometimes the regulations we have exist for very good reasons but some let ideology get in front of what actually works. You might prefer less regulation to more and that's a fine viewpoint to have but when one gets to the point where you are screeching that all regulations are bad then you no longer are arguing the facts.
If you think all regulation is bad, congratulations, you are an Anarchist.
Exactly. And thinking all regulation is good is just as stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Title 2 isn't Net Neutrality. Calling it that and watching people support it is one of the greatest branding thefts ever.
Indeed.
What Title 2 should be seen as is a reversal of the Kevin Martin policies which made it possible for monopolies like Comcast to come into existence surviving off the right of ways of the American people.
Of course, if anyone would like to use the example of today's industry driven, for-profit, internet infrastructure to point out how awesomely a "free market" solution functions, I'd honestly like to hear that.
Addressing your assertion directly, without Title 2, the FCC would have next to no control ov
Re:When we have infinite bandwidth (Score:5, Informative)
Title 2 is how you get neutrality. Without it you cannot get it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I've yet to have anyone explain clearly why having the internet under the same regulatory regime as the telephone system would be a, net, positive thing.
Because the FCC is calling it "net neutrality" - that's why. Just like the "Patriot" Act inspires patriotism. See? I'm sure I'll get modded troll, but I don't care. Just don't complain to me when the FCC messes up internet for everyone if you supported this under the guise of net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Because telephone service is guaranteed to every American, no matter how poor, or how remote, for a fixed price.
Re: (Score:2)
I've yet to have anyone explain clearly why having the internet under the same regulatory regime as the telephone system would be a, net, positive thing. Title II explicitly permits a lot of bad behavior. To me, it fixes one problem and introduces a few dozen others.
Wink.
Seemingly every law, movement, action, or drug comes with these side effects. I believe the skill associated with doling them out so they cause more good than harm is quite rare indeed.
It is conspicuously absent in the hands of a politician.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Tea Party is not a grass roots organization. They are corporately funded, organized and supported.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really want the FCC regulating the Internet? An organization headed by a cable company guy? A
That "cable company guy" was a "small ISP guy" first, and literally everything he has done has been better for the small ISP than for the big one. That is not the concern, and suggesting that it is would be ignorant at best. Congratulations, you're ignorant or disingenuous. There is the concern that he won't be in that position forever, and of course that people do change.
If there is a significant problem that requires giving the FCC more authority to regulate the Internet,
Look, the FCC already has the authority to regulate the internet in many ways. This hasn't been a problem until they've tried to do it in