Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
The Internet Government Republicans Politics Your Rights Online

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

Comments Filter:
  • by EmperorOfCanada ( 1332175 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:12AM (#49584347)
    I like this guy but he seems to come along with the occasional show stopper. For instance in Canada we have a Double Plus Good Patriot Act called Bill C-51. We also have effectively 3 parties, 2 of whom support Bill C-51. Can you figure out which one I am voting for?
    • by jd2112 ( 1535857 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:23AM (#49584409)
      Effectively 3 parties? That's effectively 2 parties more than we have in the US.
      • by cdrudge ( 68377 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:37AM (#49584501) Homepage

        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.

        • by Dredd13 ( 14750 ) <dredd@megacity.org> on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:51AM (#49584589) Homepage

          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.

          • 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.

            • by tmosley ( 996283 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @09:52AM (#49585053)
              No, it really doesn't. Words have meaning. Please use them appropriately. Yes, every organization is out for its own best interests, but the vast majority don't pretend to be two seperate diametrically opposed organizations that are fighting each other. Show me the Koch Brothers funding environmentalists, or the NSF giving grants to climate change "deniers", or something along those lines, and you might have an argument.
              • 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

          • by jythie ( 914043 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @09:34AM (#49584907)
            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.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 )

              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

        • by morgauxo ( 974071 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:57AM (#49584633)

          "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.

        • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Thursday April 30, 2015 @09:26AM (#49584855)

          Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it.

          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:

          1. Both parties love the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping and Gitmo.
          2. Both parties think corporate "rights" -- particularly "imaginary property" -- are more important than the real property rights of actual people.
          3. Both parties love pork and wealth redistribution (albeit not necessarily to the same groups).
          4. Both parties love Federal control, and hate Federalism (i.e., separation of powers between the Federal government and the States).
          5. Both parties abuse the Commerce Clause and the Elastic Clause.
          6. Both parties feel free to ignore various parts of the Bill of Rights.
          7. Both parties are big fans of restrictive ballot access laws, gerrymandering and first-past-the-post voting systems (to hamstring third parties).

          And that's just off the top of my head, not anywhere close to a complete list.

          • by jythie ( 914043 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @09:36AM (#49584919)
            However, in all of those examples, what you are describing are the tools of politics, not the policies. They both tend to agree on how to accumulate power, but not agree on what they want to do with it.
        • by some old guy ( 674482 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @09:43AM (#49584977)

          Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite public views of it.

          FTFY

        • by blue9steel ( 2758287 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @11:39AM (#49586237)
          Support of large corporations: check
          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.
      • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:38AM (#49584503)

        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.

        • by dimeglio ( 456244 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:42AM (#49584535)
          Funny how the rich are able to get the poor to vote for sustaining their party.
          • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:51AM (#49584591) Homepage

            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.

            • by disposable60 ( 735022 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @10:37AM (#49585513) Journal

              When you can afford the very best (and totally amoral) marketing ...

            • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @01:32PM (#49587447) Homepage

              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)

            by Anonymous Coward

            “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

        • You have 2 parties. 1 party : the oligarchic, with 3 or more sub flavor : the oligarchic democrate the oligarchic independent and the oligarchic repubblican. Then You have the losers : anybody else.
          • by jythie ( 914043 )
            Well, yes, that is how representation works. Even in an ideal situation, the general public has to choose between supporting one of a number of representative entities who hold direct power. Each of those entities has its own priorities and philosophies, and one generally choose which of them align best with their own interests.
    • by Bonzoli ( 932939 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:32AM (#49584459)
      Why would you like this guy? he is a tool, he is showing his value by creating crap for his handlers to screw up your future.
      • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:43AM (#49584541)

        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."

        • by Dredd13 ( 14750 ) <dredd@megacity.org> on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:54AM (#49584607) Homepage

          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)

            by schlachter ( 862210 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @09:32AM (#49584895)

            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.

          • I think you made a wrong turn somewhere... this is Slashdot, not godlikeproductions.

          • While I don't disagree, Im waiting for people to realize that this doesn't HAVE to be true.
            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
      • 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.

        • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @10:06AM (#49585165)
          It's difficult to have a functioning market when local municipalities grant monopolies to individual companies and then turn around and get the state to ban municipal networks entirely.

          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.
      • by houghi ( 78078 )

        Why would you like this guy? he is a tool, he is showing his value by creating crap for his handlers to screw up your future.

        I did not read what you replied to, so you could talking about any politician and I don't even limit that to the USofA.

    • 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

  • by AntronArgaiv ( 4043705 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:14AM (#49584353)
    A very small part of me wants to see a Rand Paul / Hillary Clinton contest. The disconnect would be so great as would the fireworks. You could probably sell tickets. The adult in me realizes that would be a Bad Thing, though.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    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).

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:41AM (#49584529)
      A CEO, a Tea Party member, and a union worker are sitting around a table. In the middle of the table sits a plate with a dozen cookies. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, then turns to the Tea Party member and whispers "I think he wants your cookie."
  • News at 5! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:30AM (#49584445)

    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!

  • by marcello_dl ( 667940 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:31AM (#49584453) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by Dredd13 ( 14750 )

      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.

      • 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.

        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"....

    • by BVis ( 267028 )

      Rand Paul should focus on freedom of communication, which sidesteps this debate once and for all.

      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.

    • by DrLang21 ( 900992 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @09:05AM (#49584705)

      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.

    • by Bigby ( 659157 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @09:24AM (#49584831)

      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.

    • 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

    • 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

  • by nimbius ( 983462 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:34AM (#49584473) Homepage
    Rand Paul: I want to be president...whats a guy gotta do?
    Republican Party: We're glad you asked rand and happy to hear youve considered being a republican brand president. In order to best serve the interests of our constituents, their yachts, and various institutions named in their honour, we're going to ask you to toe-the-line with our conservative fiscal policy and principal of small government. Please select from one or more of the following principles we believe assists in small government and lower taxes:
    1. Repealing affordable healthcare for millions of americans and replacing it with a faint mumbling noise.
    2. Outlawing homosexual marriage
    3. Outlawing abortion
    4. obstruct or repeal a meaningful federal regulation: EPA, FDA, FCC.
    5. Funnel billions of dollars into a foreign war with no clear objective other than amorphous freedom/patriotism/democracy
    6. oppose decriminalization of marijuana and/or prison reform.

    as a bonus you may call for a government shutdown but only while affirming 'in god we trust' on the currency.
    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      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.

  • He's only the friend of the rich and powerful. Don't kid yourself.

  • by PRMan ( 959735 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @08:47AM (#49584569)
    Well...he just lost my vote.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @09:05AM (#49584693) Journal
    He is the guy who believes businesses are sacrosanct and if they want to ban blacks from sitting in lunch counters, they should be able to. He thinks such businesses would naturally go bankrupt without any government intervention, and civil rights legislation went too far.

    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.

    • 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

  • Rand Paul is not the Libertarian messiah after all. Just another whore for corporate interests.
    • Re:Wow. Who knew? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday April 30, 2015 @09:57AM (#49585105) Homepage Journal
      He never was the Libertarian messiah. Anyone who thought he was just wasn't paying attention. He has a marginally more interesting back-story than most congresscritters (Joker killed his parents and then he spent his teenage years spanking it to Ayn Rand novels,) but he's really only qualified to be a Fox News android.

Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once. Space is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen to you.

Working...