Rand Paul is trying to murder net neutrality. Is there a US presidential election, or something? US presidential wannabe Rand Paul (R-KY) has filed a motion under the Congressional Review Act that could block the introduction of the Democrat-driven net neutrality rules. The joint resolution means both houses of Congress are highly likely to vote on a straight majority basis to reject the broadband regulations, drawn up by …
that the gub'mint doesn't regulate TCP/IP. It's the ISP's that were trying to artificially regulate it, and badly.
The bigger problem being that Rand Paul doesn't understand a single bit about net neutrality, or TCP/IP, but that doesn't stop him from making grand pronouncements or introducing bills.
Next project for Rand Paul: make a campaign video of him shooting a router with an assault rifle. Free the packets.
Given his public pronouncements on net neutrality it's highly likely Obama will exercise his veto...
...assuming you are someone foolish enough to believe what politicians say, and that the Dems don't load the measure with enough pork to make it worth their while.
Obama supports FCC Title II regulations which gives the FCC complete discretion to manage the internet. And here's the kicker - Obama has not backed any "scheme" that would, say, prevent Comcast or Verizon from limiting internet bandwidth to any website. So while the Dems have not made it legal for ISPs to limit bandwidth, the important thing is that they haven't made it illegal.
a) He's a politician
b) There's an election coming up
c) There's lobbyists and campaign contributions coming.
d) That's all he needs to know... in his world.
Unless there's a large check attached to the explanation, one might as well try to teach a pig to sing.
Rand Paul Is Setting Up Shop In Silicon Valley
Rand Paul’s courtship of Silicon Valley paying off in donations
One Silicon Valley, Under Libertarian Hero Senator Rand Paul
Can Rand Paul Win Over Tech Voters in 2016?
And the Silicon Gold EVAPORATES IN A VIOLENTLY EXPLOSIVE *POOF*
But if you think about it for a second, he is right. I find it extremely strange, the freedom loving technologists would ever support government regulation. After all, if you provide a service to people, with equipment and resources that you pay for, then why shouldn't you be able to control your own equipment?
If one ISP would shape traffic, and degrade the service for regular users massively, another ISP will be more than happy to take over the customers.
On the other hand, I now see how the first taxes came into being, since a lot of people obviously buy the concept of government regulations making things better. ;)
The big ISPs (which are against net neutrality) have managed to buy laws that prevent many of their proposed competitors from starting or expanding. (The city owned local ISPs have been constrained by laws bought by the big ISPs.)
In much of the US there is only 1 or 2 ISPs - all of which are against net neutrality.
The ISPs should act like roads or railroads which allow anyones cargo to travel, instead the ISPs want to act like a protection racket - if your data comes from firm X then it will be allowed through but if it comes from firm Y then it will be blocked or delayed.
"if you provide a service to people, with equipment and resources that you pay for, then why shouldn't you be able to control your own equipment?"
And again we go back to the analogy of a motor manufacturer eg Ford, buying control of the Motorway (Interstates) and designating a "Ford Only" lane which is only usable by their cars and these cars are allowed to drive at 100mph. Meanwhile all the other cars are stuck with a speed limit of 50mph in the other lanes which are highly congested.
Of course you could always get your vehicle in that Fast Lane if you were willing to pay Ford or whoever a "small consideration"...
A closer analogy that actually happened in the past was railroads also buying raw good sources like timber plots and mines. They now carry a fiduciary interest to prefer their own materials vs. those of the competition. It's an example of vertical integration: own both the goods and the means to transport it. Similarly with media giants like Comcast, who own both an ISP and a media source (NBC Universal). Why should Comcast care about CBS and the like when they have their own content to push out?
That's assuming people who work in tech have a view as simple-minded as "regulation bad, deregulation good". Most of us know there's more to it than that. There are times where regulation is a bureaucratic road-block, and there are times where it is necessary to keep corporations from riding roughshod over consumer rights. For example the EU regulations on E-Commerce are making it harder to do business in Europe, but consumer protection regulations give consumers a vital legal recourse if a company, for example, refuses to refund or replace a product that was clearly faulty at the time of purchase.
Thatcher and Regan deregulated the banks in the eighties. 20 years later, the entire financial system nearly collapsed under the weight of trading that would have been illegal under the regulations they did away with and we're still feeling the fallout of that today. Given that ISPs can get away with selling crap service by including the immortal "up to" weasel words, I think a bit of regulation in this area might be prudent.
The Reaganomics-inspired Graham-Leach-Bliley "Financial Services Modernization Act" (introduced by now famously corrupt foreign bank lobbyist former Senator Phil Graham) was signed into law in 1999 with great fanfare by "liberal" President Bill Clinton. Complementary legislation to complete Thatcher's deregulation of British financial markets was shepherded through Parliament by Tony Blair and his Treasury Secretary, Gordon Brown (who would be serving as Prime Minister when the crash came in 2008).
Point is, there's no difference between Democrats, Republicans, Tories or Labor when it comes to doing the bidding of their masters on Wall Street and The City. Rand Paul, for all the drama around his pronouncements against corruption and in favor of individual liberties, is no different. In fact his near religious fanaticism when it comes to deregulation probably makes him even worse than his fellow pols (as if anything could be as bad as the complete selling out of the public -- and predictable abuses -- that resulted in the crisis of 2008).
>But if you think about it for a second, he is right.
Maybe two seconds are required to realise he's wrong.
When it comes the practice of power, the individual has little to wield. Power will be wielded by government, or it will be wielded by the powerful (strong, rich, ruthless). Or both. Take your pick.
I have not been particularly following the US politics beyond noticing that the republicans seem to be fielding a team and the democrats are trying to convince someone, anyone to run along with Hillary. As I am not American nor in the US I will probably start paying attention nearer the relevant point.
However the small gov, anti NSA position of Rand Paul has caught my interest. I am hoping he is a centrist republican since both US parties seem to have moved towards their extremists and away from a reasonable and negotiable position.
I have yet to see what Hillary is standing for although she does seem stuck between a toxic president and an extreme party. However I know nothing of her position and hope she too is towards the centre.
It's easy to understand:
1 -- There ARE no Centrist Republicans running for President, thus far. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan would actually have trouble getting their party's endorsement in the current environment due to political heterodoxy, to say nothing of a more genuinely centrist Republican like, say, Dwight Eisenhower.
2 – Hillary Clinton is actually the closest thing to a centrist in the race right now. It's going to be harder to tag her as a liberal or a populist now that Bernie Sanders (Senator from Vermont -- Independent, but generally caucuses with the Democrats) is entering the race for the nomination. Bernie describes himself as a Socialist Democrat and is a progressive firebrand in the classical mold.
this silliness is countered by the same comparison to saying Kennedy wouldn't be accepted by current Democrats.
Hillary Clinton cannot be determined as a "centrist" based on anything but the current message her campaign is trying to sell. Unless you believe Bill Clinton's entire Presidency was actually HER in charge, which then one could demonstrate an actual centrist position. But on her own actions, of which there are very very few (legal) accomplishments to work from, we've got nothing but advertising copy.
And as modern individuals, we should have learned in our childhood just how trustworthy advertisements actually are.
"Hillary Clinton cannot be determined as a "centrist" based on anything but the current message her campaign is trying to sell. "
Agreed, we have nothing to go on to judge Clinton's positions.
Oh, wait... We have her Senate voting record and public statements, just like we have Sanders', Rand's, Cruz's...
Wasn't there some kind of hugely successful campaign getting people to write to the FCC and ask it to introduce net neutrality rules? Could we start a similar campaign to write to Rand Paul and ask him to kindly shut the fuck up? Since he has an election coming up, perhaps he would pay attention to what the people think?
You are joking, right? Their idea of "paying attention" to the people boils down to:
1) Pick a group that you think will garner the most votes.
2) Pick a subject that irks that group - the more contentious the better.
3) Tell that group what you believe they want to hear to get said votes.
4) If you win, rest on your ass and do nothing of what was "promised". Unless brown lobbyists and stuffed brown envelopes are involved.
5) If you lose, you obviously didn't pick a topic that was touching enough raw nerves. Rinse and repeat.
@ Jimmy2Cows
Are you arguing for a leadership that doesnt listen to the people? Especially on topics that get them a bit raw (say health, education, defence, anything really)? And the biggest brownest lobbyist is currently president. Does that mean he does everything he promises, or just that he requires brown envelopes only?
I hope you are joking. Or is your perspective that of UK politics? In which I can see why you have such pessimism.
Is a pothead with stage fright. When he speaks in public or on camera, he tokes up a couple to quiet his nerves. So he is more or less stoned whenever he talks in public. After he straightens out, he has to try to reconcile whatever he babbled with some version of reality.
Rand Paul is a pompous ass, and like his father a complete tool for whatever fringe groups he can garner support from. He's mostly in it for the ego trip, not the money, which makes it harder for the political establishment to control his often bizarre rantings.
It's a sad commentary on the state of politics in the US when he can get positive attention from isolationists and America-firsters.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is the real deal. He may not be the best public speaker, or have oceans of money behind him, but he's been a consistent voice of rationaility over the last few decades.
Fact is with him in the race this Unaffiliated (the legal term they use in my state for those who aren't registered with a party -- the label "Independent" is far too romantic to be allowed by the Duopoly that controls the political process) voter now has a reason to go to the polls, at least the Democratic primary. If, as most expect, he doesn't get the nomination then that leaves me with so much less incentive to even show up for the General election (some might ask "what about the rest of the ballot", but in my state the legislature has been hard at work gerrymandering, effectively nullifying my vote in local contests).
unaffiliated my @ss.
truth is, which you'll never admit, is you're voting the All DNC ticket and excusing that as "the lesser of two evils" which you've done in every election you bothered to show up at.
Deny it all you will. Your hate for third party shows through. You cannot even tell the difference between Ron and Rand without looking it up
If third parties were all that, how come we haven't seen any third party with genuine influence since the nineteenth century. You'd think at least one would've managed to get some representation in Congress simply BECAUSE the big two aren't listening.
Without a third party with true power, you're basically throwing a smart vote against ten stupid votes...with obvious results.
someone adds the word "neutrality" and the apologists suck it up.
Bottom line: people who make business without doing infrastructure, want infrastructure to make their ad harvesting more profitable but don't want to deal with realities of "the pipe"
those who built the pipe, want in on the "money for nothing and the private data for free" game
The biggest profit margins own the media outlets that get the kids fired up by telling them of magic fairy dust and how "eevil" people aren't sharing the roads they didn't build, and get their shills to pretend "grassroots".
Government who wanted an excuse to control, to decide "fairness' simply waits until the companies (that "contribute" so much election cash that they get personally answered Presidential phone calls) get their robot armies to call them in. "Please come make the trains run on time!" says the guys who own no engines but want their cargo hauled on the same tracks.
And between the suckers who think the NAME on a bill means anything, and the paid shills who either directly profit from someone else's hardware (or expect to at some point) clog the tech blogs with their bleating.
And who owns big shares in the same tech blogs? the same people who own big shares in the same companies that exist solely of exploiting their "customers", natch.
Either sheep or useful idiots, the only common thing is attack anyone who says "hey, look, BOTH sides are using you!", and "Crack a book and remember your HISTORY!"
"The internet has successfully flourished without the heavy hand of government interference. Stated simply, I do not want to see the government regulating the Internet."
He obviously realises the Internet, hopefully I have capitalised that correctly, has flourished under something called RFC whereby people get together and discuss ideas prior to implementing things rather than doing, self interest, ad hoc stuff.
Perhaps he might wish to join 'the process' and pick up the next # to propose getting rid of all the shite that prevents his mates making huge profits rather than pretending to look like a chinless git in jeans without a clue.
HTH
HAND
ETC
The argument is that these carriers are not like the ones in Canada and Europe, but are de facto monopolies. It's said that they achieved monopoly status via bought and paid for local laws.
The proffered solution seeks to massively alter the way things are done in an attempt to "restore fairness". Would it not make more sense to go after these local laws which are the root of the problem? Why the need for big government controls to come settling over the web? Controls which will never relinquish their grip once established?
"Would it not make more sense to go after these local laws which are the root of the problem?"
Because there are simply too many of them to matter. Each state has numerous counties depending on its size, plus other municipal units which could have sway over its own area. Each municipal government may have its own attitude over the matter, so it's basically trying to cut a steel Gordian Knot; you'll never get it untangled and they're too hardy to cut. Plus many of the smaller municipalites were over the barrel in regards to broadband. They're so small that ALL their offers had strings attached. Saying no meant saying no to broadband, period, meaning they lose out to communities that say yes, putting them at potential existential risk (communities can get disincorporated or subsumed into neighboring counties if their population drops too low).
So the simplest solution is to overrule them with a higher law. And since you have a nationwide network of links, the most uniform way to deal with the problem (and to deal with potential weak links) is with a federal law.
"The internet needed fewer regulations until some folks came up with ways to abuse the system. Now they have ruined it for everybody, and we have to put more rules in place to make sure they play fair."
That's always been the crux of the small-vs-big government argument. Small governments provide lots of leeway, but this same leeway allows people to cheat. Big governments help keep the game fair but can reach a point where the regulations are a minefield. Small governments can't exert undue influence but are usually replaced with private power-mongers (see the Guilded Age). A big government can keep firms from becoming too powerful but ITSELF becomes a potential source of corruption. Worse yet, there's no guarantee the middle ground is even happy; if it's UNhappy (meaning BOTH private AND public interests get dirty at the same time), there may really be no solution to the problem.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
