Rand paul on net neutrality
Bitcoin’s regulatory nightmare is about to get more
‘I continue to be worried that the Obama Administration’s proposal to regulate the Internet would limit effective network management, jeopardize new broadband deployment, and deal a significant blow to our country’s potential innovation.’
“The rapid adoption of mobile phones and the development of the Internet have been great American success stories. And they were made possible by a smidgeon of regulation. Senator McConnell said, “It is this ‘light touch’ consensus that has enabled innovators to produce and sell the goods that people want — and to create the kinds of high-quality jobs that Americans need — without having to wait for government approval.” “Today, I joined Senator Lee’s legislation because I am worried that the Obama Administration’s proposal to regulate the Internet would limit successful network management, jeopardize new broadband deployment, and deliver a significant blow to our country’s potential innovation. The Administration must move past its rotary-telephone mentality of the 1930s and embrace the future. That means promoting creativity rather than suffocating it under the weight of a suffocating bureaucracy.”
Senator rand paul assaulted at home in bowling green
“Thanks for not getting into vaccines; I’m glad we decided ahead of time not to get into vaccines,” Paul said to Michael Arrington of TechCruch, who asked Paul about vaccines at the start of his Q&A. “When I gave the simple response, people went nuts because they didn’t understand what the argument was about,” Paul said of the vaccine debate. I’m not advocating for any changes to vaccine law; the existing law allows for moral and philosophical exemptions, but those who jumped all over me on this need to stand up and state their case. ‘Are you for a new federal law keeping people down and vaccinating them?’ they asked the president. He isn’t, and neither is anyone else who has been bothering me about it, and neither am I for changing the rules.”
Paul’s remarks came at the Reboot Congress meeting, a group of tech-minded conservatives and Libertarians, so he was inevitably asked about the impending open internet laws. Paul opposes FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s net neutrality proposal, claiming that restricting paid prioritization, which enables businesses to pay for quicker internet delivery rates, is a bad idea.
Ideas for liberty: net optimality as opposed to net neutrality
I am a strong believer in free market capitalism and the value of private property rights (not imaginary property rights). As a result, Ron Paul’s libertarian stance against big government and excessive taxation has always piqued my interest. The place, I believe, has been clearly staked out in my writing over the years. However, I’m perplexed by Ron Paul and Rand Paul’s latest “internet independence” manifesto, which seems to be a jumble of poorly thought-out ideas, some of which make sense and others of which don’t. Although I believe that the government does not regulate the internet, the document appears to target all of those who genuinely agree with the Pauls by creating absurd strawmen. The Pauls, in particular, are adamantly opposed to both net neutrality as a principle and any attempt to extend the public domain, despite the fact that both are simply about restricting big government.
Now, I agree that the whole “net neutrality” issue has become muddled over time, but it is entirely possible to be in favor of end-to-end internet principles (which is what most people mean by net neutrality) while opposing bad legislation that threaten to “push” neutrality on the internet. But not in the Pauls’ universe. Support for a neutral internet must be based on “coercive state acts” and “collective rule” over “privately owned broadband high-speed networks,” according to them. This makes me wonder if the Pauls spoke out against the government’s billions of dollars in incentives and right-of-way grants to telcos and cable companies to help them develop their networks. I’m still opposed to regulating net neutrality because it’s clear that the telcos will dominate the mechanism and the rules will benefit them over the public, but claiming that broadband infrastructure is actually “privately owned” because so much of it was developed with taxpayer-funded subsidies and rights of way is denial.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky submitted a resolution of disapproval on Wednesday in an attempt to overturn the FCC’s Net Neutrality order. The resolution is identical to one presented earlier this month in the House by Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia.
Congress will review new regulations released by federal agencies under the Congressional Review Act. If both houses pass a joint resolution of disapproval and the president signs it, the laws are nullified. Congress has 60 legislative session days to enact the resolution from the date of the rules’ publication in the Federal Register — in this case, April 13 —
“Senator Paul is completely unaware of what Net Neutrality is. His adherence to common-sense open Internet standards demonstrates how little he understands or cares about the law, despite the fact that companies, innovators, and individual Internet users overwhelmingly follow these laws. Paul claims that he opposes Net Neutrality because he does not want the Internet to be controlled, but these regulations do just that. Since we have these kinds of rules, the Internet has flourished. They shield us from the cable and phone companies who provide us with internet connectivity from unfair interference and discrimination. Senator Paul should spend less time repeating debunked cable industry talking points and more time defending economic opportunities and free speech online for his constituents.