6 ms·
Bernie Sanders and Tammy Baldwin are pretty consistent when it comes to supporting privacy and the internet. They were actually the only two Senators who voted
by ChrisAntaki 11y ago
Bernie Sanders and Tammy Baldwin are pretty consistent when it comes to supporting privacy and the internet. They were actually the only two Senators who voted against the "Freedom" Act [1] who also supported net neutrality [2]. Both also voted against the "Patriot" Act in 2001, while they served in the House [3].
[1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00201 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...
[2] http://www.baldwin.senate.gov/press-releases/us-senator-tammy-baldwin-statement-on-net-neutrality http://www.baldwin.senate.gov/press-releases/us-senator-tamm... & http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-net-neutrality-markey-leads-senate-dems-in-call-to-reclassify-broadband-as-a-utility http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-...
[3] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml
- um_ya 11y agoDon't forget Rand Paul
- ChrisAntaki 11y agoRand Paul is actually fighting against net neutrality http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-neutrality-idUSKBN0NK21620150429 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-neutrality-id...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jamoes 11y agoNet neutrality, as it's currently being implemented, grants the FCC significant amounts of regulatory power over private companies. This regulatory power has the potential to be abused. So, Rand Paul being against it is consistent with his general philosophy of less government intervention.
- jrcii 11y agoLibertarian support for limited government turns into a grey area when it comes to infrastructure. Efficiency is not gained with competing infrastructure, even Hayek says as much http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/05/24/were-all-infrastructure-socialists/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/05/24/were-all-i...
- mahranch 11y ago> grants the FCC significant amounts of regulatory power over private companies. How would net neutrality work without that regulatory power? The FCC needs teeth to do its job. Net neutrality without anyone to actively enforce it is the same as no net neutrality at all. Rand Paul (or his supporters) are just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue.
- joeyaiello 11y agoThe FCC only needs "teeth to do its job" because they are the only external force acting against cable monopolies. Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, etc.), and that this market force would be the "teeth" that prevents net neutrality. I'd argue that, to some extent, we're already seeing this many of T-Mobile's more pro-competition moves in the wireless telecom space, though it's also easy to argue that the FCC is more necessary there as wireless spectrum is a much more finite, common resource than fiber in the ground (theoretically, you could run an unlimited amount of it). As an aside, of course, many see T-Mobile's moves as bad for net neutrality based on principle, despite the fact that they're actually good for the consumer today.[1] I might argue that those people are making the same argument you are about Rand Paul: that they're " just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue". [1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-freedom-net-neutrality http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-fre...
- warfangle 11y agoThe magical thinking with less regulatory power = more competition with regard to utilities like last-mile internet comes down to 1) infrastructure cost and 2) lack of access to shared infrastructure. For most potential players, it simply costs too much to even think about entering the market. Truly unregulated free markets are great in theory, but are instantly distorted when you take things like reality into account. Part of what the recent net neutrality rules did is ensure that power utilities must lease pole/conduit access to internet utilities at the same rates they lease to cable tv and telephone utilities. This helps reduce cost to enter the market.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ngoede 11y agoI am pretty sure Rand Paul just votes against Budget bills in general and this has nothing to do with CISA being part of it.
- carboncopy 11y agoThis is precisely what happened; CISA was an afterthought in his letter to Time. The crux of his argument is that he wanted to reduce the size of government by 15%. http://time.com/4154635/rand-paul-paul-ryan-omnibus-spending/ http://time.com/4154635/rand-paul-paul-ryan-omnibus-spending...
- randomname2 11y agoNo, he voted against CISA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10764280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10764280
- cconroy 11y agoCan you explain why you think Bob Kahn is against net neutrality (whereas Vint Cerf is for it)? I am not that familiar with this issue and the other sides arguments (against), but there are prominent people there.
- cthalupa 11y agoOlder article, but his stance is basically the same today http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_...
- ChrisAntaki 11y agoHas he taken a stance against net neutrality recently? He seems to have taken a stance around 2007 that regulation might be detrimental to innovation. I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on the FCC's 2014 ruling, and if he felt those regulations specifically were negative or positive.
- brianwawok 11y agoPeople may be on the list to be against the budget, not net nutrality. Downside to a 2000 page bill. What parts are everyone for and against?