Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
The Internet News Technology

Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1-Year Rule Anniversary (dslreports.com) 390

An anonymous reader writes: Presidential hopefuls Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have joined six other Senators in pushing the new Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which would dismantle the rules, walk-back the FCC's Title II reclassification of ISPs as common carriers, and prevent the FCC from trying to pass net neutrality rules in the future. In a statement posted to the Rubio website, the presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment. "Through burdensome regulations and tight control like the net neutrality rule, the government only hinders accessibility and the diversity of content," said Rubio. "Consumers should be driving the market, and we can help by encouraging innovation, incentivizing investment, and promoting the competitive environment this industry needs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1-Year Rule Anniversary

Comments Filter:
  • by ArylAkamov ( 4036877 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @04:41PM (#51604493)

    "the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."

    Examples plz

    • by gweilo8888 ( 921799 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @04:54PM (#51604563)
      They're Republicans. Evidence isn't necessary, only hand-waving and dire predictions. The Chicken Little Party is entirely in the pockets of big business, and will do and say whatever is necessary to please their corporate overlords, even if it directly contradicts all available evidence.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by epyT-R ( 613989 )

        So those radical left wing professors egging students to the brink of chaos over 'racism' and 'sexism' aren't also chicken littles? Hillary Clinton isn't backed by big business? Bernie Sanders doesn't want to sacrifice liberties/raise taxes on the middle class in return for more government nannying?

        There're plenty of problems with both parties.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          There're plenty of problems with both parties.

          Good point - absolutely true. However this article is about Cruz and Rubio. Two people whose personal philosophies seem to hinge on be on the wrong side of every issue.

          • by epyT-R ( 613989 )

            Right, but the gp post was generalizing the party as a whole, not just cruz and rubio.

      • They're Republicans. Evidence isn't necessary, only hand-waving and dire predictions. The Chicken Little Party is entirely in the pockets of big business, and will do and say whatever is necessary to please their corporate overlords, even if it directly contradicts all available evidence.

        And everything always seems related to freedom, even thought it usually means most people will be worse off. Why? Because freedom!

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2016 @05:14PM (#51604669)

      Failing campaigns gotta get that Telco money

      • The General election will be expensive. Good to let the remaining old school monopoly media providers know to start bunding for you now, if anyone even bundles anymore in the age of SuperPac..... We don't have ABC, CBS and NBC dictating our media, we have Cablevision, Comcast and Time Warner. Best be a known quantity for "freedom of choice", you or nothing, and "deregulation" of anything for the consumer but not for the utility. Our campaign manager will be passing by your table.
    • "the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."

      Examples plz

      They just realize the market will sort itself out better if utilities are unregulated and the Republicans are able to Bribe ISPs to load Democratic content slower.

      • "the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."

        Examples plz

        They just realize the market will sort itself out better if utilities are unregulated and the Republicans are able to Bribe ISPs to load Democratic content slower.

        So this was rated troll (perhaps because it seemed to demonize the party whose members are suggesting this), but actually points out the fundamental problem with deregulation--information pipes *are* common carriers and should have obligations to serve the public without discriminating on the basis of who wants to use them, just like bus companies have to treat passengers similarly.

    • They both received large donations from the People "corporations" that are trying to force us and content providers to pay for normal access to the very same content we should get unfettered already. Both are shit bags and do not deserve anyones support nor re-election.
    • "the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."

      Examples plz

      I wonder what size campaign contribution that took?

    • by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Monday February 29, 2016 @03:01AM (#51606857)

      "the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."

      Examples plz

      There seem to be some problems.

      Net Neutrality - Issues [cisco.com]

      Strict Net neutrality legislation would limit the terms, conditions, and potentially prices set by broadband Internet service providers. This could restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service, and deliver new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs.

      Cisco believes that allowing the development of differentiated broadband products, with different service and content offerings, will enhance the broadband market for consumers.

      Net neutrality for dummies [humanevents.com]

      Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. The reader has probably not encountered much difficulty accessing even the smallest web sites. Big sites that deliver huge amounts of multimedia content with blistering speed pay extra for their performance, but this happily leaves ISPs with plenty of lower-cost extra bandwidth to sell. Net Neutrality would be movement, at gunpoint, away from efficient Internet capitalism, and into dreary online socialism. Imagine what would happen to Internet traffic if ISPs were required to treat obscure cat blogs the same way they handle Fox News, CNN and Netflix.

      Net Neutrality would foul things up on the user end of the Internet experience, too. Most basic Internet services have some sort of usage cap, beyond which performance is automatically slowed down. The caps are very high, so average users are perfectly happy with this arrangement. Even cell phone users, with more aggressive usage caps than household cable or DSL access, rarely encounter their service limits. Those who desire more bandwidthâ"most commonly for downloading large amounts of multimedia content, like high-definition moviesâ"can pay extra to raise or remove their usage limits.

      This kind of multi-tiered service is the reason cheaper, "lower-tiered" service exists at all. It would be silly to charge the same rate to an average home user who fiddles with email and Facebook for a couple of hours each day, versus a movie fanatic who wants to download a hundred high-def movies a month.

      At worst, Net Neutrality would "redistribute" bandwidth, so that network hogs have no reason not to download everything in creation, at all hours. Meanwhile, those average users would be reduced to hammering their keyboards in frustration, and wondering why even simple everyday websites took several minutes to load. The past would become a bygone age of wonders.

      Net Neutrality waivers

      As always, vast power would accrue to those who control the "redistribution" of Internet bandwidth. It wouldn't be long before the first Net Neutrality waivers appeared, the same way ObamaCare is riddled with special exemptions for the politically connected. Like so much else in our centrally planned economy, Internet access would become a boon granted by politicians, rather than a commodity sold by businesses.

      The proponents of Net Neutrality sell their agenda by inverting the language of freedom, warning darkly of evil ISPs "blocking" content from website proprietors if they don't pay a ransom. This is true in precisely the same sense that motorists who drive a Chevy Volt are "blocked' from driving as fast as a Porsche can. Net Neutrality "solves" this "problem" by outlawing Porsches . . . and spending taxpayer money on an army of regulators to ensure that every car dealership sells nothing but Volts.

      Net Neutrality shares many attributes of the Left's other favored causes. It's steeped in anti-capitalist rhetoric, and d

  • by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) <icebalm AT icebalm DOT com> on Sunday February 28, 2016 @04:48PM (#51604527)

    How can consumers drive the market when not only are most ISPs local monopolies, but there are so many stealthy ways for ISPs to fuck with your connection? There's no choice, and no transparency, that's the whole fucking problem. If customers actually had real choice for their ISP, and could make informed decisions, then they would gravitate to the one who doesn't fuck with their connection.

    • by Lunix Nutcase ( 1092239 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @04:50PM (#51604541)

      Not to mention the passing of the rules was based on numerous consumer complaints.

    • How can consumers drive the market when not only are most ISPs local monopolies, but there are so many stealthy ways for ISPs to fuck with your connection?

      Well gee! They can start by not reelecting the politicians who grant and enforce those monopolies. It's pretty easy to be informed these days.

      • Yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rujiel ( 1632063 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @06:10PM (#51604987)
        Even in the presidential race, only one potential candidate out of seven doesn't have friendly ties with the cable and phone industries. Good luck having better odds on the federal legislative level. I'm wondering who all you expect people to vote for on this issue when their choices are shit, since you seem so convinced that it's the voters who are the problem.
      • Okay, then what? Tear out all the publicly-funded infrastructure those monopolists have been using? Or force the incumbents to subsidize their competitors so they can catch up?

        After all, if you think regulation is wrong then all the existing infrastructure is ill-gotten gains and that illegal advantage must be eliminated. At least, if you're going to be ideologically consistent it does. Otherwise, if you think society should just pick one winning corporation to steal public funds and then allow it to fuck o

    • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @06:19PM (#51605037)

      If customers actually had real choice for their ISP, and could make informed decisions, then they would gravitate to the one who doesn't fuck with their connection.

      Unfortunately, I'm not so sure. Nerds like us don't want ISPs to fuck with our connections but I'm sure many people will take say 5GB internet + free Netflix over unlimited internet but you have to buy your own Netflix subscription.

      • ...but I'm sure many people will take say 5GB internet + free Netflix over unlimited internet but you have to buy your own Netflix subscription.

        That's because many people can't do math.

        • Eh, it's not worth it for me to save $8, but it might be for some people. I know a few people from the old BBS scene who were still using dial-up well into 2010. I guess it was enough for them; who am I to judge?

    • "Consumers should be driving the market"

      ...unless they want strong encryption. Then screw the consumers and screw the market.

    • by jrumney ( 197329 )
      "Consumers should be driving the market" is exactly why we need net neutrality. Without it, mega-corporations are the only ones with deep enough pockets to be driving the market.
  • The only hope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @04:49PM (#51604535)

    It's easy to fall into hoping that that the fascist buffoon Trump doesn't win the candidacy. But then when you get reminded of the policies of the rest of them, you realise there is no good alternative there.

    The only real hope is that the Democrats win the presidency again.

    • Re:The only hope (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2016 @04:55PM (#51604569)

      Who are you rooting for then?

      Hillary "Vote for me because I have a vagina" Clinton, or Bernie "Let's raise taxes and give everyone Totally Free Stuff*" Sanders?

      Not that I think the R's are any better. I just don't see any good choice available.

      • Re:The only hope (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2016 @05:03PM (#51604627)

        Bernie. He's the only one who has a sane plan and who seemingly gives a shit about liberty. The rest of them outright want to strip you of privacy and rewrite the constitution.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Higher taxes and more government spending != liberty

          • Re:The only hope (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2016 @06:36PM (#51605145)

            We're always going to get higher taxes and more government spending. Cruz's tax plan gives huge cuts to the wealthy and increases taxes on the poor. But his plan doesn't give me anything. It gives the rich plenty. I'm not out "to get" the rich, but why should I vote for someone who tells me he's going to support them and hope I see some benefits? At least with Sanders wants to give me, a member of the middle class, something. I'll take increased taxes as long as I know what I am getting in return and not what the RICH are getting in return. The rich can handle themselves; it's about time the middle class voted for themselves instead of worrying about how much money we give to the already wealthy.

            And if you don't like Sanders or the other candidates there is always Gov Johnson the Libertarian candidate. I like some of Sanders' stuff and some of Johnson's stuff. Don't much care for the rest.

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by jedidiah ( 1196 )

              Bernie's policies don't just require "higher taxes" or "more government spending", they would require a PROFOUND increase in both. There's simply no free lunch, even in societies that believe in that sort of thing. The piper is paid.

              Americans have this strange idea that they can have things both ways, spend like drunken sailors, and never have to pick up the tab.

              The idea that you can "cut waste" or "cut fraud" just leads to the degredation of whatever program you're trying to gut.

              • Re:The only hope (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 29, 2016 @04:30AM (#51607017)

                I have no real stake in this contest, but I'm curious as I see this point often trumpeted. I don't think anyone believes that increased government services are free, obviously they require an increase in taxes - isn't a moderate increase in taxes for healthcare better than the current system you have now? Every other first world country has this and their systems are leagues ahead in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. A good healthcare system that runs on your taxes would lower private insurance costs too (if you decide you need it).

                You're trading a social healthcare system (among other things, but this is the big one) for a false image of 'liberty' that you don't really have.

        • Bernie doesn't have a fucking clue, and neither do the fast majorty that support him. Like most politicians, he's just full of platitudes without any serious plan. Same could be said of Clinton and Trump. Cruz has a plan, but he's a bit of a snake in the grass to be sure. I'm not saying who you should or shouldn't vote for, but don't delude yourself in that Bernie "has a plan". No! No he fucking doesn't!! Never had, never will.

      • Re: The only hope (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jxander ( 2605655 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @07:35PM (#51605469)

        Bernie. He seems to be the only one with the genuine goal of improving the country. Everyone else seems to be more interested in the power, money, prestige, money, and money that come with a successful campaign.

        Case in point: this article. Dollars to donuts says Cruz and Rubio don't sincerely hold the beliefs espoused in the proposed bill. Hell, I'd be honestly surprised if either of them could explain the basic concepts of net neutrality and the ramifications of gaining/losing it.

        That's not to say that I fully agree with Sanders' plan. Not even remotely. But I'll vote for sincere optimism instead of cynical money-grabbing any day. And twice on Tuesday.

      • by Nyder ( 754090 )

        Who are you rooting for then?

        Hillary "Vote for me because I have a vagina" Clinton, or Bernie "Let's raise taxes and give everyone Totally Free Stuff*" Sanders?

        Not that I think the R's are any better. I just don't see any good choice available.

        Look Hillary, you and I both know this "raise the taxes" is bullshit. Yes, we will pay a slightly higher tax under Bernie, but we will NOT have to pay for healthcare, and that makes it so even with a higher tax, we are paying less a month then currently.

        Let's do some math.

        Let's say you currently pay $200 a month taxed and 400 a month for healthcare. $600 a month is what you are paying. Except under Bernie, taxes might be $300 but then you don't for healthcare. So what are you total cost under Bernie

        • Re:The only hope (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Jack Griffin ( 3459907 ) on Monday February 29, 2016 @01:46AM (#51606699)

          Look Hillary, you and I both know this "raise the taxes" is bullshit.

          I never understood why everyone just accepts 'raise the taxes' as a bad option?
          Sure no-one likes to spend more money than they have to, but at some point if you want better services, you have to pay more for them.
          I would quite happily accept a modest rise in taxes, if they were reasonably even across the board, and they offered a benefit to society.
          How about instead of spending $1trillion on a war, we spend $1trillion on education? Can you imagine how much stronger the country would be if the education budget was boosted by $1trillion? You could almost argue the cost of it would almost pay itself back, but that would create too many arguments. Much easier to blow stuff up and keep throwing people in jail. It's so much easier to sell...

    • Re:The only hope (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NotInHere ( 3654617 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @05:16PM (#51604679)

      I think Trump makes lots of facist noise in order to appeal for the republican voters so that he gets the candidacy. Once he is candidate he will talk more about his other topics, which are mostly left from popular republican positions. Think of obamacare, he does want a system like that (with small adjustments, which probably even make sense), while rubio and cruz don't.

      But the danger in voting for Trump is that it would promote and introduce more facist talk into the political business.

      Hillary is establishment. Bernie says that evil evil word "socialism" but he also calls europe socialist, and as an european I pretty much like the systems we have, so I'd probably vote for Bernie if I were american and must chose between all candidates in the race.

    • Nope sorry not gonna happen and here is why...the DNC is NEVER EVER gonna let old Bernie have the nomination, he isn't in bed with the right insiders (in a way he is the left's Trump, disliked by his own side for not playing their reindeer games) while Hillary never met a check she didn't like so Hillary will get the nomination....and then promptly get SLAUGHTERED in the general election.

      She is 1.- Waaay too stiff and uptight, even when she is trying to come off as friendly her body language just screams "

      • Re: The only hope (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @10:43PM (#51606211)

        The Democrat Team has a big dilemma at the moment.

        They have to consider the very real possibility of the DOJ bringing the hammer down on their favorite candidate. It is no surprise it hasn't happened yet, they're waiting to see if she gets the nomination or not.

        If she does, then you bring the inditement and watch the Democrat hopes for the Presidency go down like a ship who just tangled with an iceberg.

        They KNOW this is a very good possibility so they have a difficult decision to make. Their favorite candidate ( Hillary ) comes with a lot of risk. Their secondary ( Bernie ) may not be able to overcome Trump.

        My guess is Hillary will get the nod, the DOJ will play their ace and it will get real stupid real fast.

        Ultimately, it will probably be Bernie vs Trump in the end. Bernie has some great ideas but:

        Without congressional support they'll never come to pass and I really don't want to pay more taxes than I already do to fund them. If they can find other ways to pay for them then great. ( back off that defence budget a bit would be a great start )

        Pushing me into paying 1/3 of my salary into a bloated and inefficient system without some serious oversight on their wasteful spending isn't going to win a vote from me anytime soon.

        As it stands, I might have enough to retire on. Maybe. Voting for someone who wants to take even more money from me makes no sense at all as I prefer not to work until I die.

    • The only hope (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @06:52PM (#51605227) Homepage Journal

      It's easy to fall into hoping that that the fascist buffoon Trump doesn't win the candidacy. But then when you get reminded of the policies of the rest of them, you realise there is no good alternative there.

      The only real hope is that the Democrats win the presidency again.

      Let's recall the summer of 2008, when Obama flip-flopped [techcrunch.com] on telecom immunity, got more campaign contributions from the telecoms, was able to spend more on campaigning, and was able to win the presidency.

      If the leader of your party can be that blatant, why should *anyone* vote for them?

      You are falling into the false dilemma of R versus D. The real dilemma is "us" versus "them", or "people" versus the "elites".

      The people are on one end of a long spectrum of political issues, and both the Republicans and Democrats are on the other. Arguing that D is better than R is pointless, neither represents the interests of the people.

      Extreme rhetoric, which is what you're using (viz: fascist buffoon), is only relevant to that distant end of the spectrum. The elites make more or less contributions, depending on how much extreme rhetoric gets aimed at any candidate.

      It's a game that only mainstream politicians play.

      Both Donald and Bernie have populist views, their political positions would benefit the people.

      Bernie is a mainstream politician, and is somewhat dependent on contributions from the elites. If he can overcome that burden and win the nomination, then he'd be one candidate to back.

      Donald needs *no* contributions from the elites, so he's free to promise benefits to the people.

      Right now Donald is our best hope for getting government on our side. He's not the only hope, Bernie is still in the game, but there's no hope in any of the other choices.

      Or, to quote Charles Koch: "You’d Think We Could Have More Influence’ on 2016 Race". [talkingpointsmemo.com]

    • Trump is the only candidate who wants to force 40% tax on h1b1 candidates to encourage American employment. Just saying

  • by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @04:50PM (#51604539)

    Trump is likely the GOP nominee #RIP_PartyOfLincoln
    Hillary is almost certainly the Dem nominee after SC, hopefully someone will douse her with a bucket of water. #WhatAWorld

    Does anyone think Net Neutrality is going to survive past November no matter what ?

    • by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @04:53PM (#51604557)

      Yes.

      "Hillary Backs Strongest Net Neutrality Rules"
      http://time.com/3721452/hillar... [time.com]

      • by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @04:56PM (#51604577)

        And You believe her ?

        • More than I believe any Republican, any time, anywhere. But please, feel free to believe that Hillary Clinton is pure evil from the lowest depths of hell if it makes you feel better.

          • https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

            13,900,000 results (0.44 seconds)

            Say what you want about the GOP they are at least willing to give the middle finger to their leadership.

          • by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @05:20PM (#51604707) Journal

            You do not have to believe that Hillary Clinton is pure evil from the lowest depths of hell. Just that she is a self centered liar looking out only for herself. Or that anything she does for others is ancillary to getting hers in the process.

            • You don't run for president if you aren't self centered and you don't stay in national politics for long if you aren't willing to lie/change positions/etc. That said, it sounds like you don't like the fact that she's a viable candidate for POTUS.
              • by Megol ( 3135005 )

                I don't know why you included change positions? It is anybody that isn't willing to change positions if given new/better data one should avoid!

              • Nah.. I don't like the fact that she is seen by some as flawless when she clearly is not. It's like people are brainwashed or deliberately obtuse on the subject but willing to spout such strong sentiments they know nothing about.

                If we seriously have idiots like those deciding the future of our country, we have lost all hope of having a future. The same can be said about Trump supporters. Maybe it is a sign of the times and I'm old enough to just tell everyone to get off my damn lawn.

            • You do not have to believe that Hillary Clinton is pure evil from the lowest depths of hell. Just that she is a self centered liar looking out only for herself.

              Actually, both are true. She's both pure evil of worst kind, and a lying bitch. If the primaries go as they're likely to go, you Americans won't be able to choose between lesser of two evils -- but only between two equally bad mindboggling evils.

              On par with our current government in Poland.

          • No I think she is a rich spoiled elitist whose body language just screams "get these people away from me!" whose gonna be crucified if she gets the nomination by her own words from the past 30+ years. Want examples here you go [twitter.com]. Notice how they can whip up in like 20 second a pic like this one [twitter.com] which she gave DETAILED explanations on why she was FOR this or that, then turned right around when the wind started blowing the other way and then came out with the same amount of detail on why she is against it?

            Hil

        • by Kjella ( 173770 )

          Consider that there is also a content/service industry lobby of Netflix, YouTube, iTunes, Spotify, Steam, Skype etc. that don't want ISPs to get creative. I doubt it's enough of a voter issue to matter, so her position probably means she's received campaign contributions from the "right" lobbying group. Which means she might actually remember after the election too, unlike much the other fluff they say to get elected. While I think there's a few cases where there's actual ideology involved like Ted Cruz and

          • Could be. If you are an incumbent though being able to buy your spot could look mighty nice.

            If you're Google, no new search engine competition, nothing to compete with youtube.

            Twitter ? People don't want to use your service anymore, so what nothing can arise to replace you.

            I am sure you see the picture.

  • by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @05:01PM (#51604609) Journal

    They are. And it's reflected in the corrupt politicians they vote for and reelect.

  • More doublespeak (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2016 @05:03PM (#51604619)

    Let's restore internet freedom by preventing government regulatory authorities from guaranteeing it. Perfect doublespeak.

  • It Follows (Score:5, Funny)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @05:12PM (#51604661) Journal

    Of course Ted Cruz is trying to kill the net neutrality rules. He's the fucking Zodiac Killer.

    http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/20... [upi.com]

  • by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @05:18PM (#51604695) Homepage

    Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1 Year Rule Anniversary

    Slashdot, using commas in place of the word "and" is a stupid, pointless tradition, and in this case it looks like you're tweeting Rubio to warn him about Cruz's plan (in bad English).

    • Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1 Year Rule Anniversary

      Slashdot, using commas in place of the word "and" is a stupid, pointless tradition, and in this case it looks like you're tweeting Rubio to warn him about Cruz's plan (in bad English).

      It's called "headline punctuation". Not only does is save 3 letters, but it makes the headline harder to parse, so you have to read it a second time or click it to see what it really means.

      • by Megol ( 3135005 )

        I don't see why that would be harder to read, it isn't for me. But then I find: int xyl(int x, int y) { .. easier to read than: int xyl(int x and int y) { ...

  • can they in their own words states what will be destroyed by net neutrality? I bet they don't have a clue unless is simpleton words followed by large money donations.

    Any politician wanting to make huge changes to an industry should be an expert on that industry, other wise WTF are you trying to interferer with it?

    • can they in their own words states what will be destroyed by net neutrality? I bet they don't have a clue unless is simpleton words followed by large money donations.

      Any politician wanting to make huge changes to an industry should be an expert on that industry, other wise WTF are you trying to interferer with it?

      Their argument is simple - "It has the word 'Freedom' in it - you aren't against freedom, are you, citizen?"

  • "consumers should be driving the market"

    In a country where a limited number of internet providers have a virtual monopoly? How well did it work when it was tried with the phone companies in last century? I'm all for free market, when it works, but in this case it clearly does not. Just look at the prices and compare them with any country with a real internet provider competition if you don't believe.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @06:42PM (#51605177)

    Man, it seems like every Slashdot discussion thread lately has almost immediately devolved into a Democat versus Republican bash-fest. I realize this story is about what a couple Republican senators did; but can't you guys manage to discuss any issue without turning your brains completely off?

    • Man, it seems like every Slashdot discussion thread lately has almost immediately devolved into a Democat versus Republican bash-fest. I realize this story is about what a couple Republican senators did; but can't you guys manage to discuss any issue without turning your brains completely off?

      Extreme rhetoric is the new clickbait.

    • by fnj ( 64210 )

      Man, it seems like every Slashdot discussion thread lately has almost immediately devolved into a Democat versus Republican bash-fest.

      Without regard to that, this story was a political submission, so OF COURSE there is political discussion in the comments. Now, it is a truism that one man's discussion is another man's bash-fest.

      More to the point, this is a year evenly divisible by 4. I would have thought you would grasp by now that reasoning runs way behind rage on years that are evenly divisible by 4.

  • by Edis Krad ( 1003934 ) on Sunday February 28, 2016 @08:08PM (#51605629)
    Holy shit, that newspeak.
  • by surd1618 ( 1878068 ) <tmoore1984@gmail.com> on Sunday February 28, 2016 @10:45PM (#51606225) Journal
    Watch out
  • by Ajay Anand ( 2838487 ) on Monday February 29, 2016 @04:00AM (#51606965)
    Killing net neutrality will give well established businesses an edge over the new entrants thus leading to anti-competitive practices. An obnoxious form of monopoly is sure to follow the death of neutrality. Does it require a PhD to understand that?

"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa

Working...