What is Ron Paul's stand on net neutrality?

[Akus]

I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Thanks in advance for replying.

[Ron Paul Fan]

I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Thanks in advance for replying.

Against any government regulation of the internet.

[mrchubbs]

Against it. He's against any kind of Internet Regulation.

[Sean]

He is against it because it then gives the government power to control the internet. He is for deregulation so that there would be plenty of competition so that any company that tried any BS would lose customers.

[ThePieSwindler]

He is against it because it then gives the government power to control the internet. He is for deregulation so that there would be plenty of competition so that any company that tried any BS would lose customers.

Exactly. The problem right now is the localization of telecomm monopolies due to government regulation.

[0zzy]

I read the Net Neutrality Act of 2006
http://markey.house.gov/docs/telecomm/Markey%20Net%20Neutrality%20Act%20of%202006.pdf

I didn't see anything about government regulation and only banned ISP regulation.

So did he vote on a different bill or misread it or what?

[disinter]

I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Thanks in advance for replying.

You can find his position on that and on almost any topic here:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

and here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/rp-everything.html

[Akus]

I knew he was against interent regulation, I just thought net neutrality was some term that I might have misunderstood. Ok, got it.

Note to self.

Against net neutrality.

[Akus]

You can find his position on that and on almost any topic here:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

and here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/rp-everything.html

thanks

I am aware of the RP library, i just couldn't find the exact "internet" link wehre he would explicitly state "My position towards internet neutrality is ________"

[0zzy]

"net neutrality" is what we have had since the beginning of the internet. It is a GOOD thing, it means it is free from regulation. However, the Net Neutrality ACT (might) be bad, at least the one he voted against.

[jpa]

He is against it because it then gives the government power to control the internet. He is for deregulation so that there would be plenty of competition so that any company that tried any BS would lose customers.

well said. Beat me to it!

We don't want government interference on the Internet. We want more competition for internet access, so free market forces will give us faster internet without restrictions.

Ron Paul Presidency would bust up Telcom/Cable monopolies on internet access, and promote competition.

[jblosser]

I read the Net Neutrality Act of 2006
http://markey.house.gov/docs/telecomm/Markey%20Net%20Neutrality%20Act%20of%202006.pdf

I didn't see anything about government regulation and only banned ISP regulation.

So did he vote on a different bill or misread it or what?

It is a law that tells providers what they can and cannot do. That is regulation.

[disinter]

This bill may be just as deceptive as the so-called "patriot act," as the bill would allow the federal government to regulate the internet, and if the history of the FCC is any indication, this is bound to lead to a situation where the federal government will begin to control speech and other content on the internet as well (a la the "fairness doctrine"). Paul voted, likewise, against banning online gambling, and against imposing universal filters on the internet that would take the responsibility away from parents to monitor their children's exposure to "indecent" online material.

http://thereconstitutionrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/07/defense-of-ron-pauls-voting-record-in.html

[disinter]

I knew he was against interent regulation, I just thought net neutrality was some term that I might have misunderstood.

Internet regulation = net "neutrality".

[ThePieSwindler]

See the thing is, any law relating to the internet and specifying what providers can and cannot do also implicitly means the government ultimately has the say in who does what. Right now, they want to keep it "neutral" (which it already is at the moment), but what if hillary gets elected (she has been calling to regulate talk radio)? She can point to legislation such as this that show the government can have a say in dealing with the internet. As the old saying goes, any government that has the power to give you anything you want has the power to take it away as well.

Best course is to get rid of the government-created monopolies and allow for true competition, which would incentivize providers to keep net neutrality as the defacto standard, lest they lose out on customers.

The problem is many techies are not politically/economically savvy, so they don't see any problem with this sort of legislation, and they frame the arguement as being for or against net neutrality, when it should be for or against Net Neutrality legislation. All net neutrality legislation does is act upon a problem that does not even exist yet, and would not exist in the first place if not for government intervention in the telecomm industry!

[disinter]

thanks

I am aware of the RP library, i just couldn't find the exact "internet" link wehre he would explicitly state "My position towards internet neutrality is ________"

Here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=117595&postcount=13

[disinter]

"net neutrality" is what we have had since the beginning of the internet. It is a GOOD thing, it means it is free from regulation.

Wrong.

[jblosser]

See the thing is, any law relating to the internet and specifying what providers can and cannot do also implicitly means the government ultimately has the say in who does what. Right now, they want to keep it "neutral" (which it already is at the moment), but what if hillary gets elected (she has been calling to regulate talk radio)? She can point to legislation such as this that show the government can have a say in dealing with the internet.

Best course is to get rid of the government-created monopolies and allow for true competition, which would incentivize providers to keep net neutrality as the defacto standard, lest they lose out on customers.

Exactly. Paul voted against extending the "ban" on taxing the internet for the same reason: he didn't even want to agree with the notion that they had authority to decide to tax or not.

[disinter]

Father of internet warns against Net Neutrality

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/

[0zzy]

It is a law that tells providers what they can and cannot do. That is regulation.

It's telling them they can not regulate the network, the "Internet". The only thing the ISPs should be able to do is allow XXX amount of speed for XXX amount of money per month. If they are able to do whatever they want, that means they can distort the speed of going to websites, not allow some websites at all, etc.

However, all I want is to have it the way it is now. No regulation whatsoever. If you are telling me this bill can be edited in the future to make more regulation, I'm not for it. However the things the bill says I agree with, the ISPs should regulate the internet.

[disinter]

All the big telecoms and cable companies want to control the net. Yep it's call net neutrality and it's evil! Here's what wikipedia has to say about it.

Since the early 2000s, advocates of Net Neutrality rules have warned of the danger that broadband providers will use their power over the "last mile" to block applications they do not favor, and also to discriminate between content providers (i.e. websites, services, protocols), particularly competitors. Neutrality proponents also claim that telecom companies seek to impose the tiered service model more for the purpose of profiting from their control of the pipeline rather than for any demand for their content or services.

http://ronpauldailynews.blogspot.com/2007/06/great-article-about-ron-paul.html

[disinter]

Dr Paul talks about Net Neutrality and keeping the government from placing stipulations on the internet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovUJgm6FicI

[ThePieSwindler]

It's telling them they can not regulate the network, the "Internet". The only thing the ISPs should be able to do is allow XXX amount of speed for XXX amount of money per month. If they are able to do whatever they want, that means they can distort the speed of going to websites, not allow some websites at all, etc.

However, all I want is to have it the way it is now. No regulation whatsoever. If you are telling me this bill can be edited in the future to make more regulation, I'm not for it. However the things the bill says I agree with, the ISPs should regulate the internet.

But see, the problem with limiting what the telecomms can and cannot do is that it also limits them from being able to innovate with service provisions. What if a telecomm comes up with an excellent additional service, or a way to provide even faster access to certain pages, without slowing down the download/upload rate when retrieving others. I actually don't mind telecomms experimenting with service tiering, so long as the market is truly free and thus the telecomms are accountable to the consumers for quality service. Unfortunately right now, it is not. I honestly believe in a free market with free entry, the telecomms will provide larger bandwidth and faster connections, even if "net neutrality" is not upheld, because telecomms will then compete to provide faster transfer rates, and quality of service will increase.

[jblosser]

But see, the problem with limiting what the telecomms can and cannot do is that it also limits them from being able to innovate with service provisions. What if a telecomm comes up with an excellent additional service, or a way to provide even faster access to certain pages, without slowing down the download/upload rate when retrieving others. I actually don't mind telecomms experimenting with service tiering, so long as the market is truly free and thus the telecomms are accountable to the consumers for quality service. Unfortunately right now, it is not. I honestly believe in a free market with free entry, the telecomms will provide larger bandwidth and faster connections, even if "net neutrality" is not upheld, because telecomms will then compete to provide faster transfer rates, and quality of service will increase.


More basic than that, to enforce this the government has to police it, they have to have a regulatory body behind it, they have to take your and my money to fund it (greasing their own palms along the way).

[ThePieSwindler]

More basic than that, to enforce this the government has to police it, they have to have a regulatory body behind it, they have to take your and my money to fund it (greasing their own palms along the way).

That too. I was approaching it from a market standpoint, how competition without regulation would foster innovation and improved service. I touched on the government's implicit control in the process in a previous post, but you simplify it eloquently.

[blazin_it_alwyz]

Net Neutrality is a disingenuously named bill that allows the government to regulate the internet. Disingenously named like the Patriot Act, and the Federal Reserve.

I believe Ron Paul said it best when he talks about regulation on income taxes


It does matter if the government decides to take 1/5/10% of your money, when you allow them to do that, they now own what you make and at any time can increase the percentage of the money they take, they could increase it to 80% if they wanted, which they have done at one point.......

It is the typical move by government to start off regulation small, and add small bills little by little, because people will say "Oh that's nothing", and then the next small bill, and then the next and the next, till it becomes something. How do you think America got to the point where it is today? Bill by bill.

[jblosser]

The ingenuity of this one and the reason they can keep generally small-government people arguing about it is that there is *no* market available to respond if the telcos start being bastards about tiering. They already have the monopoly, no one can compete with them legally.

We don't need a net neutrality bill, we *do* need the telcos fully privatized.