Slashdot Mirror
McCain on Net Neutrality, Copyright, Iraq
An anonymous reader writes "Sen. John McCain kicked off the All Things Digital conference Tuesday night with some interesting comments about net neutrality among other things. His take: there should be as little government regulation of broadband as possible. The market should be allowed to solve the Net-neutrality issue: 'When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.'"
From article:
"internet is so simple even a frog could use it."
Why must article discriminate againt the French ? We are good people. Too much now in the US is anti-French feeling, like "freedom fries". Without France, its hards for US defeat Hitler, and France is a leads computer industry, with programming languages like OCAML, which win most programming contest.
Its what he didnt say that should be worrysome ... while few would disagree with "when you control the pipe you should be able to draw profit from it" I noticed he didnt mention "consumers should have a good choice of more than one pipe to attach too" .... yay for pipe-side economics!
Yeah, the market will indeed decide. I can only get one high-speed provider in my house, and I'm sure that provider will make excellent decisions on my behalf.
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
And they are.
The monthly fees paid by service subscribers. The people paying for unfettered access.
What they're trying to do is double-dip. They charge you to receive content, then charge the sender as well.
It's not our fault if they've priced their subscription service in such a way they cannot turn profit.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
For those who want the government to move in and enforce neutrality, consider whether you really want the government getting involved in such things. Net neutrality may be ok, but when they want a tax on email, site censorship, or other such evils that result from government involvement in the Internet, you will be wishing they had stayed away.
Since the taxpayers of this country have been saddled with tens of millions (billions?) of subsidies to those who we have to go through for our net connection, it only seems fair that either:
A) All those who now control the pipes and who received these subsidies, now give that money back
OR
B) Those who now control the pipes and who received these subsidies have to keep things as they are and not control whose information gets preferential treatment.
Sorry John, you didn't have my vote before and this so-called "free market" idealism isn't helping your cause.
Yes, free markets are a good thing but when business has been receiving, and still receives, tons of money in subsidies, you can't now claim that you want the free market to decide what the outcome will be.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Why the hell don't these free market aficionados also become interested in efficiency.
Who says he isn't?
This is clearly the most efficient way possible of getting a lot of campaign contributions from the big telco/cableco monopolies.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
After all, they control the drugs, whores and gambling, and they deserve to profit from their investment.
Exactly. If the govt makes those things legal, the prices for drugs, whores and gambling would come down significantly. Just goes to show that in a free market, the prices of goods will come down.
The government's job is to assure that the market actually functions correctly. In a situation where you have a small number of large carriers who basically hold both consumers and content producers in their grips, you do not have a functioning market. Since no one is really advocating cutting the big pipe holders down, the only other reasonable alternative is the big R; Regulation. In a perfect marketplace, the government would have little or no role at all, but come on, living just a few years after a century which saw huge monopolies and markets that simply were nonfunctional in the laissez-faire notion of a well-functioning marketplace.
If there were a thousand independent large pipe providers in the US, then net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue. But because the large bulk of it is concentrated, they can get away with what can only be seen as extortion; give us money or we'll strangle your bits. That's clearly predatory and monopolistic behavior, and a properly observant government would lay it on the line "Fuck with a market that you already have too much power over, and we will make sure your powers are greatly reduced". All it would require is Congress to even mutter this, and I think you would see the market corrected in a fashion that is to the consumer's benefit. After all, the whole point of the market is consumers, and they should be the prime concern of both the government and the players big and small.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As long as the FCC props up access "right of way" monopolies, the free market cannot function. Between DSL distance constraints, spectrum auctions to the highest bidder, everybody overselling bandwidth, [nearly] everybody traffic shaping, unlimited service provider consolidation, and [nearly] every access provider requiring strict "you will be a consumer only" contracts, where is the free market? Net neutrality is just a bastion against unconstrained traffic shaping. The government has already sold off most of our other rights...
In a free market economy, the governments ONLY job is to make sure that competition thrives. They got NO other business in the economy. Their sole and only influence is to make sure that nobody can use undue leverage against competitors and that competitors don't form a cartel to cooperate against competition, customer and supplier.
Currently, the governments in so called "free countries" are doing pretty much everything to work AGAINST these requirements, passing laws that benefit large corporations at the expense of smaller competitors, customers and suppliers.
That's anything BUT free market.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ)
Top Contributors
1 AT&T Inc $39,500
You can't take the sky from me...
We already did. They run the movie industry, the record industry, ClearCh^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe radio business, and, of course, the cable and telco industries.
My blog
There is no chance in hell that McCain will win the race. In my opinion, he has lost all credibility for being the war monger he is.
Does anyone remember when he paraded down the streets of Iraq, protected by a whole infantry of U.S. soldiers (therefore also endangering them greatly), and then claim that it is a very safe and a lot better than a few years ago? He is on par with Rudy.G; both are utterly clueless of the real cause of 9/11. Every time I hear that "them hating us for our freedom" makes me want to puke. Ironically, Bush's stance on freedom is quite the opposite.
It will be interesting to see what Ron Paul will do to the upcoming republican debates. It will also be interesting to see what Hillary, Obama and perhaps even Gore can do in the presidential elections.
Full Tilt
But only the bits set to 0. Those are the naught-y bits.
The government's job is to assure that the market actually functions correctly.
Incorrect... It's job is to keep away from business affairs but set laws to keep the playing field level.
"Fuck with a market that you already have too much power over, and we will make sure your powers are greatly reduced".
In that perfect market of yours sounds groovy, you would have to have congresspeople that wouldn't bow to contributor pressure but the fact remains, politics have become the root of all business evil in this country... Politicians right about now will say anything to swing a vote and McCain is no different from any one of the other vampires running for office
Infiltrated dot Net
The Telecom 'Market' was never Free. The government helped subsidize it, gave it public land to use, etc. It is *NOT* private property that the Telcos have a right to profit from. Don't give them the ability to do whatever they want and pretend it is Capitalism when the government propped them up and helped them get started.
While we are on this subject, "Intellectual Property" and Capitalism are mutually exclusive. Copyrights and Patents are merely state imposed monopolies meant to provide incentive to invent and create, and are in no way similar to actual, physical Property. With property, there is exactly one instance of any given item in existence, and in order to acquire said property, the original owner would no longer own the item in question.
"Intellectual Property" refers to abstract concepts which are limitless in number and availability; therefore, it is absurd to claim that someone stole an idea, or "stole music from the Internet". Unless you have been deprived of that idea (which is impossible to do), nothing has been stolen.
Honestly, the perfect market argument is just as good as any "in a perfect world" arguments.
The Raven
do you perhaps mean withholding their product from people who do not pay for it?
Just how much did the major ISPs pay the major internet content providers last year for making the internet worth accessing? Without content the ISP don't have much to sell. Come to think of it, I've never paid Google a penny, and I use their product several times a day. There are lots of people who could justify putting prices (or higher prices) on their contributions to the internet, but it would quickly cease to be the resource that it is if everyone did so. Just as there is a difference between fishing and overfishing, the is a difference between profiting and exploiting. The ISPs need to be careful not to overfish their investment.
We are all just people.
So how smart does that make his fellow Republican, Ted Stevens?
On a more serious note, it looks like we have another naive libertarian type here. Let the market take care of the government-created monopolies! I mean, *obviously* the market would duplicate all the existing infrastructure, without the benefit of billions of dollars in government money*, if there were a profit in it! And a monopoly would *never* be rent-seeking, so we should just let it sit there with no government regulation, because we sure as hell won't help out any potential competitors dig up the roads to install fiber and such!
Oh, and wireless? First, we sold all the good wireless spectrum to companies that aren't even using it, but that's okay, because we auctioned it to ensure that those with the most money got it, rather than the startups who might make good on it. And community driven wireless ISPs? Tools of the devil! A community has NO place in using THEIR tax dollars to make it a better place! That's evil, because they have no incentive to exploit their customers for greater profits!
How can libertarians NOT see this? "Regulation isn't the answer," so what the hell DO you do? You can't just undo billions of dollars in infrastructure at the public expense. Duplicating the infrastructure is incredibly wasteful, not to mention just plain stupid. The free market is supposedly good because it's *efficient* after all. Oh, and they don't want to open access to the infrastructure because the pipes are "theirs" even though WE paid for them!
It's to the point where, whenever someone even says "libertarian" I read it as "corporate whore" because they apparently have no common sense to see what is happening when it's not what "should" happen in a Perfectly Free Market[TM]. To be fair, there ARE libertarians who are more sensible than that, but they're apparently a lot quieter than the nutjobs I see trumpeting it. Personally, I still wish that a few of them would take game theory. Cooperation trumps selfishness in absolute terms, but you have to punish selfishness or be taken over by it. It seems like they want to convince people to stop punishing selfishness, but they don't seem to realize how that harms cooperation or that the benefits of cooperation outweigh the benefits of selfishness. The world doesn't need self-proclaimed John Galts.
So I don't care if McCain is from my state. I don't care if I'm still technically registered as a Republican because I never bothered to change that to "none of the above." He's NOT getting my vote. Asshole.
* Telecoms always talk about "their" pipes, but WE paid BILLIONS (that's on the order of 10e9 dollars for you Brits) on infrastructure and we still don't have the fiber we should, like almost every OTHER first world country. Honestly, I don't really consider the US first world any more; it's like watching the Titanic sink the past several years. I've gone from flying the biggest damn flag I could get my hands on right after 9-11 to wanting to wipe my ass with it because I'm so ashamed of our country's actions. Torture especially was inexcusably criminal.
It wasn't WWII that broke the French, it was World War I. Their casualties were literally in the millions; they fielded the majority of the allied land forces, and most of the war took place on their territory. They held back, literally, the best army in the world. Fought them to a standstill for years in the face of obscene casualties.
After the war was over they hunkered down into a defensive posture, and then when the next war broke out, the French government dithered for months while the German's prepared (the so-called "Phony War" period), basically annihilating the morale of the troops.
So no, the French as a whole didn't make a great showing in WWII. It would have been more surprising if they had. It was very easy for us to talk; our WWI casualties were a joke compared to what had happened in Europe.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
How can you possibly separate the two? Having social responsibility means having an economic impact. Enforcing laws against slave labor affects the economy, and means that companies aren't free to compete by using slavery. Enforcing consumer safety laws to protect people means there are a bunch of products that companies can't make.
And what about the other aspect I mentioned - public roads? They have a huge impact on the economy. Do you think companies would be able to compete as well without roads to ship goods and materials on? Do you propose that all road building become privately-operated?
Also, where does the land that companies "own" come from? Isn't that ownership granted by the government, and dfoesn't the land come from conquest of lands by the armies of people? I fail to see how these companies, and the economy itself would exist, without governments and people creating it in the first place. It didn't just magically appear. One of the reasons that the US economy is so powerful, is that the government once protected social rights and freedoms.
... and then they built the supercollider.