Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama & McCain Conflicting On Net Neutrality

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the of-course-they-do dept.

longacre writes "For all their incessant bickering in the first two presidential debates over conflicts of interest and government regulation, PopMech columnist Glenn Derene is puzzled that the candidates have yet to be challenged on a vital issue directly related to both those topics: Net neutrality. John McCain and Barack Obama have stated elsewhere their opposing views on the issue, with McCain being opposed to Net neutrality and favoring light regulation of the Internet, while Obama is in favor of neutrality and seeks Government involvement. In any case, since there is no standard accepted definition of 'network neutrality,' until the candidates elaborate on their positions (which they both declined to do for this piece, nor anywhere else so far, for that matter), 'both sides can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication.'"

11 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. Both sides... by Sasayaki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obviously. Both sides refuse to clearly state their positions so that they can define them... after the election.

    "Of course we mean X. We always meant X. Why, did we ever say otherwise?"

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    1. Re:Both sides... by compro01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama is "US liberal". From his views, he would seem to be a bit right of the Canadian conservative party. Our liberal party probably falls into "pinko commies" on the US spectrum and the NDP likely falls clear off the left edge.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:Both sides... by Dak+RIT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are aware that campaign donations from "organizations" is actually based on individuals who donate to that candidate and then self-identify with a specific organization, right? The information comes from what you list as your employer when you donate.

      Looking at the actual data available, it shows Obama receiving $2,000 from the RIAA. OMG, the sky is falling, $2000? That's probably a single individual. There's no way you can possibly draw conclusions based on that... a single individual has far too many possible extraneous reasons for choosing who to donate money to.

      If you actually did a little bit of research though, by going to a free site like opensecrets.org, you could actually get some more substantial donor information for both candidates. For example, Obama's 5th largest donor is Google, 8th is Microsoft, and 12th is Time Warner. He also has a number of universities showing up near the top, including Cal at #2 and Harvard at #3.

      Comparatively, 7 of McCain's top 8 donors, and all of his top 5, are financial institutions. AT&T is mixed in there at 6. There's no other computer/technology/communications company showing up on McCain's top 20.

      So what conclusions do you want to draw from that? Google is pretty invested in net neutrality, and its employees seem to be voting with their dollars pretty heavily for Obama. Should we conclude instead that Obama is really better for net neutrality? AT&T was also one of the biggest opponents of net neutrality, and its employees seem to favor McCain a lot more strongly than Obama.

      The thing with data like this, is you can prove just about anything you damn want. That's why I always do my own research on issues that matter to me instead of reading a random blog. If you care about net neutrality, do research about donors at sites like opensecrets.org, and check out voting records and interest group ratings at votesmart.org. And also just read the positions of the candidates themselves.

    3. Re:Both sides... by wolfemi1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What in the world are you going on about? When did either of the candidates ever say anything like this?

      I read an article the other day about the power of stereotypes in politics, and how they're used in campaigns. In this case, I would wager that you are putting words in the candidates' mouths and acting as if they're planning to do this based solely upon your preexisting stereotypes of the party, rather than anything they've said or done. AND YOU WERE MODDED +2 INSIGHTFUL FOR YOUR WORTHLESS RANT. This is a prime example of how we all need to think more.

  2. come on by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a minor issue, not a vital one. I'm glad they don't waste debate time talking about it.

    1. Re:come on by megamerican · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a minor issue, not a vital one. I'm glad they don't waste debate time talking about it.

      Debates are for people who think that watching them will somehow make them informed. I personally would like them to talk about net neutrality, just to get a good laugh about it. However, the audience of the debate probably doesn't know what net neutrality is, let alone the candidates.

      Who ever gets into office will be told what to do about net neutrality by some unelected person behind the scenes. Their stances on net neutrality are vague for a reason, so they can change their minds at a moments notice.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
  3. Re:On the fence by Trahloc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Free market, to me, gives me the impression that I have a choice among many competitors. Unfortunately where I live this isn't true. DSL doesn't work and I have only one cable provider to choose from. If this happens to be one of the ones that decides net neutrality is evil then I'm screwed. So the government needs to force a standard. I guess to me, as a self described libertarian, I see the government as a sort of ISO standard body with military backing. Perhaps I'm off my rocker with that idea.

    --
    The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Re:Government Involvement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Posting anonymously because I modded in this thread.

    You seem to misunderstand what Net Neutrality is. Net Neutrality is the principle that telecoms can't favor one type of net traffic over another. Since the telecoms are in a sense the gatekeepers of net access, then they have the technological power to do this.

    The ONLY way to keep a business from doing something within its power is (obviously) to pass legislation against doing that thing.

    Guess what? Legislation = "government involvement"

    I'd be interested in knowing exactly how you'd MAKE Comcast stop downthrottling bittorrent without, you know, making them. Care to elaborate?

  6. Come on, please. by slasho81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it's interesting to know where they stand on the NN issue, do you really wanna tell me *that's* what will determine to whom you're voting?

  7. Puzzled by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    PopMech columnist Glenn Derene is puzzled that the candidates have yet to be challenged on a vital issue directly related to both those topics: Net neutrality.

    Hm, what a coincidence, I'm puzzled that they have yet to be substantively challenged on any vital issue.

    --
    [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']