Slashdot Mirror
Obama & McCain Conflicting On Net Neutrality
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.'"
I personally am on the fence on this issue. As a libertarian, I am against government regulation and pro-free market and net neutrality seems to me to be a regulation against the telecom providers to do what they want with their lines. But on the other hand freedom of communication and open networks are definitely positive things, so I do wonder how an unregulated free market would handle this issue. It's somewhat off topic, but would be interested in your thoughts, especially if you also consider yourself libertarian.
What's the Constitutionality of network neutrality legislation?
IANAL, but I think it would be a hard sell to Constitution-following legislators (oh, how scant their numbers are these days). I think there could be some applicability for the Interstate Commerce clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes), however intrastate networks would and should be unfettered by Federal law. It would be up to the several states themselves to enact neutrality legislation if they so desire.
Personally, I'm against Federal legislation for network neutrality, partially on principle, partially on the the grounds that I fear/know that the Federal government listens to lobbyists and corporations more than citizens who designed and currently use the thing.
I would prefer to see an easily-joinable coalition of Internet-based companies and ISPs which democratically--one vote per entity--chooses regulations in an RFC-like manner and punishes with disconnection/shunning any entity which violate these regulations.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
This issue is difficult because it is about the freedom of people to exchange information vs the freedom of the market. But in the current situation I think it is one of the very minor points; ensuring that not too many people lose their livelyhoods is the big issue now and will be so for some years.
because that might give something for an undecided voter to hold against them. And the news media is aiding an abetting - they can get more words out of a vague question than one that can be answered.
For instance, one of the topics where the candidates differ greatly is on firearms and 2A issues. But it has flat-out been ignored in this campaign. The liberal interpretation of this is that guns just aren't all that important with everything else going on; the conservative interpretation is that gun issues can only hurt Obama - there's a lot of pickup trucks out there with gun racks and union stickers - so the debate moderators aren't bringing it up. The more realistic interpretation is that guns have become like abortion - folks on both sides have hardened and are sure votes, and the general public has settled on a "fundamental right with restrictions" stance and just don't really care right now. They may care on an individual basis later, when Susie gets knocked up or Johnnie gets mugged, but as a whole the populace has reached equilibrium.
Or Net Neutrality is just too obscure for Jane "I just captioned my first lolcat!" Doe.
(Yes, that's an actual quote from my daughter. I died a little bit inside.)
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Their stances on net neutrality are vague for a reason, so they can change their minds at a moments notice.
I think even more likely is that their stances are vague because they don't understand the issues very thoroughly. Hell, I worked in IT for over a decade, and I don't feel confident that I could talk about net neutrality in any depth without saying something stupid.
At this point in the campaign, both candidates are trying not to say anything stupid, while hoping that their opponents do.
Credit issuers found that after issuing lots of bad credit, the people they gave credit to stopped paying them back. The credit issuers were surprised. The credit issuers thought that these people, who normally would not have qualified for the level of credit they were given, would understand all the implications of the terms that were set before them.
The credit issuers then realized their revenue stream was in danger because of this bankruptcy thing. The bought enough congresscritters and made the nasty bankruptcy demon go away.
Later, the credit issuers had problem with their credit and they slinked back to the congresscritters saying that they've fallen on hard times and need some help and time to work things out...
And good luck figuring who actually owns your loan. Odds are it isn't your bank anymore.
"I'm glad they don't waste debate time talking about it."
Right you are. Net neutrality doesn't really rate at a time when the global economy is collapsing and governments around the country, led by the U.S., are seizing control of their economies, turning them in to Fascist or Socialist states overnight without consent from their peoples.
Of course judged by the debate earlier this week I don't think they are actually managing to debate anything of substance at all. McCain-Palin have returned to the tried and true Swift boating strategy with accusations Obama is practically a terrorist and a secret member of the Weather Underground or Black Panthers because he knows Bill Ayers, though Ayers was a radical when Obama was 8 years old and is now a reformed part of the Chicago establishment, focusing his energy on education and being a respected university professor. The standard Republican debating points aren't designed to really talk about issues because they are failing on the ground on every issue that matters. Their talking points are designed to fear monger and distract the electorate, and to wedge voters in to voting for them using abortion. "terrorism" and homophobia. Palin was giving a speech recently and accused Obama of associating with "terrorists" and someone in the audience shouted "kill him" which tells you where this campaign is headed.
Not like the Democrats are really much better though. Obama is mostly just promising to tax the rich and spend on government programs that will magically make everything better for the average Joe..... which they wont... especially when the Republican establishment, you know the people with all the money and economic power, and the defense industrial complex, start fighting him at every turn...like Kennedy.
Besides which, the Bush administration, Paulson and Greenspan have so bankrupted the U.S. government its unlikely McCain or Obama will be able to do anything requiring money. About all they can do is stop digging, since we are in a hole we can't get out of and are so deeply in debt all that can be done is slash spending or raise taxes. There is a line of thought that Bush has been intentionally bankrupt the U.S. government so by the end of his tenure so there will be no money for the Democrats to spend on anything any more.
About all I want is for the Republican's to go away because they are doing everything in their power to screw up everything ans screw all the average Joe's that voted for them in 2000 and 2004. The Democrat's nanny state isn't any better. I've reached the point I mostly just want my government to just STOP. All I want out of it is to provide a basic defense force, not a nation building, meddling, staggeringly expensive offense. I also want a basic rule of law, not spying, not torture, not a Minority Report style pre-crime approach making people guilty who haven't done anything wrong. I want minimal regulation to stop greedy ass hats like the ones on Wall Street from running a muck and screwing responsible, self reliant people like myself who had nothing to do with their Ponzi scheme. A little regulation to insure net neutrality is fine but it sure doesn't rate very high as a priority right now. Wall Street sure didn't want any government involvement when their scheme was making them rich with their staggering bonuses in 2004-2006. They sure don't need my tax dollars baling them out now that they screwed the pooch.
Conspiracy theories ran wild in my head when I discovered for the first time the other day that George H. Walker is one of the managing directors of Lehman brothers. If the name isn't familiar to you he is the descendant of one of the scheming founding forefathers of the Bush clan, Bert Walker. George H. Walker IV is a cousin of George W. Bush, and one of the key executives at Lehman Brothers when it collapsed. Lehman Brother's mismanagement and collapse triggered the current panic as their bankruptcy created a cascade through credit default swaps and nearly took down AIG. There is just
@de_machina