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.'"

Comments

On the fence

[bencoder]

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.

Re:On the fence

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

I condider myself a libertarian, and am against regulation where truly free markets (or close approximations thereto) exist. However, in many cases, they don't, and this is an example. What you have is a very small number of players with a very high barrier to entry to the market. In that case, the equilibrium required for the operation of a free market simply doesn't exist. Because of the barrier to market entry, the actors can create a situation where a free market would demand competition to meet consumers' needs, but that no one can fill that need in any efficient manner because of the market barrier. In cases where such huge barriers exist and the actors seems to be colluding (explicitly or implicitly), I do think regulation is needed.

Re:On the fence

[Jaysyn]

I'm a libertarian too (card-carrying) & I'd vehemently agree with you if the telcos weren't given a government mandated monopoly. Don't say "Oh you can just go put your own fiber down", because *you cannot* do this if the municipality in question will not permit you to do so due to municipal franchises & or kickbacks. The easements that communication fiber (& power, gas, water, etc) is placed in is granted by the city / county & some of it is still privately owned property. The whole system is in place to facilitate ease of record keeping & expanding / repairing the network.

Another good reason it should stay free & open regardless of whose glass it's running over is the fact that the whole thing owes it's existence to DARPA, a government body.

I do telecom design, & deal with the ins & outs of this everyday.

Neither side is highlighting actual differences...

[R2.0]

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.)

Re:come on

[nine-times]

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.

Re:Both sides...

[Duradin]

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.