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.'"

3 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. On the fence by bencoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:On the fence by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  2. Re:Both sides... by Duradin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.