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.'"

20 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 Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh, you meant "that one". Or did you mean the other McCain slur, "The One"? More Slashdotty.

      We do have to keep our eyes on all these politicians. They will all change their terms after getting power if we can help it. It's pretty clear that with McCain, he doesn't even have to "spend any political capital" to side with the telcos against Net Neutrality: he's already against it, and fully lobbyist compliant.

      Obama has made a couple of statements on his website that only support Net Neutrality, which is the position he's taken all the times he's mentioned it in public. If he'd made a simple statement, then changed to the more detailed one, people would say "he's just changing an easily identified opposition to a load of complicated doubletalk so he can weasel out later". That article you linked to is complaining about "changes", when it's the same policy, just stated in under 50 words as the website's traffic grows heavy with the mass of people who tune in late in the campaign to the more easily understood message, rather than the wonky details the earlier audience of more political consumers wanted. The campaign, when asked, confirmed that the policy hasn't changed. The activists for Net Neutrality of course have the earlier rendition of the policy in full detail, and aren't complaining. Because it hasn't changed, it's just being communicated to a wider audience.

      By all means keep a close eye on both of them. But with Obama, you can actually watch him support Net Neutrality. Especially if you actually vote for him for president. With McCain, all you'll get is the short end of the stick: he's never even offered anything else.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Both sides... by AmaDaden · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree. That link iplayfast has given is basically FUD started by a FUD article here on /. http://news.slashdot.org/news/08/09/22/0526237.shtml. Notice that the original /. story was updated to say that while the main page for Obama's plans has been cut down the original information remains unchanged and is in PDF form.

    3. Re:Both sides... by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Informative

      maybe you should have read the entire article (including the PDF link at the end). i agree that removing the detailed tech plan from the web page was a questionable decision, and supporters were very right to be concerned. however, upon closer inspection it seems that Obama's web staff simply trimmed down on the text displayed directly on the page, but the original tech plan remains available for viewing. and if you look at the Versionista Page comparison and the PDF still linked to on the web page, all of the text discussing Net Neutrality are indeed still intact.

      it's more likely that Obama's campaign staff simply decided to cut down on the amount of text on the website while making updates to the content. perhaps it's meant to make the site more accessible to people too impatient to read the entire text, who knows? but even the new page directs people to a PDF link of the full tech plan at the bottom.

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    2. Re:come on by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 5, Funny

      This has huge repercussions on my ability to torrent porn. I would not call this a minor issue.

  3. 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 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.
    2. 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.

  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. conundrum by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Informative

    both sides can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication

    Typical...article going too far to look "balanced"...unfortunately, our standards for journalistic objectivity now require MSM to throw out all analysis and simply ask dimwitted questions and repeat the candidates talking points.

    In this case, the article is really bending over backwards to make the false point that:

    both sides can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication

    by saying that:

    there is no standard accepted definition of "network neutrality,"

    That statement is simply false. Of course anyone could quibble over the definition of any word ad infinitum, but the general idea is no tiered service.

    This is where everyone who is in favor of John McCain flames me with how my links and definition of 'net neutrality' isn't exactly right..blah blah blah...I used to work in IT, and everyone...I mean everyone I worked with in our rather large company had the exact same basic understanding of 'net neutrality'...the wiki definition is as good as any and represents the general idea as it is understood in common usage

    It's blatantly obvious that when it comes to net neutrality issues, Obama is the one who favors an internet unfettered by tiered service "packages" that do nothing more than deliver less for the same or more $$$. Why do we have to pretend that "net neutrality" is some nebulous, undefined thing that the candidates haven't talked about in enough detail...if you want more specifics, just look at the list of laws that have tried to promote net neutrality and failed, then look who voted for or against them

    Obama is best for net neutrality by a mile...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  7. 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?

  8. Obama's Precise Policy on Net Neutrality by DevanJedi · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is what it says in his tech policy: "Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others." Go read it yourself: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf

  9. 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']