Imagine having a phone service that only called other members. Like Verizon's IN network, except you can't get out of the network. That's what some of the companies that provide the bandwidth behind the Internet would like to see the Internet become. A place where they control who sees what.
Want to go to Yahoo? That's only $5 a month. Google? Well, that's $25 a month. Oh, what's that? You want to go to the sites you find on Google? Well, that's an extra $75. Oh, and here's our email client for you to check your email. No, you can't use your own client...
That's the kind of sales pitch you could get when signing up for Internet service in the future if "net-neutrality" is not defended. It's an Internet that resembles AOL in the early 90s. John McCain doesn't believe in net-neutrality:
When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts. John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like “net-neutrality”...
That's taken directly from his Technology Policies. Feel free to verify for yourself.
I could go on, but Lawrence Lessig (who's site happens to be down right now) did an excellent video reviewing McCain's technology platform, so I'll let him do the speaking.
6 comments
The problem here is that the abuse of the Internet is far more harmful, easy, and prevalent than the abuse of a phone line. On the Internet, a 13 year old child can infect thousands of computers with a virus and use them to effectively remove a site, a server, a company, from the Internet. They can do this ANONYMOUSLY.
In contrast, in order to remove a business from being reachable by phone, there would be more traceable and costly methods of flooding a company's phone lines so their customers got a busy signal. In order to block customers from a brick-and-mortar business, it would require physical barricades or damage (such as a fire or explosion) to the company's property.
Because the Internet allows a person of any age, from any country in the world, to cause hundreds to millions of dollars in damage to a company, often in a way that is difficult or impossible to trace, means that in order to combat these sorts of attacks, a small measure of privacy will be lost.
I don't believe that a company should be able to restrict legal content of any kind from their customers, but I don't think McCain believes that either. Just saying that he doesn't support the full entire solution of "Net Neutrality" (capitalized as a proper noun), doesn't mean that he doesn't support the basic principals that it was designed for.
Furthermore, this video criticized McCain's technology policy for not doing anything to increase our supposed broadband penetration from #22 back to #5 (an EXTREMELY vague statistic without documentation as to what it's actually measuring), while he has specific areas listed that specifically say that he wants to increase broadband usage to those with low incomes and those who live in rural areas.
Be careful not to jump to conclusions and twist words to fit your theories.
In contrast, in order to remove a business from being reachable by phone, there would be more traceable and costly methods of flooding a company's phone lines so their customers got a busy signal. In order to block customers from a brick-and-mortar business, it would require physical barricades or damage (such as a fire or explosion) to the company's property.
Because the Internet allows a person of any age, from any country in the world, to cause hundreds to millions of dollars in damage to a company, often in a way that is difficult or impossible to trace, means that in order to combat these sorts of attacks, a small measure of privacy will be lost.
I don't believe that a company should be able to restrict legal content of any kind from their customers, but I don't think McCain believes that either. Just saying that he doesn't support the full entire solution of "Net Neutrality" (capitalized as a proper noun), doesn't mean that he doesn't support the basic principals that it was designed for.
Furthermore, this video criticized McCain's technology policy for not doing anything to increase our supposed broadband penetration from #22 back to #5 (an EXTREMELY vague statistic without documentation as to what it's actually measuring), while he has specific areas listed that specifically say that he wants to increase broadband usage to those with low incomes and those who live in rural areas.
Be careful not to jump to conclusions and twist words to fit your theories.
Christine, I don't know what you've heard about net neutrality, but it has nothing to do with businesses protecting "their" network and everything to do with controlling what content flows over it. Think AOL in the mid-90's. That's what the telecom companies are arguing for.
Regarding Lessig's technique, I'm not going to defend it. He's an attorney, and like all good debaters, chose to highlight the data that helped bolster his point. He's caught some flak for that and has made some effort to correct it in this post.
Regarding low-income, the only thing I see here is handouts to special interests in the form of taxation. He talks of government backed loans and bonds right after discussing "private/public partnerships." That sounds an awful lot like paying private companies to build out a sub-par network, then leaving the tax payer with the bill - a la any of the dozens of "private/public partnerships" that have been implemented during the last 8 years of cronyism gone wild.
All that said, it's probably best that we just agree to disagree. I know we both have our opinions formed before we even come to this argument and just continuing to won't sway either of our opinions.
Regarding Lessig's technique, I'm not going to defend it. He's an attorney, and like all good debaters, chose to highlight the data that helped bolster his point. He's caught some flak for that and has made some effort to correct it in this post.
Regarding low-income, the only thing I see here is handouts to special interests in the form of taxation. He talks of government backed loans and bonds right after discussing "private/public partnerships." That sounds an awful lot like paying private companies to build out a sub-par network, then leaving the tax payer with the bill - a la any of the dozens of "private/public partnerships" that have been implemented during the last 8 years of cronyism gone wild.
All that said, it's probably best that we just agree to disagree. I know we both have our opinions formed before we even come to this argument and just continuing to won't sway either of our opinions.
I'm not afraid to criticize the right side if I disagree with something. For example, I am an atheist and in favor of gay marriage. I don't have 100% confidence in the Republicans to make the best choices as far as the internet and technology goes either. I just don't think it ranks high on my reasons to vote one way or support one candidate over another.
I don't have 100% confidence in either side. Let's face it, the majority of old Washington (whether that's McCain or Biden) know very little about those "Internets." I think both sides can be easily swayed by special interests on this topic because they don't fully understand what it is they're regulating. If they're going to err, though, I just want them to err on the side of us rather than the side of business.
That said, I didn't accuse you of being someone who would tow the party line. I wouldn't expect it actually as I see you more as a Libertarian end of the spectrum. That being the case, I expect you to come at this as you did, that government should stay out of it and let business sort it out. My problems with that are too many to enumerate here, but it's a valid point - just 180º away from where I would attack the problem from.
That said, I didn't accuse you of being someone who would tow the party line. I wouldn't expect it actually as I see you more as a Libertarian end of the spectrum. That being the case, I expect you to come at this as you did, that government should stay out of it and let business sort it out. My problems with that are too many to enumerate here, but it's a valid point - just 180º away from where I would attack the problem from.
I am in favor of allowing everyone in the US to behave legally on the internet and say whatever they want to.
I am not in favor of anything that makes it easier or just as easy for a 13 year old kid to attack my website and/or spread viruses over the internet.
However, just because McCain's website says he's not in favor of "Net Neutrality" doesn't mean that he wants to reject it and its principles altogether. I'm basing that on the other words in that section that you replaced with "...".
I am not in favor of anything that makes it easier or just as easy for a 13 year old kid to attack my website and/or spread viruses over the internet.
However, just because McCain's website says he's not in favor of "Net Neutrality" doesn't mean that he wants to reject it and its principles altogether. I'm basing that on the other words in that section that you replaced with "...".
You cut the statement from John McCain's site short. It continues:
"John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like 'net-neutrality,' but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices."
I also believe this to be true. The problem is that the government is already in the way with too much regulation over the industries that control the Internet. It is because of government regulation that I have only one cable company from which to choose. So, because I have no choice (due to the current government regulations), the free market cannot act as it should, and there is no deterrent against unfair practices.
Either the government has to step in and further regulate the Internet to keep it "free," or it can step out of the way and make it even more free by deregulating the industry.
"John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like 'net-neutrality,' but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices."
I also believe this to be true. The problem is that the government is already in the way with too much regulation over the industries that control the Internet. It is because of government regulation that I have only one cable company from which to choose. So, because I have no choice (due to the current government regulations), the free market cannot act as it should, and there is no deterrent against unfair practices.
Either the government has to step in and further regulate the Internet to keep it "free," or it can step out of the way and make it even more free by deregulating the industry.
Comment feed for this post