Slashdot Log In
Obama & McCain Conflicting On Net Neutrality
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Oct 09, 2008 09:04 AM
from the of-course-they-do dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Both sides... (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?"
Re:Both sides... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, you meant "that one" [google.com]. Or did you mean the other McCain slur, "The One" [youtube.com]? 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.
Parent
Re:Both sides... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Both sides... (Score:4, Informative)
Biden's from Delaware, the credit and banking capital of the U.S. He's the one that sponsored, introduced, and rallied support for the "anti-bankruptcy" bill which caused many families to lose their homes over the last three years. Under the old bill, homes were protected; under the new bill they were not. Under the old bill people had a safety net to start-over with a clean slate; under the new bill they were screwed to the wall with 40-year-long repayment plans.
Some "man of the people" - he should more properly be called the "man of the credit corporation".
Parent
Re:Both sides... (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:Both sides... (Score:4, Informative)
Rather the opposite. It makes you more attractive to companies that want to give you credit because you can't declare bankruptcy again for a period of time. An acquaintance of mine got his first offer for a new credit card less than a month after he signed the bankruptcy papers.
If you really want to screw up your credit, use a credit counseling service that negotiates lower payments with your creditors and lets you pay your bills off. Sure you're doing the right thing in actually paying off your bills, but you're poison to the lenders because there's nothing stopping you from doing it again.
Parent
Re:Both sides... (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.
Parent
Re:Both sides... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obama will always be called a liberal because he is.
McCain should never be called a conservative because he is not.
Re:Both sides... (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True,
I do believe however that Obama is trying to play towards the middle ground knowing that if he is to far to the left he will lose votes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure if you're using the word right. cfi Libertarian Party
EVERY law RESTRICTS a FREEDOM. As does every regulation, "suggestion," edict, mandate, statute, etc...
We already have too many laws. Obama is quite pleased to create more while we need fewer.
For every law that grants a freedom there is an opposite side that is restricted. There are some important freedoms, those we've already outlined. We don't need any more.
Re:Both sides... (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:Both sides... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if I put Al Gore in charge of defining traffic management algorithms, I expect he'd do a pretty good job of it. He's not a communications engineer, but he's interested in that kind of thing and he understands the public stake in these things, so I think he'd be much better than some PHB at, say, Sun.
This is not an ideological battle between engineers -- not unless people like Lawrence Lessig are "engineers". In fact, law professors are probably much better qualified to lead this discussion than engineers, because they understand that what is at issue is not controlling congestion, it is controlling markets.
Just think what life will be like when the entire Internet is like Verizon or Sprint's mobile services.
Parent
Re:Both sides... (Score:4, Informative)
>>>engineers who would like to define a workable scheme for traffic management
(1) Do what they've been doing since the 80s and 90s: Install fatter or more lines to handle the increasing load. The internet is not like a road with finite space. It keeps growing wider-and-wider-and-wider as technology advances.
(2) Another effective means of managing traffic is by charging for it - use more, pay more. Use less, pay less. This method encourages users to conserve bandwidth via the feedback of reduced billing costs. It also provides extra funds to buy additional wires.
Parent
Re:Both sides... (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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On Obama's website he says he is going to increase the number of overall soldiers in the armed services by 92,000. Personnel is one of the biggest expenses in just about anything, and in the armed forces you have to pay for their Benefits(Their insurance costs more than normal), Equipment, Travel, Housing, etc.
so just Salary alone 92,000 X $40,000(best guess average) = $3,680,000,000 per year not counting all the other expense which could easily double that number.
come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:come on (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:come on (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:come on (Score:5, Funny)
This has huge repercussions on my ability to torrent porn. I would not call this a minor issue.
Parent
On the fence (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:On the fence (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To me, the free market doesn't necessarily mean that I have any particular number of competitors to choose from (though admittedly, it's hard to call it a "free market" when there's only one business in the market). Instead, I would say that it has to do with how free I am to choose between those competitors, and just as importantly, how possible it is for a new competitor to enter the market.
To my mind, you could have 5 or 50 businesses competing in the market, but if it's difficult or impossible for a s
Three Words: (Score:4, Insightful)
Barriers To Entry
(that's assuming anyone is motivated enough to start an ISP so they can get a good Internet connection)
But you libertarians (I'm judging you by your response) say "But we'd remove the barriers to entry by doing away with all regulations!"
The problem is that when you turn the market into a free-for-all, the bigger and better-established companies rapidly outcompete the smaller ones, monopolies or cartels form, and they use their newly found free reign on everything to create new barriers to entry (say, heavily throttling inter-ISP traffic) which can't be broken down because there are no laws or regulations...and you're worse off than ever before.
Honestly one of the few political ideologies I just can't wrap my head around is libertarianism. One basic premise is good - minimize market regulations - but it's like you guys just want to do away with them all willy-nilly and you either don't think through the ramifications or have an incredibly simple and naive idea of what they will be.
Parent
Re:On the fence (Score:4, Insightful)
the telecom providers to do what they want with their lines
Than stop worrying about it. Those lines are built on public land, and many of them became entrenched in their position due to government-granted monopolies. We have every right to tell them how to prioritize our packets.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes you think that the lines are the property of the telecom providers?
I don't know myself, but I think I've heard that they were built with public money, and not owned by the telecoms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the flaw in your logic, it isn't their lines! It is our lines, the public's, because they laid them with our tax dollars. Just what the hell did you think the billions of dollars were meant to be used for? Just because they control the lines doesn't mean they actually own or much less actually paid for them.
The really sad part is that we've been taxed twice for those lines. The first time the tax dollars the government gave them (or was it loaned, but we apparently haven't collected on that) and the
Re:On the fence (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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As yet another not-quite-sure libertarian, I am receptive to the argument with one big reservation: it seems to be getting ahead of ourselves.
So far none of the theoretical problems with the free market version have developed yet. And at this point no one can truly say anything definite about how it may wind up sorting itself out.
I don't think it would be such a problem to sit on the issue for a while until it *actually* needs addressing, rather than trying to pre-empt it. It would be much mor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 syst
Constitutionality? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the Constitutionality of network neutrality legislation?
I fail to see how it doesn't *clearly* fall into the realm of interstate commerce.
Freedom vs freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
conundrum (Score:5, Informative)
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:
by saying that:
That statement is simply false [wikipedia.org]. Of course anyone could quibble over the definition of any word ad infinitum, but the general idea is no tiered service [wikipedia.org].
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 [wikipedia.org] that have tried to promote net neutrality and failed, then look who voted for or against them [votesmart.org]
Obama is best for net neutrality by a mile...
Re:conundrum (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I think it is more important for networks not to discriminate based on who sends the data, rather than how much they pay. It is certainly possible to have network neutrality even with tiered service.
In the real world, the post office is regarded as a common carrier but has still varying classes of mail (standard, priority post, next day service, etc). It is regarded as a neutral carrier because it doesn't discriminate based on who is sending the material. My letter being sent by priority post is treated no worse than one being sent by a major corporation.
Parent
Come on, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither side is highlighting actual differences... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.)
Obama's Precise Policy on Net Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
Puzzled (Score:5, 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.
McCain (Score:3, Informative)
His website echos what I've seen him state several times, that like most other issues, he isn't a fan of government regulation in business. I've yet to see him say he is anti-net-neutrality, or that he wants government regulation.
Obama was very pro-net-neutrality, so he gets points for that, except the stance disappeared from his website, so the promise is less clear. This is also a guy who promised to vote against the FISA bill over and over again, even the day before the vote, and then voted for it.
Re:McCain (Score:4, Insightful)
I've yet to see him say he is anti-net-neutrality, or that he wants government regulation.
Well those are really opposites, or at least orthogonal. In this case, it is government regulation that would theoretically enforce net neutrality by making it illegal for ISPs to throttle packets based on their source and charge said source extra to get better service. By saying that he doesn't want government regulation, he's at best saying he trusts private businesses not to do this, and at worst saying he thinks it's fine if they do whatever they want, and either way he doesn't support taking action to stop them from doing it. While not exactly anti-neutrality, it is definitely not a pro-neutrality stance.
Obama was very pro-net-neutrality, so he gets points for that, except the stance disappeared from his website, so the promise is less clear. This is also a guy who promised to vote against the FISA bill over and over again, even the day before the vote, and then voted for it.
Obama's stance has not change, it only became described in simpler terms on the website (and the old lengthy description is still available there). His vote for FISA was extremely disappointing. I don't think it means his position has changed, I think it means he's a politician (with all the negative connotations) running for office and he needed to deny ammunition to his opponent. Sad, but on the other hand, I'm sick of the kind of idealist who thinks the first thing you need to do is throw all practical considerations in the name of sticking to principles and thus ends up failing to accomplish anything. "Change I can believe in" to me means "Change that can win", even if that change isn't as awe-inspiring as my hypothetical ideal.
Parent
With Joe Biden, the RIAA will have a big friend (Score:3, Informative)
By choosing Joe Biden as their vice presidential candidate, the Democrats have selected a politician with a mixed record on technology who has spent most of his Senate career allied with the FBI and copyright holders, who ranks toward the bottom of CNET's Technology Voters' Guide, and whose anti-privacy legislation was actually responsible for the creation of PGP.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html
Re:Government Involvement? (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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So explain to me how their positions are actually different?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you were right about that, what you were wrong about was which one was contradicting himself (I won't say lying about his position, because they are probably both doing that).
McCain claims he is against net-neutrality, but for regulation - they are the same thing. Of course, that could still be non-contradictory if you assume he is for regulation, but not the same type that net-neutrality would imply.
Re:Government Involvement? (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly you simply have no idea wtf you're talking about.
Net Neutrality == the idea that if I visit a website, that website won't get preferential treatment (in terms of bandwidth or latency priority) because they've paid my ISP for the privilege. Or: all content is created equal. Note: this does *not* rule out QoS to, for example, reduce latency for real-time applications, at the expense of increased latency for bulk transfers, as per Comcast's recent announcement, as that prioritization is not based on the source or destination of the data, but instead on the protocol being employed.
This definition says *nothing* how this fairness comes about. However, given the stances that telecom companies have taken recently, my belief is that the government may need to step in and impose regulation in order to ensure that net neutrality is preserved. And this just so happens to be Obama's stance. McCain, however, would prefer to leave private industry to sort things out on their own. 'course, given how that's worked for the financial world... well, colour me skeptical.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't be absurd and call Obama a socialist, you'll offend real socialists.
Re:Slashdot's McCain/Palin Advertisement? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. The number one priority of being an informed voter is making sure we are never exposed to the other side.
</snark>
Parent