McCain On Wrong Side of Net Neutrality - Introduces "Internet Freedom Act"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by hulugu, Oct 25, 2009.

  1. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #1
    Just recently, Senator John McCain (AZ) introduced the "Internet Freedom Act" designed to make it impossible for the Federal Communication Corporation to introduce 'net neutrality' rules, prohibiting Internet Service Providers from creating "pay-for-play" systems and allowing ISPs to slow down certain connections without additional end-to-end fees.

    As CQ Politics described the issue last year:

    This bill is in response to the FCC's move to codify Net Neutrality.

    McCain, who announced last year that he was computer "illiterate" has now become the point-man for an issue, owing to the large amount of support McCain has received from various industry insiders, according to Think Progress.

    McCain framed the issue as another government takeover according to a press release on his website, which stated:

    However, as ThinkProgress noted:

     
  2. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #2
    Hence when you are illiterate, you should stay away.
     
  3. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #3
    To be honest, this has shades of Communications Decency Act of 1996 written all over it. Some computer illiterate tool making a law that those who are computer illiterate know would be completely wrong.

    And to think people actually wanted this man to be President. :eek: :rolleyes:

    BL.
     
  4. hulugu thread starter macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #4
    If we could, I'd like to see the outright McCain bashing to be kept to a minimum. I'm interested in what people think of Net Neutrality, Senator McCain's argument against it, and how conservatives think this does or does not fit within their philosophy, especially the people who voted for him.
     
  5. Greenhoe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    #5
    Well I'm against almost everything that the Obama Administration stands for but I support their stance on Net Neutrality. If only we can get some conservatives to understand technology better.
     
  6. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #6
    Fair enough, but as I said, this has shades of what, unfortunately, one of my senators at the time had done to protect not only jobs, but our children from obsceneties on the InterWebs, making anything indecent shown to kids under 18 a crime, including speech. Ultimately, that was shot down by SCOTUS.

    But it's just the parallels between the illiterate one from 1996 pushing through a law, and the illiterate one now doing the same thing is just scary.

    BL.
     
  7. hulugu thread starter macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #7
    Absolutely, let's talk about Child Online Protection Act and it's ultimate failure after a lawsuit by the ACLU. We could also mention the Communications Decency Act signed by President Clinton and also knocked down by an ACLU suit.

    We should also note the Child Internet Protection Act, which was upheld by a SCOTUS decision in 2004, and was introduced by McCain in 1999.
     
  8. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #8
    I find this phrase interesting
    considering the history of the internet. See also: ARPANET
     
  9. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #9
    The whole thing seems entirely uneducated. Net neutrality should be common sense, in my view, and the only "freedom" McCain's bill ensures is the freedom for the ISPs to do whatever the heck they want.
     
  10. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #10
    Didn't McCain chair the Senate committee that has jurisdiction over this for years?

    I guess he needs the bucks for one last senate run. :rolleyes:
     
  11. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #11
    Does John McCain even know what the internet is? ;)
     
  12. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #12
    McCain didn't write this bill. I'd vote no on this with just that fact alone. He doens't know what he's talking about which bugs me.
     
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #13
    He uses Twitter or he's a twat. I get them confused.
     
  14. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #14
    I love the way conservatives think "innovation" means "the ability of certain companies to dominate and/or segregate an industry". Or the way they refer to a level playing field as a "takeover".
     
  15. hulugu thread starter macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #15
    It's newspeak at it's finest. Of course, a Congressional bill with the word "Freedom" as part of it's name should be immediately suspect.
     
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    I do not like tiered ISP plans, but private industry is more than able to take care of that issue, unless all companies move to it in some sort of scheme.
     
  17. hulugu thread starter macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    That's just my problem with both McCain's bill and the lack of a codified 'net neutrality' rule. The ISPs are in the business to make money and thus one of the best ways to charge for service is to create a tiered ISP plan and charge users at both ends. This, so the argument goes, makes the internet less like the democratic institution that's operated for 30 years for some nebulous future defined by "innovation" from the cable and phone companies.

    I don't understand what we gain, except handing over the democracy of the internet to a few large-scale conglomerates who are more likely to form a cartel.

    Can you explain what the advantage of such a change would be?
     
  18. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #18
    Its not going to make a difference, you can start off in a tiered plan but you can't go back, it would be as if everyone was used to unlimited minutes on their cell and you suddenly stopped offering that, not going to happen.
     
  19. hulugu thread starter macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #19
    So, then what's the advantage? What cool new features do we as consumers get besides some added complexity to our billing? And, if this is true, why are the telecoms pushing so hard for legislation?
     
  20. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #20
    I find the general silence from usually-vocal conservatives on this topic illuminating. Perhaps partisanship is holding some tongues, even amongst this tech forum audience. Anyway, spotted this piece on Tapped, but first, doubling-down, the WSJ op-ed from Senators Orrin Hatch and Jim DeMint:


    Nancy Scola replies:

     
  21. hulugu thread starter macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #21
    Well, it's not about Fox News or Barack Obama (maybe obliquely), so the thread hasn't garnered much interest.

    Thanks for the articles. I think what surprises me most is how little the WSJ article understands about the issue. The FCC would merely be codifying something in law that's been happening for 30+ years. The iTunes Music (media?) Store operates because of Net Neutrality, not despite of it. And furthermore, the motion towards Tiered systems would disrupt the system that's created Akamai—the backbone of iTunes and others—, Amazon, and Google.

    The internet is a free-wheeling libertarian paradise because of Net Neutrality, something the FCC wants to protect, and something the WSJ apparently cannot understand because of their knee-jerk support of corporations over government.
     
  22. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #22

    I would argue that it's not misunderstanding. Instead, it's deliberate political framing for a non-technical audience on a subject that many will find obscure. On the superficial level of government = bad, free market = good, the truthiness of it will be enough to sway many of the troops.

    It's not the kind of issue that elections are fought on and won, but it's the kind of thing that will bide its time until the Republicans are back in power... and then, through this current process of nudging and nibbling away at public opinion, it will be a relatively straightforward process of smuggling legislation through. Insidious... and which corporate-owned mass media voices will stop it?
     
  23. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #23
    That quote from Sens. Hatch and DeMint, two of the dimmest bulbs in the hallways of the Capitol, is about as intellectually dishonest as it can be.

    Yeah? Who said that? Not the FCC's Mr. Genachowski. You did. You're demonizing your opponent by misrepresenting his argument. In point of fact Net Neutrality proponents consider the internet to be the biggest, most open success in the world today, and want to keep it that way.

    Intellectual dishonesty #2. What about keeping aspects of our economy and national life free from corporate regulation??

    There isn't an aspect of your life and mine that isn't controlled by corporations. They have everything from our cable bills to our health insurance stacked, tiered and priced, and we really have two choices: take it or leave it. And now they want to be traffic cops of the internet, controlling where and how fast we can go? **** them! :mad:
     
  24. hulugu thread starter macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #24
    Right O! You're absolutely correct about the framing.

    It's not the kind of issue that elections are fought on and won, but it's the kind of thing that will bide its time until the Republicans are back in power... and then, through this current process of nudging and nibbling away at public opinion, it will be a relatively straightforward process of smuggling legislation through. Insidious... and which corporate-owned mass media voices will stop it?[/QUOTE]

    I don't know, it's such a technical issue that I don't expect many voters to pay any attention to it, on the other hand, EFF has done a lot to push the issue, so maybe we'll get somewhere.
     

Share This Page