McCain on Net Neutrality, Copyright, Iraq 511
An anonymous reader writes "Sen. John McCain kicked off the All Things Digital conference Tuesday night with some interesting comments about net neutrality among other things. His take: there should be as little government regulation of broadband as possible. The market should be allowed to solve the Net-neutrality issue: 'When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.'"
Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:2, Insightful)
What he didnt say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let The Market decide! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the market will indeed decide. I can only get one high-speed provider in my house, and I'm sure that provider will make excellent decisions on my behalf.
"You should be able to make a profit from it" (Score:5, Insightful)
The monthly fees paid by service subscribers. The people paying for unfettered access.
What they're trying to do is double-dip. They charge you to receive content, then charge the sender as well.
It's not our fault if they've priced their subscription service in such a way they cannot turn profit.
Sorta Agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Who controls the pipe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the taxpayers of this country have been saddled with tens of millions (billions?) of subsidies to those who we have to go through for our net connection, it only seems fair that either:
A) All those who now control the pipes and who received these subsidies, now give that money back
OR
B) Those who now control the pipes and who received these subsidies have to keep things as they are and not control whose information gets preferential treatment.
Sorry John, you didn't have my vote before and this so-called "free market" idealism isn't helping your cause.
Yes, free markets are a good thing but when business has been receiving, and still receives, tons of money in subsidies, you can't now claim that you want the free market to decide what the outcome will be.
Re:they are making a profit (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"You should be able to make a profit from it" (Score:5, Insightful)
EDITED! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. If the govt makes those things legal, the prices for drugs, whores and gambling would come down significantly. Just goes to show that in a free market, the prices of goods will come down.
Re:What he didnt say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Free markets typically work themselves out well.
Re:Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:3, Insightful)
Net Neutrality will emerge naturally. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently, the governments in so called "free countries" are doing pretty much everything to work AGAINST these requirements, passing laws that benefit large corporations at the expense of smaller competitors, customers and suppliers.
That's anything BUT free market.
Re:Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:5, Insightful)
We already did. They run the movie industry, the record industry, ClearCh^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe radio business, and, of course, the cable and telco industries.
McCain has lost all credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone remember when he paraded down the streets of Iraq, protected by a whole infantry of U.S. soldiers (therefore also endangering them greatly), and then claim that it is a very safe and a lot better than a few years ago? He is on par with Rudy.G; both are utterly clueless of the real cause of 9/11. Every time I hear that "them hating us for our freedom" makes me want to puke. Ironically, Bush's stance on freedom is quite the opposite.
It will be interesting to see what Ron Paul will do to the upcoming republican debates. It will also be interesting to see what Hillary, Obama and perhaps even Gore can do in the presidential elections.
Re:Nothing interesting here. A summary: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess it's not, if you're a proponent of what is, for all intents and purposes, slave labor. Documented immigrants get paid a fair wage, at least. Illegal immigrants are always paid under the table.
I'm sure you'll find a way to call me a racist and xenophobe because I don't support illegal immigration. But at least you got your house painted on the cheap, right? You certainly are a paragon of humanity.
Re:"You should be able to make a profit from it" (Score:3, Insightful)
good point, but you slightly missed what they really want do do... e.g charge Microsoft for preferential treatment, so they can take a slice of MSNs revenue, because people would use the nice quick MS search in preference to the slow Google... and then of course Google want to get back on top so they bid more to get best network transit.
so yes, it's double-dipping, but by dipping into the content provider's revenue by marginalising access to the customer.
Re:Vehemently Anti french (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Who controls the pipe? (Score:2, Insightful)
Government exists to protect the rights of The People, not business masquerading as an individual via Incorporation. If that means regulation to ensure people's rights are protected, that's what government is MANDATED to do; not the predatory dreams of the current crop of pseudo-elected fascists and their hordes of mindless self-defeating supporters.
Re:Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect... It's job is to keep away from business affairs but set laws to keep the playing field level.
"Fuck with a market that you already have too much power over, and we will make sure your powers are greatly reduced".
In that perfect market of yours sounds groovy, you would have to have congresspeople that wouldn't bow to contributor pressure but the fact remains, politics have become the root of all business evil in this country... Politicians right about now will say anything to swing a vote and McCain is no different from any one of the other vampires running for office
McCain doesn't get Capitialism (Score:4, Insightful)
While we are on this subject, "Intellectual Property" and Capitalism are mutually exclusive. Copyrights and Patents are merely state imposed monopolies meant to provide incentive to invent and create, and are in no way similar to actual, physical Property. With property, there is exactly one instance of any given item in existence, and in order to acquire said property, the original owner would no longer own the item in question.
"Intellectual Property" refers to abstract concepts which are limitless in number and availability; therefore, it is absurd to claim that someone stole an idea, or "stole music from the Internet". Unless you have been deprived of that idea (which is impossible to do), nothing has been stolen.
Re:What he didnt say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever hear the saying, "two wrongs don't make a right"? Don't force anyone to do anything -- just end the subsidy. The solution to intervention isn't more intervention.
How many markets are perfect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, the perfect market argument is just as good as any "in a perfect world" arguments.
Re:Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:5, Insightful)
Just how much did the major ISPs pay the major internet content providers last year for making the internet worth accessing? Without content the ISP don't have much to sell. Come to think of it, I've never paid Google a penny, and I use their product several times a day. There are lots of people who could justify putting prices (or higher prices) on their contributions to the internet, but it would quickly cease to be the resource that it is if everyone did so. Just as there is a difference between fishing and overfishing, the is a difference between profiting and exploiting. The ISPs need to be careful not to overfish their investment.
Ted Stevens? (Score:5, Insightful)
On a more serious note, it looks like we have another naive libertarian type here. Let the market take care of the government-created monopolies! I mean, *obviously* the market would duplicate all the existing infrastructure, without the benefit of billions of dollars in government money*, if there were a profit in it! And a monopoly would *never* be rent-seeking, so we should just let it sit there with no government regulation, because we sure as hell won't help out any potential competitors dig up the roads to install fiber and such!
Oh, and wireless? First, we sold all the good wireless spectrum to companies that aren't even using it, but that's okay, because we auctioned it to ensure that those with the most money got it, rather than the startups who might make good on it. And community driven wireless ISPs? Tools of the devil! A community has NO place in using THEIR tax dollars to make it a better place! That's evil, because they have no incentive to exploit their customers for greater profits!
How can libertarians NOT see this? "Regulation isn't the answer," so what the hell DO you do? You can't just undo billions of dollars in infrastructure at the public expense. Duplicating the infrastructure is incredibly wasteful, not to mention just plain stupid. The free market is supposedly good because it's *efficient* after all. Oh, and they don't want to open access to the infrastructure because the pipes are "theirs" even though WE paid for them!
It's to the point where, whenever someone even says "libertarian" I read it as "corporate whore" because they apparently have no common sense to see what is happening when it's not what "should" happen in a Perfectly Free Market[TM]. To be fair, there ARE libertarians who are more sensible than that, but they're apparently a lot quieter than the nutjobs I see trumpeting it. Personally, I still wish that a few of them would take game theory. Cooperation trumps selfishness in absolute terms, but you have to punish selfishness or be taken over by it. It seems like they want to convince people to stop punishing selfishness, but they don't seem to realize how that harms cooperation or that the benefits of cooperation outweigh the benefits of selfishness. The world doesn't need self-proclaimed John Galts.
So I don't care if McCain is from my state. I don't care if I'm still technically registered as a Republican because I never bothered to change that to "none of the above." He's NOT getting my vote. Asshole.
* Telecoms always talk about "their" pipes, but WE paid BILLIONS (that's on the order of 10e9 dollars for you Brits) on infrastructure and we still don't have the fiber we should, like almost every OTHER first world country. Honestly, I don't really consider the US first world any more; it's like watching the Titanic sink the past several years. I've gone from flying the biggest damn flag I could get my hands on right after 9-11 to wanting to wipe my ass with it because I'm so ashamed of our country's actions. Torture especially was inexcusably criminal.
Re:Vehemently Anti french (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All aboard the Bullshit Express (Score:3, Insightful)
You are completely ignorant.
He annoys the right when he refuses to support tax cuts, fights for the new immigration bill, and censors political speech in the McCain-Feingold bill.
Re:Vehemently Anti french (Score:5, Insightful)
After the war was over they hunkered down into a defensive posture, and then when the next war broke out, the French government dithered for months while the German's prepared (the so-called "Phony War" period), basically annihilating the morale of the troops.
So no, the French as a whole didn't make a great showing in WWII. It would have been more surprising if they had. It was very easy for us to talk; our WWI casualties were a joke compared to what had happened in Europe.
Re:What he didnt say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and it makes an excellent maxim when trying to teach children to behave in a civilised manner.
On the other hand, as a principle of government, it would require us to repeal the laws against highway robbery, since it would be wrong of us to incarcerate armed robbers just because they were doing something wrong themselves. So maybe it isn't terribly useful in this context.
Re:What does Iraq have to do with all things digit (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing is, while the Iraq war has killed off roughly 3,000 Americans, each year there are over 2 million American deaths. Hundreds of thousands of non-Americans are dying in wars around the world that we don't care about. Millions are dying from AIDS in Africa. Millions of abortions happen each year. Stem-cell research has the potential to save millions of lives.
Do I want to talk about any of those things? No. Are they important? Sure. What do they all have in common? A complete lack of anything to do with digital stuff.
And, as I pointed out earlier in this comment, there are plenty of serious, non-porn-related questions to ask a major presidential candidate, and it's likely that he's never answered them before.
Iraq? Again, just google parts of the questions, and you'll likely find other examples of him answering the same question.
Re:Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's true, then free market economies should be avoided at all costs.
But I don't think it is. Why shouldn't a government not be able to participate in a free market economy? I suppose you think that the government should not build roads or hospitals. By your logic, a government should also not look out for the rights and well-being of citizens. Its only role should be to support private competition. So, why have a government at all if that's the case?
I think government should be there for more reasons than to benefit business. It is there to serve its citizens' needs, not profits.
Re:McCain has lost all credibility (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a Rudy Giuliani level of ignorance there. The idea that there is blowback from American interventionism in the middle east is supported by the CIA's own reports. Ron Paul is absolutely correct when he says that our intervention over there has raised bad sentiment.
Re:Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, bullshit. Look at Iraq. You can go ahead and try to set up a business in Baghdad but you won't get very far, because there's no security, so insurgents, militias, and jihadists can threaten, kidnap, and murder your staff and customers, and blow up your building. Even without those problems, you'd be hard pressed to run a business without reliable access to fresh water and power. And how are you going to distribute goods throughout the city without passable bridges? How will you find managers for your business when many of the educated people have fled to Jordan and Syria? How can you run a business without a reliable court system to settle disputes if one of your contractors doesn't provide goods, or one of your customers doesn't pay?
It takes a hell of lot for a marketplace to function. You need infrastructure, like roads, lights, power, and electricity. You need security: armies to keep out foreign threats, and police and firemen to keep the populace safe. You need courts, to enforce laws and settle disputes so that business can be conducted. You need schools for an educated workforce. Yes, some of this stuff can and perhaps should be be done by private industry, but the idea that if the government stops doing everything, private industry will naturally step in and take up the slack is just a Libertarian fantasy. Yes, when you're standing in line waiting for hours to get someone to look at a stupid piece of paper, it's easy to think that government is a great big bloated, inefficient waste of time, money, and human effort... and undeniably, much of it is. But even a bloated, inefficient government is superior to the virtual absence of government, which is what we have in Iraq. The idea that anarchy+capitalism = Libertarian paradise is appealing, but it's wrong. Anarchy+capitalism = anarchy, because free markets can't function without a government setting up all the infrastructure that those markets require.
Libertarians always whine that they could make things better if only they were given the chance to run the show. Well, they finally got the chance when the Libertarian-influenced Neocons took over the rebuilding of Iraq, and all they've done is show just how vital government really is. There are worthwhile elements to Libertarianism, but it's an unrealistic and unworkable scheme, a failed ideology, just like Communism.
Re:McCain has lost all credibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Would it matter? Skip the terminology and get to the facts. Needing one soldier is enough to consider it not safe.
Well, strictly speaking, it was much safer for a U.S. Senator to be in Baghdad than just before or after the invasion. So in that sense, he was right, at least. You are incorrect. If a US senator was walking downtown during the Saddam era, he would probably be invited to the palace since Saddam did not want to provoke the Americans. Also, as quoted on CNN [cnn.com], McCain considered the 'green zone' that he was in to be a safe passage for Americans. If so, why was he surrounded by American soldiers?
[..]the jihadis in the world hate anyone who doesn't follow their brand of Islam. If by "our freedom" they mean "our way of life" and "our values", then, yes, the jihadis do hate us for those things.
That is just nonsense. They hate that their holy lands are invaded by troops and that the Middle East has been occupied by the "free world" (as you would refer to it) for quite some time. If they really hated freedom, they would very likely turn to the Hindu countries and the majority of Asia that does not practice Islam. Why go halfway around the world to state a point when you got non-Islamic neighbors? Your argument is the typical war mongering propaganda that Bush has deployed on the U.S., because if you are correct, you can only fight them by killing them. Thankfully, you are full of it.
Not a damn thing, the guy is a loon. Have you heard his latest theory on 9/11? Total crackpot, not even worth debating.
First of all, I did not say anything about what he said. I only commented that he would probably cause another upset (WHICH HE DID). Secondly, you have fallen under the false GOP propaganda. What he said was highly accurate. In fact, his argumentation was based on previous experiences, but most vitally, the CIA report that was conducted after 9/11.
You should always take everything with a grain of NaCL when watching FOX, unless you already fully agree on everything Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter say.
Re:Ted Stevens? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now McCain is ignoring the telco cartels that want Net Doublecharge, because they're paying him to. With McCain so deep in bed with Bush, is there any surprise that McCain is just lying through his teeth to appear "libertarian" now that Republicans are the party of the biggest, most invasive government ever, that provides the least protection from corporate attacks on consumers?
Come on. After so many years watching McCain and his Republican Party lie us into war, unsupportable debt, corporate serfdom, and just an endless stream of lies that get people killed and broke, what is the point of listening to them on any single point? They can be trusted only to screw us.
Re:Follow the money (Score:3, Insightful)
(You might think I'm joking, but this is exactly what big business does.)
Re:Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you possibly separate the two? Having social responsibility means having an economic impact. Enforcing laws against slave labor affects the economy, and means that companies aren't free to compete by using slavery. Enforcing consumer safety laws to protect people means there are a bunch of products that companies can't make.
And what about the other aspect I mentioned - public roads? They have a huge impact on the economy. Do you think companies would be able to compete as well without roads to ship goods and materials on? Do you propose that all road building become privately-operated?
Also, where does the land that companies "own" come from? Isn't that ownership granted by the government, and dfoesn't the land come from conquest of lands by the armies of people? I fail to see how these companies, and the economy itself would exist, without governments and people creating it in the first place. It didn't just magically appear. One of the reasons that the US economy is so powerful, is that the government once protected social rights and freedoms.
Re:Anti french (Score:2, Insightful)
On a side note, I laugh that all these groups who advocate democracy and peacful resolution riot [aina.org] when the wrong person gets elected.
Re:Vehemently Anti french (Score:0, Insightful)
Finally! An explanation for the Iraq insurgency.
And voiced by an American, no less.
Maybe there's hope for this shithole yet....
Re:Vehemently Anti french (Score:0, Insightful)
You call yourself an American? Go to hell.
I think you need to lay off the Fox News, friend.
There is no democracy in Iraq, nor was there any intention of creating it--the Glorious Leaders (currently Bushites) don't want democracy HERE, dittohead! These days, the word "democracy" is little more than a crypto-fascist keyword meaning "corporate exploitation", which the US has practiced quite well since it dropped the bomb on Japan--its clearest statement that it was the new bully on the block, and things were going to be done the "Washington consensus" way from then on. This isn't new, you know--even the crotchety Council on Foriegn Relations stated the US was having a "crisis of democracy"--too much of it, in other words--in the 70s. Democracy is SO twentieth century; you need to get with the program.
The post you responded to may have been acerbic, but the sad reality is that your jingoism doesn't match up with the sad reality of Iraq (your argument about the benighted Crusaders was used forty years ago in Vietnam with all the "burning the village to save it" justifications that came out of THAT imperial invasion; again, your "views" are about as dated and as real as a tea party with Alice and the Mad Hatter.)
Don't worry, though. I promise not to vote in the next election. Can't have people like ME running around here, voicing things that don't toe the flag-waving line. I mean, I should be greatful that I can even say things like this, right?
Re:Ted Stevens? (Score:1, Insightful)
You Republicans are so insecure about your repressed gayness that you'll invade anything that moves. That's a pansy move that gets us killed, and destroys our country. But you're so obsessed with blowing things (up, mostly) that you forgot about the last war, which we won, and the way the rest of the one you kinda remember went. You really don't know anything but Republican propaganda, do you? No point then schooling you in any more history than you can handle.
Thanks for representing, Anonymous Republican Coward.
Re:Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, bullshit. Look at Iraq. You can go ahead and try to set up a business in Baghdad but you won't get very far, because there's no security, so insurgents, militias, and jihadists can threaten, kidnap, and murder your staff and customers, and blow up your building.
Bullshit, it's government, the US government that created the problems in Iraq. Insurgents and al Quada wasn't in Iraq before the US invaded. Weapons of Mass Destruction? I'm still waiting to the first WMD found in Iraq after the invasion. And those were the publicly, and quite laudly, stated reasons for the invasion, Bush even mentioned "mushroom clouds" in the skies. Regime change? It was US presidents Reagan and Bush Sr how supported Saddam, even while he was using those WMDs. US support only ended once he had Kuwait, a Sheikhdom [wikipedia.org], not a democracy, invaded. And a reason for his invasion of Kuwait? He accused Kuwait, and it was later confirmed, of slant drilling [wikipedia.org] into Iraq thus "stealing" Iraqi oil. Prior to the Kuwaiti invasion Saddam could use whatever WMDs against Iran, Kurds in northern Iraq, March Arabs, and Shias along with others without a peep from Reagan or Bush Sr. Actually as stated before they both supported Saddam when he was using WMDs.
FalconRe:Anti french (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:McCain has lost all credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
McCain was there for a photo op, but not with the soldiers. He was there to show us how amazingly safe the market was--the market where locals say they lose about a person per day to sniper attacks. Of course, he says that he didn't want any protection, but General Petraeus wanted to send them. If only he'd gotten his wish, the American people may have a better idea of what a clusterfuck the whole operation has been. I didn't have a huge amount of respect for McCain going into the incident, but it's all gone now. The single worst thing for our leaders to do in a time of war is to lie to his people about the costs and make them unable to make informed decisions about policy.
Re:McCain has lost all credibility (Score:3, Insightful)
In case you haven't been informed, "freedom" and "democracy" goes against Sharia law from the prospective of the Islamic extremists. Ergo, they HATE western civilization. It doesn't matter if you're Christian, Jewish, or practice Buddhism. These radicals want you dead if you don't convert.
Pay attention to the world around you. You might learn something.
Someone should have told the current administration that before they decided to go and "liberate" them. Anyone with a clue could have predicted the current mess in Iraq. But really, the reason why these radicals attack the US is because the US is constantly over there meddling with stuff, including supporting Isreal. If the US left them alone, they still would frown upon western civilization, but would likely spend their resources blowing up each other instead of attacking the US.
Re:Ted Stevens? (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides the bubble, and the fact he had to deal with an opposition-party Congress, the other major factor that led to surpluses was Clinton's massive cuts to military spending. But among the many lessons Iraq has given us, is that the cuts went too deep. We simply don't have enough personnel anymore, and the strain on the Reserves and National Guard is the result.
Don't get me wrong - Clinton did a decent job as president overall. I just think you have to account for the minuses of his decisions along with the pluses.
And don't get me started on fiscal responsibility and Democrats - Congressional Democrats have traditionally been the worst of the lot when it comes to wasteful government spending. It's only recently that the Republicans have arguably taken over that dubious distinction. We'll see if either party starts to feel enough shame (or at least political calculation) to actually clean things up. Despite the campaign rhetoric, from what I've seen so far, I'm not too optimistic.
Re:Vehemently Anti french (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, the French Resistance, from what I have read of them, were not particularly the type of people you wanted to be on the wrong side of a rifle with.
And this is AFTER the brutal initial assaults before the surrender.
As an American, I have noticed we don't tend to talk about our more embarrassing military times (1812, Korea, Vietnam) but maaaaaan, did we ever kick that Hitler's ass with one hand tied behind our backs whole the girly French fell down and cried, amirite? This notion is sadly prevalent, but it's just not true. (Let's face it. America didn't "win the war." The Russians did much of the grunt work, and we came in late. Did we help? Most certainly. But it wasn't exactly "America shows up and the Nazis flee in terror")
France and America are tied in many ways. We are a people of a shared history, and should respect each other for that.
Re:Ted Stevens? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vehemently Anti french (Score:3, Insightful)
But we can't/won't ridicule and mock Germany, China, or Russia, all for various reasons (money in the first 2 cases, and Russia is a bit touchy), and we can't thumb our noses openly at the whole world while we're building an ostensible "coalition" and gabbing about the will of the free world. So France gets to be the proxy for everyone else who opposed us.
Re:Ted Stevens? (Score:3, Insightful)
"But among the many lessons Iraq has given us, is that the cuts went too deep. We simply don't have enough personnel anymore, and the strain on the Reserves and National Guard is the result."
Why the hell do you need to maintain an army large enough to invade a country under false pretenses? Or was that the whole point of the invasion? To give a reason to increase their budget.