Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Communications The Internet Your Rights Online

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

McCain on Net Neutrality, Copyright, Iraq

Comments Filter:
  • Anti french (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @03:54PM (#19326437)
    From article:

    "internet is so simple even a frog could use it."

    Why must article discriminate againt the French ? We are good people. Too much now in the US is anti-French feeling, like "freedom fries". Without France, its hards for US defeat Hitler, and France is a leads computer industry, with programming languages like OCAML, which win most programming contest.
    • After making this [] necessary, I don't think I'd want to be in France!
    • Ted Stevens? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:49PM (#19327321)
      So how smart does that make his fellow Republican, Ted Stevens?

      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:Ted Stevens? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @06:10PM (#19328743) Homepage Journal
        McCain is neither naive nor libertarian. He's a liar. He wants to be president so bad he's embraced Bush, even as Bush tortured prisoners the way McCain was tortured, and says we never should. McCan embraced Bush, even though Bush's 2000 "dirty tricks" stole a likely Republican nomination from McCain, by sliming McCain's adopted daughter.

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )
      I really can't understand it. Perhaps it's something about the foundation myth of ragtag civilians freezing in the woods winning a nation against a mighty empire. The fact the French made this possible and it wasn't just a small band of heroes must really annoy some jingoistic "patriots".
  • When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment
    By using extortion. Why don't we legalize the mafia? After all, they control the drugs, whores and gambling, and they deserve to profit from their investment.
    • Why the hell don't these free market aficionados also become interested in efficiency. Various uses of spectrum could free up lots of space for competition. Or, is it competition that is the problem? Particularly, to those donating to these folks...
      • Re:Spectrum (Score:5, Funny)

        by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) * <slashdot.kadin@x[ ].net ['oxy' in gap]> on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:08PM (#19326635) Homepage Journal
        Why the hell don't these free market aficionados also become interested in efficiency.

        Who says he isn't?

        This is clearly the most efficient way possible of getting a lot of campaign contributions from the big telco/cableco monopolies.

        • And how exactly is this free market? The US are turning into something that is as anti-capitalist as the communists never were.

          In communist countries, there was at least only one party controlling the market and the laws that apply to it. Not a consortium of corporations trying to get laws passed that benefit their needs. Given the choice between a communist state and what the US are turning into, I'd be hard pressed to decide.

          Shooting is supposedly less painful than hanging, or so I heard...
    • by homer_s ( 799572 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:09PM (#19326651)
      After all, they control the drugs, whores and gambling, and they deserve to profit from their investment.

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Only if the market is truly free. If it is concentrated into a few very large interests, I'm afraid you don't get an ideal marketplace.
    • And yet at the same time he states that the White House should take the lead on Copyright reform and give it direction noting that "many in congress don't understand it. Why not let the free market prevail there?

      Clearly he wants to be every large media company's favorite Republican.
    • by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) * on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:17PM (#19326789) Homepage Journal

      Why don't we legalize the mafia?

      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.

    • I actually think "as little government as possible" is a good slogan. If you control the pipe, you should be able to set whatever rules you want within reason and let the market decide.

      However, the "within reason" idea is where things get interesting. I don't want to outlaw QoS offerings to customers. However, I would like to suggest that no lack of rules regarding net nutrality should allow monopolies to preclude nacient competition.

      I would propose a somewhat different approach-- a new antitrust law con
  • by gentimjs ( 930934 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @03:59PM (#19326503) Journal
    Its what he didnt say that should be worrysome ... while few would disagree with "when you control the pipe you should be able to draw profit from it" I noticed he didnt mention "consumers should have a good choice of more than one pipe to attach too" .... yay for pipe-side economics!
    • by Notquitecajun ( 1073646 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:11PM (#19326691)
      You've hit the real issue - allowing competition and not subsidizing the dang companies. Many anti-capitalist and anti-right-wing arguments fail on this account - there are a good many companies which the free market WOULD work out a better choice were there an actual level playing field - no subsidies (farming), everyone getting the same/similar tax breaks (pick your favorite billion-dollar corporation), no legislated monopolies (cable), allowing actual consumer input (health insurance).

      Free markets typically work themselves out well.
      • Yeah, I was looking for this point. Anyone who's been subsidized in any way should be forced to be neutral. Period. That includes cable companies granted an exclusive right-of-way (government-granted monopoly) and of course every telco in the states.
        • by JesseMcDonald ( 536341 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:44PM (#19327217) Homepage

          Anyone who's been subsidized in any way should be forced to be neutral. Period.

          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.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by NickFortune ( 613926 )

            Ever hear the saying, "two wrongs don't make a right"?

            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.

      • by lawpoop ( 604919 )
        Well, what about the 'natural monopoly' of the owners of the last mile of copper wire/fiber optic cable to the homes? Unless we want 15 different cables and wires coming into each home for 15 different competing providers, how will we provide competition in the marketplace?

        Maybe the neighborhood switches should be held as 'commons' by the local government, with the competitive marketplace created at the switch station?
    • It's tubes, not pipes. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.
  • by qwertphobia ( 825473 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @03:59PM (#19326509)

    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.'"

    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.
  • by Chas ( 5144 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:00PM (#19326521) Homepage Journal
    And they are.

    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.
    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:05PM (#19326585) Journal
      The worst part about it is that without that content which they seem to think is poison traveling through the precious (and often monopolistic) pipes they wouldn't have a damn thing to sell. Blaming Google from stealing revenue from you while you actually profit because Google is a big reason to even use your pipe is about as faulty a line of logic as I can imagine. Perhaps we should have a Logically Flawed Business Model Law, which fines companies based upon how stilted and awkward an argument they make for taking other peoples' money.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by speculatrix ( 678524 )

        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.

  • Sorta Agree (Score:4, Insightful)

    by endianx ( 1006895 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:00PM (#19326525)
    For those who want the government to move in and enforce neutrality, consider whether you really want the government getting involved in such things. Net neutrality may be ok, but when they want a tax on email, site censorship, or other such evils that result from government involvement in the Internet, you will be wishing they had stayed away.
  • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:00PM (#19326535) Journal
    'When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.'

    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


    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.

    • by mc6809e ( 214243 )
      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,

      I've seen this claim before, but where is the proof? Can anyone actually quantify the amount of money and how big a percentage of the whole it represents?

      • by Deagol ( 323173 )
        I've seen this claim before, but where is the proof?

        Try looking at any phone bill. See those federal surcharges? Those are subsidies.

      • Ignoring any cash subsidies, how much do you think that it would have cost them if they had had to pay fair market price for all the easements that they use to run their wires rather than setting up privileged deals with local governments?
      • 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,

        I've seen this claim before, but where is the proof? Can anyone actually quantify the amount of money and how big a percentage of the whole it represents?

        I'm sure there's more, but here's one I found in 30 seconds on TheGoogle: lture.html []

        Rural America is home to one-fifth of the Nation's population. The needs of this population are as diverse as those of the populations in large towns and cities. Communities in rural America rely upon many of the same things as urban areas, including good paying jobs, access to critical services like education, healthcare, and technology, and strong and safe communities. On

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Penguinshit ( 591885 )
      "Libertarian" == "I failed PoliSci".

      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by corbettw ( 214229 )
        Government exists to protect the rights of The People, not business masquerading as an individual via Incorporation.

        One of those rights is the right to own property, and to do with it what you want. And since corporations are owned by people, and corporations own property, by extension the owners/share holders of the corporation own that property. So when you start regulating what a business can do, you're trying to regulate what people can do with their own property.

        If you can't understand that, you'll nev
  • From my cold dead hands! oh wait, you want to charge me $1 a meg? I can't use skype? I have to use your music service not iTunes? nvm..
  • Who needs regulation when market competition is more efficient? Oh, except:

    1. no transparency without regulation,
    2. no competition without regulation. Hint: a market is temporarily competitive and evolves to a mature market.
    3. no accountability without regulation.

    Yet another misguided attempt to falsely attribute market-based anything with efficiency or effectiveness.
  • the market is NOT free. If they dissolve ALL of the monopolies (or limit it), then I am all in favor of this. The problem is that many of these companies want a monopoly and no regulations. In my area, I have the choice of qwest, comcast, or some reseller of them. It is a total ripe off. When colorado tried to do the state-wide licensing (get one license at a state level and then compete where you see a market) that past xmas, comcast and qwest fought against it. From where I sit, they need the net-neutrali
  • by Paradoks ( 711398 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:10PM (#19326675) Homepage
    Finally a technology conference where there's a presidential candidate present, and it's quite reasonable to grill him about all the pressing topics of interest to the Slashdot crowd, and half the article is about Iraq?

    Geez. I know it's important, but McCain has answered the exact same questions hundreds of time. And this article is the first time I've heard a question that involved copyright. Why, oh why, do we have to read the same answers about Iraq in every situation, despite it being wildly off-topic?
    • this article is the first time I've heard a question that involved copyright.
      Still no ANSWER, though. Ahh, well, what do you expect from politicians?
  • by kbonin ( 58917 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:11PM (#19326699) Homepage
    As long as the FCC props up access "right of way" monopolies, the free market cannot function. Between DSL distance constraints, spectrum auctions to the highest bidder, everybody overselling bandwidth, [nearly] everybody traffic shaping, unlimited service provider consolidation, and [nearly] every access provider requiring strict "you will be a consumer only" contracts, where is the free market? Net neutrality is just a bastion against unconstrained traffic shaping. The government has already sold off most of our other rights...
  • For the most part, broadband is comprised of big monopolies, little monopolies and perhaps a little bit of competition scattered here and there. (In case no one noticed, with all the buying and selling of AT&T lately, it seems like the net result is that somehow AT&T controls a lot more than it did before...)

    And frankly, even where there's competition, the provider will do pretty much what they please regardless of consumer demand. Look at Dell for example. They switched over to India for their c

  • A standard pro-business comment that ignores reality

    The mandatory GOP "OMG IMMIGRANTS" xenophobia. (As if it's such a huge problem that I got my whole house painted for $500. Oh noes! They are *illegal*, they didn't fill out a bunch of forms before they painted my house! The horror!)

    He then goes into full-on pro-war mode, advocating a long stay in Iraq, action against Iran and the continued destruction of Habeas Corpus.

    Then the oblique nod towards government-funded religious education, because there are
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Caiwyn ( 120510 )
      As if it's such a huge problem that I got my whole house painted for $500.

      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.
  • I listened to Barack Obama's "podcast" about net neutrality (on youtube), it was excellent. He understood that everyone gets broadband through just a handfull of companies, and that not passing the law would allow companies to create barriers to entry, to where everything is as bad as phone or cable companies.

    I don't see how McCain is going to be any different than many in the current administration, or even democrats like Hillary. I just don't see how someone could look at the issue and not understand that
  • by Bongo Bill ( 853669 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:15PM (#19326765) Homepage
    It might take a year or it might take twenty, but as users become more sophisticated in what they want to use the Internet for, they will become dissatisfied with providers who won't give them the access they demand to the sites they want to use. There's no need for Uncle Sam to saddle us with more rules and regulations. If there's something keeping newcomers out of the market, existing antitrust laws should be applied.
  • Since he wants as little government influence as possible, he also needs to force companies to (for the sake of fairness):
    1) Pay back ALL government funding they have received to upgrade their networks with.
    2) Make it illegal for a company to have a government mandated monopoly. The government would likely need to pay for the infrastructure of new companies in areas where a monopoly exists (to make up for all the help it already gave the old monopoly).

    The second one is most interesting and interesting if th
  • Follow the money (Score:5, Informative)

    by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:16PM (#19326773) Homepage Journal
    Top Contributors []

    1 AT&T Inc $39,500
    • by Valar ( 167606 )
      Not to mention about $12k each from Qwest, Time Warner, Cablevision, and Viacom, all of which have at least some activity in the bandwidth market.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Apotsy ( 84148 )
      Wow, that's pretty cheap. Shit, I could afford to buy a senator. I think I'll have someone introduce the "Apotsy doesn't have to pay taxes anymore" bill. That would be cheaper than actually paying taxes for real.

      (You might think I'm joking, but this is exactly what big business does.)

  • John McCain is reported to have said "As your president I promise to wear a dress and talk like a little girl if that is what my campaign supporters want. When you buy the presidency the man you anoint should dance for your amusement. So keep those contributions a coming!", he said in a lilting high pitched voice while sporting a bright blue sundress.
  • by eebra82 ( 907996 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:23PM (#19326899) Homepage
    There is no chance in hell that McCain will win the race. In my opinion, he has lost all credibility for being the war monger he is.

    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.
  • Someone should pitch this question to them differently, as they clearly aren't quite understanding it right.

    INSERT CANDIDATE NAME HERE, let's imagine, for a moment, that you're the President. Now. Let's imagine that the White House gets it's internet from, I don't know, Random DC Internet Company. Hypothetically, let's say that there was a horrible nuclear accident of some sort and the Russians were freaking out. Would you be for or against an email to the Russians explaining that this was not a hostile
  • The market should be allowed to solve the Net-neutrality issue
    This doesn't make sense in two ways:

    1) What market is he talking about? Being a broadband provider is a regulated monopoly. There are only two in my area: Comcast cable and Verizon DSL. Nobody else is allowed in now that the telcos don't have to lease their lines.

    2) Ironically, net neutrality is what would restore fair competition to the market. Without that, the issue can't solve itself.

  • When the federal government guarantees an automatic franchise to all taker for access to any utility pole, there will be an argument that Net Neutrality can be taken care of by the market. I would still be skeptical due to minimum economic scale requirements limiting the number of entrants.

    This is typical Republican faux free market propaganda. McCain wants to rig the market by the government ensuring through the FCC that there is very little actual competition and then claim that the high prices and poor
  • by JeffL ( 5070 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:33PM (#19327039) Homepage

    None of the companies would ever let the lawmakers do it, but I think the regulation that is needed is something to disentangle the ownership of the actual wires, fibres, spectrum, etc. that carries data from the data itself.

    Companies who carry the data, and deliver it to all kinds of end users (home users, businesses, etc.) would be required to be completely agnostic as to what the data is they carry. They would be like the post office, who don't own the mail they deliver, they just deliver it. Perhaps even completely transparent non-neutral prioritization of traffic (like the post office, with airmail, first class, media rate, etc.) would be acceptable. Any VOIP provider could agree to pay the tariff for high priority packets, and Verizon (for example) couldn't block their traffic because they compete with Verizon's local phone service.

    Separating the data carrier and the content provider is just my thought for preventing vertical monopolies. Time Warner owns your cable line, and forces their traffic on you, and only lets in their and their "partners" VOIP or video on demand traffic, for example (they don't do this now, but I'm sure they'd love to if given the opportunity).

    Simply, you can own the wires or the data, but not both.

  • by RedHat Rocky ( 94208 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:37PM (#19327085)
    'When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.'

    When you control the phone lines, you no. Regulated industry and for good historical reasons (antitrust).

    When you control the electrical, no again. Hmmm

    When you control the oil...NOW WE'RE TALKING!
  • Iraq is important, but there are other issues that we never hear about. For example...the Federal Reserve. It is costing us dearly (the interest on government debt), and quite frankly, I can't see any reason for its continued monopoly on this country's money supply. Also, what does the candidate plan to do (specifically) to repair the havoc wrought by Dubya's end-runs around the other two branches of government (not to mention the Constitution)?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:38PM (#19327113)
    The Telecom 'Market' was never Free. The government helped subsidize it, gave it public land to use, etc. It is *NOT* private property that the Telcos have a right to profit from. Don't give them the ability to do whatever they want and pretend it is Capitalism when the government propped them up and helped them get started.

    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.
  • by Fallen Kell ( 165468 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @04:42PM (#19327181)
    The problem we face is that the market is actually closed. There is no free market in the telecom or cable industries. Almost all towns, counties, and even states have laws in place restricting the number of cable providers and forcing a monopoly in the state, county, etc., etc.

    In an open market, things would work out for the consumer, as they would have the choice to go to a different company if they were not getting the service they want or even expect from their current providers. Yet, where I live, I can not even start a rival cable company if I wanted let alone have a choice between different ones because the law forbids me from being able to use anything other then Comcast, as they have an exclusive deal with the county to be the only licensed cable tv provider, and the county will not license any other competition. So, since I have a choice of them or nothing, it isn't like I can do a whole lot when I am upset about a change in service or experience poor service, etc., etc. In a free and open market, I would go to someone else who didn't do X or Y to me, and isn't speed throttling different network connections, etc., etc., and that is the idea of the free market, and in that case, the free market would make sure that the consumer got what he or she wants, not what is forced on them.
  • Holy crap (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @05:16PM (#19327781)
    'When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.'

    Who thought John McCain would be in favor of legalizing crack cocaine?!
  • by smellsofbikes ( 890263 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @06:38PM (#19329271) Journal
    Given that this is the same guy who doesn't seem to realize that condoms reduce the risk of contracting AIDS [] why would we expect him to understand the first thing about net neutrality? As lots of people point out, it's incredibly difficult to get someone to understand something when he's being paid by AT&T [] to not understand it?
  • by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2007 @07:04PM (#19329641)

    When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.

    I heard the same thing from my gf as she was telling me the various gifts I would be getting her for her birthday.

"I don't believe in sweeping social change being manifested by one person, unless he has an atomic weapon." -- Howard Chaykin