McCain Opposes Net Neutrality; Says would hire Microsoft CEO

[The Wicker Man]

McCain comes out against Net Neutrality; Says would hire Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain yesterday attended a technology conference and came out against Net Neutrality.

McCain said he did not think government regulation of internet service providers to stop them from censoring, slowing down, or otherwise disrupting consumer’s access to the internet in order to stifle competitors or undesirable content was an appropriate solution. In fact, McCain even seemed at one point to be open to ISPs censoring consumer’s internet experience to block access to competitors’ services, saying at one point “When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.”

McCain’s comments came at the D: Al Things Digital conference in Carlsbad, California. The annual conference is organized by the Wall Street Journal and hosted by tech gurus Walter Mossberg and Kara Swisher.

McCain later added “I’m all for the government encouraging competition, but I’ve found over time that less government involvement is better.” In one publicized case which critics say was an example of ISP censorship, AOL censored email sent by their users which included links to the anti-AOL website DearAOL.com. After there was an outcry on the internet, AOL later claimed the censorship was unintentional and that a technical glitch somehow only effected emails including the URL.

“Unless there is a clear-cut, unequivocal restraint of competition, the government should stay out of it,” McCain said. “These things will sort themselves out.”

In the past, McCain has said made statements strongly favorable towards telcos. In a statement issued after a 2006 Senate hearing into the matter, McCain said “I believe that the network operators should get a return on their infrastructure investments.” He also claimed that at the same time he did not want ISPs to block internet access to consumers, but when a bill came up to prevent this type of corporate censorship, McCain opposed it.

In another move that was sure to infuriate many geeks, the 70 year old presidential hopeful also said that he would ask Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to serve on his cabinet to deal with technology issues if elected. He did not however say what position Ballmer might be hired in, but did joke that he might consider him for a diplomatic position, such as ambassador to China.

Ballmer is not known in the tech industry for his diplomatic prowess: he once threw a chair across his office saying he would “****ing kill Google” after learning that a prized employee had defected to the search giant.

------------------

Unbelievable! Steve Ballmer?! Seriously?!! Why not just hand the Internet over to Microsoft?

[dusred]

It's interesting that you made a thread about this as I was just doing some research to make one myself.

Where did this article come from?

[AZhitman]

I oppose net neutrality as well.

For starters, it's redundant. Network neutrality violations can already be enforced under antitrust/anti-monopoly legislation.

Second, I support minimization of governmental interference, something the Left should appreciate.

Third, net neutrality removes incentives for businesses to pursue technological advancements and upgrades to better technology.

Don't be fooled by the terminology - Read up and educate yourself on Net Neutrality...

http://www.handsoff.org/blog/

[wingFeather]

McCain comes out against Net Neutrality; Says would hire Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain yesterday attended a technology conference and came out against Net Neutrality.

McCain said he did not think government regulation of internet service providers to stop them from censoring, slowing down, or otherwise disrupting consumer’s access to the internet in order to stifle competitors or undesirable content was an appropriate solution. In fact, McCain even seemed at one point to be open to ISPs censoring consumer’s internet experience to block access to competitors’ services, saying at one point “When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.”

McCain’s comments came at the D: Al Things Digital conference in Carlsbad, California. The annual conference is organized by the Wall Street Journal and hosted by tech gurus Walter Mossberg and Kara Swisher.

McCain later added “I’m all for the government encouraging competition, but I’ve found over time that less government involvement is better.” In one publicized case which critics say was an example of ISP censorship, AOL censored email sent by their users which included links to the anti-AOL website DearAOL.com. After there was an outcry on the internet, AOL later claimed the censorship was unintentional and that a technical glitch somehow only effected emails including the URL.

“Unless there is a clear-cut, unequivocal restraint of competition, the government should stay out of it,” McCain said. “These things will sort themselves out.”

In the past, McCain has said made statements strongly favorable towards telcos. In a statement issued after a 2006 Senate hearing into the matter, McCain said “I believe that the network operators should get a return on their infrastructure investments.” He also claimed that at the same time he did not want ISPs to block internet access to consumers, but when a bill came up to prevent this type of corporate censorship, McCain opposed it.

In another move that was sure to infuriate many geeks, the 70 year old presidential hopeful also said that he would ask Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to serve on his cabinet to deal with technology issues if elected. He did not however say what position Ballmer might be hired in, but did joke that he might consider him for a diplomatic position, such as ambassador to China.

Ballmer is not known in the tech industry for his diplomatic prowess: he once threw a chair across his office saying he would “****ing kill Google” after learning that a prized employee had defected to the search giant.

------------------

Unbelievable! Steve Ballmer?! Seriously?!! Why not just hand the Internet over to Microsoft?

Telcoman, is this another repost of someone else's journalism? If so, please post the link... thanks.

[dusred]

Telco?

[The Wicker Man]

It's interesting that you made a thread about this as I was just doing some research to make one myself.

Where did this article come from?

http://www.thedailybackground....llmer/

[ishkabibble]

Third, net neutrality removes incentives for businesses to pursue technological advancements and upgrades to better technology.

Don't be fooled by the terminology - Read up and educate yourself on Net Neutrality...

http://www.handsoff.org/blog/

"Hands Off The Internet is an advocacy group paid for by AT&T, Verizon, and other large telecommunications companies. "

REAL objective source you cited there, Greg.

FACT: There is little to no competition for internet access in most areas.FACT: The telecoms took $400 million from the govt. to upgrade their infrastructure and handed most of it to their execs rather than actually upgrade the networkFACT: Comcast blocked a useful technology (Bittorrent) rather than handling it via QoS just so they could lower their costsFACT: The U.S. is lagging the most of the 1st world in terms of bandwidth

Sorry Greg, but your free market philosophy fails hard in situations like this. I'd agree with you if there was actually lots of competition in the industry, but there isn't. I'm fine with reasonable QoS, but “When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.” is pandering to corporate interests rather than the greater good of society.

[Jager]

net neutrality is a very sticky subject, and the reason large cable co's and data center providers will NOT likely fight vehemently for removal of net neutrality comes down to a legal issue.

common carrier status. net neutrality and our current laws say that internet providers cannot be held liable for child p0rn, spam, phishing, hacking, cracking, and a host of other nasty or just wrong activities.

with no net neutrality and tier levels going into effect, providers lose this common carrier status, as they are no longer just passing all data, they are filtering it out for different people.

in effect if they lose common carrier status I can sue comcast for spam, p0rn i find offensive or illegal, any internet hacking attempt or phishing scheme that i may be targeted by, etc.

they would not last in court. ergo why it will not EVER happen unless they are guaranteed common carrier status still.


Modified by Jager at 11:55 PM 9/8/2008

[The Wicker Man]

telco? nope, wrong.

(Here comes a 'joke'/statement explaining the mistake happened bc we have a similar posting style)

[AZhitman]

Gee, Ish - if I didn't know any better I'd think you were somehow seeing the light and becoming a capitalist...

If you want a less biased source, find it yourself.

But know that the opposing viewpoint leads to a bunch of idiot bureaucrats imposing ridiculous restrictions on an industry that has THRIVED on being unfettered, creative and free.

Bigger government, less privacy, more limitations, regulations and restrictions.

Your call.

[ishkabibble]

Just because I shoot holes in your source doesn't mean I'm not capable of finding my own. You want intelligent discussion by some of the leading minds on this topic? Go read Slashdot - where industry people have been taking about it for about 2 years.

Would you be willing turning the highway system completely over to private companies and letting them charge whatever they want for tolls? Because that's roughly equivalent to turning the internet (a government creation) completely over to those who control the pipes (which were a government-subsidized creation).

Like I said, QoS is fine. Monopolies/duopolies milking their customers while providing crappy service is not. Letting the "free market" reign in this instance will create "less privacy, more limitations, regulations and restrictions".

[AZhitman]

I'm no stranger to the topic, Ish.

I'll leave the hypotheticals and theoreticals aside, because they're not terribly relevant... I'm not opposed to privatization of a lot of things.

Both sides have strong arguments, I'm just pointing out that I concur with one side.

By all means, feel free to take your arguments to the experts on Slashdot who also oppose net neutrality.

They're smarter than I am.

[ishkabibble]

No way... I'm somewhat outta my league on this forum, so it would be even worse on that site.

[AZhitman]

LOL - Dammit ish.

[The Wicker Man]

the experts on Slashdot ... oppose net neutrality.

do you have a link that substantiates this?

[AZhitman]

How about you quit trolling and read ish's comments.

This topic has been debated on Slashdot for quite some time, and debate implies that there are two sides - Both support and opposition.

[The Wicker Man]

I'm not trolling, please answer the question. Do you have a link or dont you?

[AZhitman]

Sure: http://www.slashdot.com

See if you can find me on there.

[ishkabibble]

Something tells me Greg's not on there.

[The Wicker Man]

Something tells me Greg's not on there.