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.'"
Anti french (Score:4, Funny)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: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:Ted Stevens? (Score:5, Interesting)
I gave up on him after his little trip to Baghdad in which he endangered American soldiers by making them act as his personal armed guard so he could safely go to a market to show us how safe(!) it is. Anybody who has lost friends to war and can still bring himself to unnecessarily endanger soldiers for the sole purpose of tricking Americans into keeping them at war will never, ever have my respect as a human being, much less my vote.
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:Ted Stevens? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I want a refund.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cheers.
Re:Vehemently Anti french (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
1) They didn't know that. As far as they knew surrender might result in the kind of thing that happened to Germany 22 years earlier: decommissioning of the armed forces, very heavy war payments, maybe some loss of territory. Remember the final solution didn't really gather steam until years later.
2) They didn't exactly surrender at the first sign of fighting. Some villages changed hands dozens of times, large parts of the French military where destroyed or captured before the surrender came and it's only
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: (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 no
Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:2, Insightful)
Spectrum (Score:2)
Re:Spectrum (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
But not so with copyright. (Score:2)
Clearly he wants to be every large media company's favorite Republican.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:5, Interesting)
If there were a thousand independent large pipe providers in the US, then net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue. But because the large bulk of it is concentrated, they can get away with what can only be seen as extortion; give us money or we'll strangle your bits. That's clearly predatory and monopolistic behavior, and a properly observant government would lay it on the line "Fuck with a market that you already have too much power over, and we will make sure your powers are greatly reduced". All it would require is Congress to even mutter this, and I think you would see the market corrected in a fashion that is to the consumer's benefit. After all, the whole point of the market is consumers, and they should be the prime concern of both the government and the players big and small.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they certainly have us by the bits, don't they.
Re:Ahhhh The Free Market (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Birds fly pretty well but currently kiwis dont fly. The premise is faulty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In a free market economy, the governments ONLY job is to make sure that competition thrives. They got NO other business in the economy.
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 reas
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: (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 jihadi
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
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.
What he didnt say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What he didnt say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Free markets typically work themselves out well.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Maybe the neighborhood switches should be held as 'commons' by the local government, with the competitive marketplace created at the switch station?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I use satellite all the time at my father-in-laws house. Never had a problem except during a thunderstorm. Even google maps worked great.
Still, I'm sure if your friend had problems all the time, he'd pick another provider, wouldn't he?
Re: (Score:2)
My alternatives, in the center of the capital of a European country, are:
Our local cable provider (one): Fairly stable, about 70 bucks a month, no more than 10 Gigs traffic or they charge extra, and a-ok support, with async 1024/256 speed.
Our former monopolist: More or less stable, from 10 to 50 bucks a month, the 10 bucks include 1 gig of traffic, every MB above that costs 5 bucks. The 50 is for 5 or so GB, btw.
A broadband provider, who
Re:Let The Market decide! (Score:4, Informative)
Satellite broadband, assuming a geostationary orbit, has, by definition, high latency (more than a half second round trip even if both you and your ISP were directly under the satellite at the equator and if there were zero additional delay from routers, etc.). For web browsing, you might not notice this too much if you have a good local caching DNS server in the satellite router. For most other uses, though, it will seem very, very slow, and VoIP is right out.
With that in mind, you don't have to be in the middle of nowhere to have only one choice. Just outside Santa Cruz, CA, I've been looking at land. Nearly every piece of property that does not have a structure on it is outside the range of DSL from the CO, which means that unless you can convince the local telco to put in a remote terminal, your only option is cable. In fact, there are places in the heart of the Silicon Valley where DSL is not available due to distance limitations. Granted, I've seen one wireless ISP that serves some of those areas, but at their prices, it is no wonder that people don't see it as a viable option.
By most estimates, only 60-70% of the U.S. population lives within range of DSL. That means that 30-40% of the population has at most one real choice for broadband (and that's assuming that their cable provider offers broadband). It is not at all uncommon to have only a single choice in broadband providers.
"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.
Re:"You should be able to make a profit from it" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
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: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Try looking at any phone bill. See those federal surcharges? Those are subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
Office of Management and Budget - fy2006 (Score:3, Informative)
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:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/agricu lture.html [whitehouse.gov]
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Bandwidth addict (Score:2)
Another American Failure (Score:2)
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.
Good comment BUT... (Score:2)
What does Iraq have to do with all things digital? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
But the FCC has already broken the free market... (Score:5, Interesting)
Little Monpolies... Big Monopolies... (Score:2)
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
Nothing interesting here. A summary: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Obscene (Score:2)
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
Net Neutrality will emerge naturally. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well in that case... (Score:2)
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)
Top Contributors [opensecrets.org]
1 AT&T Inc $39,500
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(You might think I'm joking, but this is exactly what big business does.)
Elsewhere at an pedophiles conference (Score:2)
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: (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
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: (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
The Wrong Pitch... (Score:2)
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
Typical lack of knowledge (Score:2)
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.
automatic franchise (Score:2)
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
Own the pipes or the content, but not both (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's called a "common carrier". Which is what US telephony was until "deregulation".
s/pipe/MONOPOLY/ (Score:3, Funny)
When you control the phone lines, you should...er no. Regulated industry and for good historical reasons (antitrust).
When you control the electrical lines...er, no again. Hmmm
When you control the oil...NOW WE'RE TALKING!
Other considerations (Score:2)
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.
I won't mind his stances if the market was open... (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Who thought John McCain would be in favor of legalizing crack cocaine?!
McCain is completely clueless about tech. (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds familiar... (Score:3, Funny)
I heard the same thing from my gf as she was telling me the various gifts I would be getting her for her birthday.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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:All aboard the Bullshit Express (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, we have a word for those - we call them "Republicans".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)