North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here is an interesting article on a different issue. It discusses another reason that McCain isn't the man to lead this country into the future. McCain has had chances to lead this country into the next generation of technologies. Instead because of his ancient beliefs and hatred of technology we have now slipped further behind many countries.

Here is the article.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/featur ... mpson.html

John McCain is an AT&T guy; Barack Obama is a Google guy. And that's one of the most important policy differences between the two.

Think of the Internet as working at different layers. There are all the pipes that go into your home, and then there's all the stuff on your screen-from e-mail to eMule. The telecom companies like AT&T control the pipes; the software companies, like Google, create the stuff.

In an ideal world, both these layers would be sites of great innovation and creativity. But in the United States, that isn't so. The software industry may seem like a team of Gandalfs, constantly producing magic. But the average telecom company resembles Jabba the Hut: it moves slowly and slobbers a lot.

The United States created the Internet, but it's the rest of the world that can really use it. People in Japan are twice as likely as Americans to have broadband connections, and their pipes are ten times as fast. Compared to France, U.S. Internet access is twice as expensive and one-fourth as quick. Since 2000, the United States has gone from fifth in the world to twenty-second in broadband penetration. We have become a nation of buffering YouTube videos.

What went wrong? It's not that telecommunications companies are inherently lazy. Such companies innovate, after all, in East Asia. And it's not just that the United States is a big rural country. That explains some of our lag, but not all. Canada and Australia are thumping us too.

The real reason things went wrong is that we haven't regulated our telecom markets properly. And that's where John McCain comes in.

The problem is primarily the lack of competition among Internet providers. In most places, you have, at best, two choices-the local cable company or the local phone company. And these behemoths know that they don't have to worry about new competitors. With the government's help, they spent decades digging up roads and building lines into everyone's home, creating an infrastructure that no start-up can replicate. Now they sit, fat and happy, neglecting customer service and innovating about as much each year as Google does each Tuesday.

John McCain's culpability is both specific and philosophical. For much of the Clinton and Bush administrations, he chaired the Senate Commerce Committee, overseeing the Federal Communications Commission and the telecom industry. Just before taking the post, he voted against the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the one big effort to solve the problem of anemic competition in the telecom sector. When the act nevertheless passed, he
helped to make sure that its main provision for opening the market-mandating that phone companies lease their local lines to competitors-wasn't enforced. Eventually, he, and the people he put on the FCC, helped to roll that law back. France, by contrast, implemented and enforced just the kind of law that McCain opposed. And now the country mocked here for its thirty-five-hour workweek is far more wired than the United States.

As committee chair, McCain also oversaw, and often encouraged, the incredible competition-stifling consolidation in the telecom industry. The country is now served almost entirely by three local phone, four cellular, and four cable companies. In his tenure as chairman, McCain supported nearly every merger. In 1999, he coauthored a bill that would strip the FCC of its ability to veto telecom mergers.

McCain's mistakes derive partly from a lack of technological curiosity (he doesn't use e-mail) and the presence of all sorts of Bell guys around him. His campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, Senate chief of staff, and chief political adviser have all worked as lobbyists for Verizon or AT&T.

But more blame lies with his philosophy. McCain espouses what he calls a deep belief in free markets and in keeping government off the backs of business. That's all well and good, except for when a market-like telecommunications-requires intervention in order to create competition. Unrestricted freedom for the big guy often means death to the little guy.

Given McCain's poor record on the issue, Obama could ignore the topic and still come out ahead. But the forty-seven-year-old, it turns out, is something of a geek. He presented a sweeping technology plan early in the campaign that is full of good ideas.

He suggested that the government create the post of national "chief technical officer." He proposed taking the money that is now used to subsidize rural telephone use, and spending it on subsidizing rural broadband instead. Not only would people and businesses get Internet access; they'd be able to switch to vastly cheaper Internet phones. Not surprisingly, Obama has won over Silicon Valley. According to opensecrets.org, 555 employees of Google have donated to his campaign, compared to just twenty-six for McCain. When the author of McCain's technology plan, Michael Powell, was pressed to name supporters from the tech world, he came up with the name of one person who's actually written code-and then it turned out that guy didn't even support McCain.

Obama also clearly gets that government has an ongoing role to play in making sure markets work-a fact reflected in the debate over net neutrality. The question here is whether the telecom companies can discriminate over the kind of information that flows over their pipes. AT&T, the other telecom companies, and McCain argue that of course they should. They own the pipes, and in a free market they should be free to do whatever they want. Obama's position is: Hold on a minute. Do we really want the phone and cable companies deciding what kind of software people can use? Do we really want Comcast to, say, decide to start monkeying with your ability to access iTunes.com or Vonage?

Obama, in other words, understands that actual market freedom sometimes requires tough love from the feds.

McCain still seems to believe in the chimera of naturally existing total freedom-the freedom for his country to fall further and further behind as AT&T and the other telecom leviathans sit back, ignoring your customer service calls and just watching the $90 monthly checks roll in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
Net neutrality is amazingly important, but the majority of people don't understand it. I don't want my ISP slowing down my access to services I currently use, because they're trying to push their own, competing service. Make no mistake, they'll do it.

There IS a finite amount of bandwidth available using any given technology. However, providers need to invest in their networks to compete on speed and price. Not ensuring net neutrality allows them to neglect their networks to fake faster speeds, and in the worst case scenario, to halt traffic going to services that compete with services they sell altogether.

I'm sure nobody's going to vote solely on this issue, but we should definitely make sure our congress-critters know of our wishes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
I'm 56 and I wouldn't know what net neutrality is if it kicked me :lol:

the idea that a 72 year old guy isn't into computers is not too shocking either.

McCain :lol: :lol: has geeky nurds like Ryan to do the lightweight computer stuff :wink:

lastly McCains one best redeeming trait in my opinion is hes always fought pork and earmarks so when someone says he voted against a bill there is probably more to the story
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,688 Posts
Some people must think the world revolves around a keyboard. :eyeroll: I wonder how we ever got out of the stone age without it? :D :D :D Socrates and Einstein must have been idiots. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,255 Posts
:lame: :bs:

I suggest you have some more :koolaid: Benelliman.

huntin1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,247 Posts
Benelliman, you would be way more crediable if you changed your name to Berettaman

:wink: :poke: :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
Bob,

Here's the deal with net neutrality: Technology has gotten to the point that internet service providers can install hardware on their networks that dictates different speeds based on the type of traffic and even it's destination. Their reasoning is that they need to be able to guarantee enough speed for certain services that need more, like Voice Over IP phone service (like Vonage). Google sees a threat in this, and I believe they're right. Basically, not ensuring neutrality would allow your ISP to throttle back any service they choose. Let's say Comcast puts up their own search engine: There'd be nothing stopping them from slowing Google to a crawl, or stopping it altogether for their customers. They could also charge more for packages of websites, like they do with cable channels (You want YouTube, that's $5/month). The thing is that they could also guarantee speeds for the services that need them by investing in their network to make the it faster as a whole, rather than investing in tricks to make certain things seem faster. Frankly, that's the path they need to go down. The US is a relative backwater when it comes to average internet connection speed as it is!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
It falls on John McCains shoulders that we've "slipped further behind many countries"? Who cares about this google crap? I guess since Al Gore invented the internet :-? he could have advanced us technologically. You want to believe in google, use it on Obama. Check his record (the most liberal senator ever nominated for president). Check his associations, you won't like what you find. Most of Obama's supporters want to ignore the serious problems that he has. What happens if you can't use computers, teleprompters, and have to make a decision on your own? Don't be so anxious to put anyone in the White House, just because they aren't a Republican.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
I wouldn't use this as a reason to vote for Obama. The issue is a little too specific for me to go that far. I'm just saying its a more serious issue than people recognize. We should probably let our congress people know our feelings, though. I know I plan on it next time it comes up.

Google just inserted themselves into the debate because they have the most to lose. They also make a convenient example, since they are nearly universal. I could've just as easily used a for-instance of an ISP cutting off access to NodakOutdoors, unless you cough up $5/month for the "Outdoors Tier" of internet services. The issue does basically boil down to Ma Bell versus the next generation. If we want to stay on top, in one of the few areas where it's still inarguable that we are on top, we need to make sure that there is still profit in innovation on-line.

I just want to explain the problem so that people don't just tune it out next time the debate comes up because they don't think they have a dog in the fight.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,688 Posts
I just want to explain the problem so that people don't just tune it out next time the debate comes up because they don't think they have a dog in the fight.
It was interesting, and thanks for the explanation. I knew nothing about the area you covered. Next time it comes up I'll be looking for another explanation from you. :thumb:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
Bob,

Here's the deal with net neutrality: Technology has gotten to the point that internet service providers can install hardware on their networks that dictates different speeds based on the type of traffic and even it's destination. Their reasoning is that they need to be able to guarantee enough speed for certain services that need more, like Voice Over IP phone service (like Vonage). Google sees a threat in this, and I believe they're right. Basically, not ensuring neutrality would allow your ISP to throttle back any service they choose. Let's say Comcast puts up their own search engine: There'd be nothing stopping them from slowing Google to a crawl, or stopping it altogether for their customers. They could also charge more for packages of websites, like they do with cable channels (You want YouTube, that's $5/month). The thing is that they could also guarantee speeds for the services that need them by investing in their network to make the it faster as a whole, rather than investing in tricks to make certain things seem faster. Frankly, that's the path they need to go down. The US is a relative backwater when it comes to average internet connection speed as it is!
Well I know now and I appreciate the lesson. I like to learn new stuff.

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,332 Posts
Really did either one of these guys get where they are at from using the computer. I doubt it. And who cares it's not like we are going to fight some kind of starwars game where the leaders of countries fight each other on the computer. But I understand I don't want my service compromised for any reason. :lol:

I think if elected President you will have a huge separation between you and most business type people. It's a whole new level of corruption to attend to. :puke:
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top