Net neutrality revisited
Our sister site, the Washington Independent, points out today that while John McCain admits he doesn't use email and is just now learning how to go online, he doesn't hesitate to take positions with enormous implications for users of the Internet. For instance, he opposes net neutrality:
Obviously, McCain is from a different generation, so perhaps that explains why he hasn't yet mastered the Internet. However, he admittedly has little grasp of the most basic fundamentals -- like getting himself online -- that any person needs to actively engage in the modern wired world. He has already taken a position on net neutrality -- an issue with serious ramifications for the flow of information on the Internet. He opposes regulation and has said, “When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.” It would be a bit more reassuring if there were some reason to believe he understands what he's talking about -- and is not just falling back on anti-regulatory dogma on the advice of the telecom companies that stand to benefit.
It's interesting to consider McCain's attitude toward the Internet in light of the fact that not one of the Republican candidates for congressional office here in New Mexico would say what their position on net neutrality was, when I was researching my article on the topic. The responses ranged from the very honest "lack of informed opinion," to "he's too busy" or "it's not something people in New Mexico care about so we don't have a position," to simply not replying.
Well, New Mexico residents may be interested to know, now, that there is at least one Republican in the field who supports net neutrality. The campaign of Dan East, who is running against Ben Ray Lujan for the Third Congressional District, apologized for their late reply, but wanted to ensure that New Mexicans knew East's position. From a press release his campaign sent me last week via email:
Rio Rancho, NM -- Dan East, Republican Congressional nominee for New Mexico’s third district, released the following statement today outlining his support for maintaining Net Neutrality.
“Without Net Neutrality, the best products and services are determined by companies, and potentially government regulators, rather than consumers. Prices could be artificially inflated for lower quality products and services and could discourage technological advances. Companies need to properly manage their resources to maintain a high level of service for consumers and ensure adequate returns on their investments; they shouldn’t rely on the government to bail them out. It goes back to what I have said all along, American ingenuity needs to be cultivated at all levels to maintain a free market system and encourage economic growth.”
Now, that statement is a little convoluted, but in a phone conversation his spokesperson wanted me to know that East not only understands the importance of ensuring free and open access to the Internet for all users, big and small, but that he fully supports efforts to protect net neutrality.
Comments:
Posted 07/14/2008 17:25 with
Yeah, that statement doesn’t really make a lot of sense. But it’s better than nothing.
As the designer behind SavetheInternet.com and a recent transplant to New Mexico, I’d like to sincerely thank you, Marjorie, for covering Net Neutrality — an issue that, unfortunately, fails to get the coverage in MSM that is so desperately needs as we stand at this historic, critical juncture in telecommunications and democracy.
Posted 07/16/2008 10:35 with
Net neutrality is a serious issue and I’m horrified, but not entirely surprised, by McCain’s position. I think that this issue IS something that people in NM care about.
The transformative power of the internet has expanded opportunities to rich and poor, rural and urban – treating them all alike. The shift has been for ever wider access. The internet is now available in our schools, libraries, airports, coffee shops, etc… The result is that the “digital divide” has been narrowing – allowing users of all colors, ethnic backgrounds, and income levels to benefit.
Not having net neutrality would create a new digital divide – this time for people who provide the content we may want to view.
Currently, information reaches me with the same speed (theoretically) with no preference over the content or who is providing it. Cute animal videos on YouTube, the news at the NM Independent, stock tips from Wall Street, and art made in our Pueblos – all have equal opportunity to reach me at the same speed. The only limits are whether I have internet access at all & at what speed I have it.
If there is no net neutrality, then new players on the scene, or small players, are at a serious disadvantage.
Imagine a future where a site like the New Mexico Independent takes 5x’s longer to load than, say, the Albuquerque Journal simply because the Journal pays for preferential treatment to Comcast, Qwest or whoever. What would this mean for access to information? Control of the media? Public discourse?
Such a vision would favor the likes of large companies over small businesses. It would help ensure that underdogs are kept in their place. My encyclopedia doesn’t give better treatment to someone who pays extra. Neither does the highway. Why should the “information super-highway”?
There are realms where “highest and best use” for access to services simply should not apply: clean air, water, education, and access to a community of internet users.
Overturning net neutrality potentially cuts small businesses off from their livelihoods, students from educational materials, churches from reaching new members, non-profit organizations from supporters, and alternative media from readers.
McCain’s stance makes clear of his preference of big players over the “little guy”. What’s surprising is that our representatives aren’t eager to serve our interests and protect net neutrality.