John McCain: No Net Neutrality

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain issued his technology policy today, which strongly supported open markets and unregulated competition for the nation's IT sector. Like his Democrat competitor, Barack Obama, McCain wants to keep the internet tax free; unlike Obama, however, he doesn't support network neutrality, which would mandate broadband service providers treat all network traffic in a non-discriminatory manner.

"John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like net neutrality," the nearly 3,000-word policy statement on McCain's site declared. "Rather, he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices."

View: Full Story at eWeek
View: John McCain's Technology Policy

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Infineon Chip May Be Causing iPhone Troubles

Next Story

Updated: Please Give Me the Interwebnet Monies

66 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

McCain answer is more WELFARE for Iraq and put everything Credit until we are BANKRUPT. Lets face it Bush total failure as president and McCain is going to be same.

I agree with McCain, Obama's answer to everything is either

A. Raise Taxes
B. More Government Regulation.

McCain is right when he said that the free market should govern itself.

(Krieg said @ #22)
I agree with McCain, Obama's answer to everything is either

A. Raise Taxes
B. More Government Regulation.

McCain is right when he said that the free market should govern itself.

Hey dumb dumb, do you not pay attention... this country doesn't have a free market.

America is a corporate dictatorship.

Most things are now controlled by one or two big companies.

Two percent of Americans own fifty percent of America's wealth.

(toadeater said @ #18)
McCain doesn't know how to use a computer.

I don't see how that is the bad thing. Look at your parents or your grand parents, they don't know much about computer, but I'm sure they manage the financial way better than you.

"McCain doesn't know how to use a computer"

This argument and all arguments like it are useless. No president, or individual for that matter, knows EVERYTHING. They rely on experts to help explain both sides and then they make a decision. Although some may not like it, this is the right decision in my opinion. This country is based on open markets, the government can’t, and shouldn’t, pick and choose who they should and shouldn’t regulate.

(Kushan said @ #18.3)
Yes, but at least he makes lovely oven chips.

And he needs a font this size in order to read text! :confused:

McCain is very scary. I don't think he is fit to be president. It looks like he has a limited grasp of issues on Internet. While its only one issue, he has said and done things in the past that are very goofy. He has said he doesn't know much about the economy. He has an idiot for economic advisor. I know many republicans who can't stand john McCain and are going to vote for Obama.

Party means nothing. If your friends are going to vote for Obama, and they're Republican, then either:

  1. Are liberal Republicans.
  2. Are conservative Republicans that are easily fooled.

Looking at how much the presidency accelerates the aging process you may be right. He may not go the distance. But that is what the vice president is for. It is still a better option then Obama. I guess we will just have to wait and see who he picks for his running mate.

But any informed republican would never go with Obama. True must republicans aren't blown away by McCain. He is sort of a democrat in disguise. Like the comerial he is running that says he is going to go after big oil. Give me a break. Big Oil is at the bottom end of the profit margin scale. So if we are going to tax the hell out of big oil (which is passed on to you and me) then what industry will be next to be taxed like hell.

McCain is still the better option. A vote for McCain is a vote taken from Obama.

I personally don't vote down party lines I hate people that do. There are lot high profile republicans that are for Obama.

Eisenhower
Hagel
Powell

Are these so called "liberal Republicans" maybe, but probable not. They are more like "moderate republicans" Are these conservative Republicans easily fooled I think not.

Do you know what unifies all these people?

engagement in Iraq,
greater fiscal responsibility,
better energy policies.

These are all issues that Obama is better at. And before you blabber about how Obama is not a fiscal conservative you should know that Obama believes in pay as you go while McCain does not.


(Melfster said @ #16.3)
And before you blabber about how Obama is not a fiscal conservative you should know that Obama believes in pay as you go while McCain does not.

Obaba believes in taxing everyone to death so he can redistribute the money to slack asses. He believes in punishing success. Brilliant.

McCain dosn't want to add more regulations onto how ISPs run their companies? *GASP* how... fiscally conservative of him.

Only in the days of "net nutrality" brain wash (Here's a hint, it's not the little guys against the big mean isps, it's the big mean guys vs the big mean guys throwing around a LOT of money to get their way one way or the other.) would it be regarded as a fundamentally wrong thing to regulate the internet more.

The government shouldn't have the right to tell an ISP that they can't throttle abusive traffic that is created by 3% of their subscriber base but affects 100% of their subscriber base. If you want to to run a BT client 24/7 and not get throttled then you should have an option to pay a premium for the "pirate" package.

If a provider starts throttling to many forms of traffic then you can just drop your sub and go somewhere else. If a provider starts getting a bad wrap for throttling to much then you will most definitely see another provider pop up and say, "Come to get your internet from us, we don't shape or cap our customers". Then the provider that was shaping will have to lay off the shaping a little. The problem is that there are a lot of people that have very limited ISP choices.

Both candidates have their problems though. This personally isn't one of them. I surely wouldn't jump from McCain to Obama over this. I didn't vote for McCain in the primaries but will be on 11/04. Obama is very scary.

(ermax said @ #14)
The government shouldn't have the right to tell an ISP that they can't throttle abusive traffic that is created by 3% of their subscriber base but affects 100% of their subscriber base. If you want to to run a BT client 24/7 and not get throttled then you should have an option to pay a premium for the "pirate" package.

If a provider starts throttling to many forms of traffic then you can just drop your sub and go somewhere else. If a provider starts getting a bad wrap for throttling to much then you will most definitely see another provider pop up and say, "Come to get your internet from us, we don't shape or cap our customers". Then the provider that was shaping will have to lay off the shaping a little. The problem is that there are a lot of people that have very limited ISP choices.

The government usually shouldn't have the right to tell a business how it should run, but when there are government protected monopolies in the vast majority of the US, you should get regulated. Period. I'm not sure how people will think a free market will straighten this out when we already don't have a free market. We have protected monopolies creating artificially high prices.

(Skyfrog said @ #14.1)
Yes because only pirates use bittorent... :rolleyes:

95% piracy, 5% legitimate. Now as a business man, what are you going to do? It's very simple logic.

i couldn't say it better myself ..... +1 man ...

the americans ... a proud nation of so called "freedom" now they tap phones, net restrictions, cell restrictions (among other things) .... is just communism in disguise

And any consumer with half a brain would jump ship to the competition that offers no restrictions. WE have the power in an open market. Use it or lose it.

(Fanon said @ #11.2)
And any consumer with half a brain would jump ship to the competition that offers no restrictions. WE have the power in an open market. Use it or lose it.

What competition, Cable or DSL that's all people can get and some only have one choice.

(hardgiant said @ #11.3)

What competition, Cable or DSL that's all people can get and some only have one choice.

I live in a relatively small community. The nearest "big city" is 140 miles from here. We have two choices in cable companies, one choice in phone (other than the cable companies), and many other ISPs, be they wireless, dial-up, ect. But competition's competition. I didn't say the competition would be perfect.

(Fanon said @ #11.4)

I live in a relatively small community. The nearest "big city" is 140 miles from here. We have two choices in cable companies, one choice in phone (other than the cable companies), and many other ISPs, be they wireless, dial-up, ect. But competition's competition. I didn't say the competition would be perfect.

You have two wires coming to your house, one is coaxial cable owned by your local cable company and the other is telephone cable owned by your local telephone company. Like I said, NO COMPETITION.

The market will not correct itself. Consumers will not choose their providers. The reason? Government protected monopolies.

I care more about taxes than a vague issue such as net neutrality with no specific details. This won't hurt or help voting for either candidate. The American public cares more about energy prices and the economy than the internet. Neowin just happens to have a larger percentage of folks who know and care about the issue than the general public.

On top of that, I wonder how many people are in agreement with either Obama or McCain based on their political party. There are many more important issues to discuss. Anyone who thinks this issue will be of any substance doesn't know politics at all.

I'm a registered Republican, and I'm NOT voting for McClain. The only thing I like about him is his stance on Taxation. That's about it.

(RAID 0 said @ #9.1)
I'm a registered Republican, and I'm NOT voting for McClain. The only thing I like about him is his stance on Taxation. That's about it.

I originally thought like you; McCain is the worst candidate to receive the Republican nomination in my 30 year lifetime. I originally thought of "showing the party how I feel" by voting independent. But IMO, we can't afford to have Obama as our next president. McCain is the lesser to two evils from where I sit. I love this country too much to throw away my vote in such an important election.

(unknownsoldierX said @ #9.2)

What's wrong with that? The rich already carry the largest tax burden in the country. Raising their taxes even more solves nothing. Cutting their taxes gives them more money to spend which trickles down.

Case in point: I work in a private company of roughly 75-100 people. With our paychecks today, we received a bonus of a month's salary. Most rich people know they're rich because of their hard work and the work of the people they employ, and they have no qualms with passing some of their success to their workers. The extra money I received today is more than either candidate promises me in tax breaks. So the moral of the story is: take care of the rich, and they'll take care everyone else one way or another.

(Fanon said @ #9.3)

I originally thought like you; McCain is the worst candidate to receive the Republican nomination in my 30 year lifetime. I originally thought of "showing the party how I feel" by voting independent. But IMO, we can't afford to have Obama as our next president. McCain is the lesser to two evils from where I sit. I love this country too much to throw away my vote in such an important election.

I totally see where you're coming from. The problem for me is... I can't in good conscience vote for a man (or woman) whom I don't like, can't trust and see as pretty much the "McSame" leader we've had for 8 years. We do need change, the problem is I don't like Obama's definition of change or his very liberal social polices. Neither candidate has a clear exit strategy for Iraq. The list goes on.

Through out my whole life I've followed politics and world events with great interest. This year will be the first time I really don't give a crap who gets in office. We, as a people, deserve what ever douche bag gets elected. Let's all hope and pray 2012 is much different.

That's a stupid statement.

What if I were to say, "I hope Obama get assassinated before he gets into office." I bet you wouldn't like that too much, would you?

(RAID 0 said @ #7.1)
That's a stupid statement.

What if I were to say, "I hope Obama get assassinated before he gets into office." I bet you wouldn't like that too much, would you?

No i would feel bad for Obama, but not so much for the other old fart

For the record, I was only using that statement as an example. I do not want anyone to ever have to be a victim of violence.

In one hand you have someone who want to destroy the internet. In the other hand you have one who has actually voted to destroy your privacy... This reminds me that AvP trailer...

We all know that an open marketplace with multiple choices is good, but they are not thinking about the fact that everyone can threat network traffic as they see fit. This is why net neutrality is good.

This will hit his vote count.

(Emil Protalinski said @ #1)
That decision could really hurt him!

With who? Most Americans have no idea what net neutrality is and could care less. It's a non issue to the majority of the voting public.

(king_of_hearts said @ #1.1)

The reason I'm voting Obama...

"The" reason?

Basing your voting decisions on one thing is an utterly stupid thing to do, and a huge problem with the mentality surrounding politics in this country.

There are plenty of other reasons not to vote for McCain.


That said, I don't think this is one of them. Who would be charged with regulating net neutrality if it went through? The FCC? Ugh. Giving them more power over something is a recipe for absolute disaster. They'll twist and corrupt and gain more power, eventually becoming a real threat to free speech on the web.

(Zoue said @ #1.2)

With who? Most Americans have no idea what net neutrality is and could care less. It's a non issue to the majority of the voting public.

couldn't care less

(Michael1406 said @ #1.5)
I'm glad there's at least one other person on the Internet that gets annoyed by that.

Haha, yes it is good to know :-D.

(Michael1406 said @ #1.5)
I'm glad there's at least one other person on the Internet that gets annoyed by that.

Yes, I would expect to find at least one more freak on the Internet. Or English teacher.