McCain Against Net Neutrality? Reason to vote for him?

[JimDude]

I recently learned John McCain is against Net Neutrality. http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/compliance/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210004168&cid=yahoo_search

Barack Obama is a huge supporter of net neutrality and if he wins the election, there is a good chance, these set of laws will get passed. Which might mean the end or at least a slowdown of the internet. This could hurt the so-called "Liberty Campaign" And any possible grassroots internet campaign in the "future."

So, the argument might follow, that stopping net neutrality is so imporant, that we must not allow Barack Obama to win and that we must Vote John McCain, im not saying support McCain, but vote.

I would never advocate voting for candidates that will continute the status quo, all Im saying if there is anyone out there planning to Vote For Obama or McCain, you should Vote McCain. To keep the Internet free.

But, we should all be aware that If Obama gets elected, the end of all this Internet Grassroots effort might just end.

[Deborah K]

We all need to get HAM radios - I've got one!

[Fox McCloud]

even if you are a supporter of network neutrality, you should realize that the current network neutrality bill is truly horrendous.

There's not allowing ISPs to block certain web-sites, then there's literal total "network neutrality". The current bill basically specifies a"dumb" network, meaning no QoS, no prioritizing of packets, no filtering of SPAM, virus, etc. (by ISPs). So, even if you are for network neutrality (I personally am not, as I see it as a violation of private property rights), then I hope you realize the current bill is basically mandating a "stupid" network where ISPs are not allowed to discriminate against any type of traffic, no matter how bad or good.

edit: here's an awesome article the describes are plight: http://mises.org/story/2139

it's a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation; if we pass it, we may have access to all the sites we want, but the FCC will have broad new powers....contrary to what everyone tends to think (the public, not my fellow Libertarians and Ron Paul fans here) the government is never fully for the good of the people; and it's likely it would use these powers in the future for less than well-meaning intentions.

On the counter-point, if we don't pass it, the government will not have new powers, but we may not be able to access everything we want. Why? It's not because telecoms and cableco's are "natural monopolies" so much as most video and telecommunications services are government sanctioned monopolies that are heavily sheltered from outside competition.

So, really, the government created this whole entire problem, and instead of nixing the problem where it began (FCC), they're just compounding the problem further and further and further.

Long before I even knew what a Libertarian was (and was still a neocon), I was a big enemy of the FCC for the very reason that it created these local monopolies...words cannot truly describe how much I hate the FCC and its ilk; I blame it chiefly for us falling so far behind in terms of broadband deployment, and other telecommunications follies.

[Defining Obscene]

Hahahaha... People are worried about net neutrality... Its just a vanity issue. How about all that wonderful censorship legislation Lieberman is trying to slip by? The net is going to be neutered whether you vote for it or not, people fail to realize this.

[Andrew-Austin]

Hes also wears flip flops, and seems to have next to no character. So, the bet is yours to make.

[youngbuck]

Until a lobbyists winks at him...