Net neutrality: John McCain says no, Glenn Beck sees a Marxist plot
Filed under: Technology
Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, introduced a bill late Thursday that would short-circuit the FCC's ability to enforce its proposed open Internet rules. In a press release, McCain said the new rules will "stifle innovation, in turn slowing our economic turnaround and further depressing an already anemic job market." McCain is particularly opposed to extending net neutrality to the wireless space, and his bill, the Internet Freedom Act of 2009, comes as opponents of net neutrality launched a furious attack on the FCC and the Obama administration.Glenn Beck, the popular TV and radio host with 3 million nightly viewers, has blasted net neutrality as a "Marxist" plot by the Obama administration to take over the Internet.
For the last several nights leading up to Thursday's FCC vote moving forward with the open Internet rule-making process, Beck has been warning his viewers about net neutrality, the idea that broadband providers should not favor their own content over competing programming.
"So we have Marxists that are designing and working on net neutrality -- are believers in net neutrality" to "control content," the outspoken Beck said Tuesday night.
Art Brodsky, the communications director at pro-net neutrality group Public Knowledge, said Beck is actually arguing against his own interests.
"Mr. Beck fails to understand the fundamentals of how the Internet works. He should be in favor of Net Neutrality, because it guarantees streaming of his program will not be able to be placed behind, say, Keith Olbermann's Countdown. That could happen if NBC's owner decided to pay protection money for prioritized data transmission."
Beck is not the only opponent of the rules pushing back. Hours after the Federal Communication Commission voted Thursday to begin the rule-making process aimed at ensuring net neutrality, the principle that broadband providers should treat Web content fairly, a Republican lawmaker blasted the proposal by likening it to the dreaded "fairness doctrine."
Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, spoke out against the new rules at an event put on by the Safe Internet Alliance, The Hill newspaper reported. As a representative of Nashville, Blackburn said she spoke for the creative community when she argued that the federal government should stay out of how creators want to get content to consumers via the Internet, according to the paper. "Net neutrality, as I see it, is the fairness doctrine for the Internet," Blackburn said.
Blackburn said that creators "fully understand what the fairness doctrine would be when it applies to TV or radio. What they do not want is the federal government policing how they deploy their content over the Internet and they want the ISPs to manage their networks and deploy the content however they have agreed on with ISP. They do not want a czar of the Internet to determine when they can deploy their creativity over the Internet."
The Fairness Doctrine was a long-ago-abandoned F.C.C. rule which required radio broadcasters to give equal time to opposing viewpoints. Some Congressional Democrats have made no secret of their desire to resurrect the doctrine, which was effectively ended by the Reagan Administration. Republicans reviled the rule -- and certainly benefited from its repeal -- and frequently use it to try to convince people to oppose net neutrality.
It was a day of running rhetorical clashes. After Blackburn's remarks, Brodsky said she was dead wrong.
"Net Neutrality is the opposite of the fairness doctrine," Brodsky. "While that now-repealed rule required some balance in views, Net Neutrality takes away the ability of any entity, government or company, to control speech."
This is not the first time that net neutrality opponents have raised the specter of the fairness doctrine. Last year, Robert McDowell, a Republican member of the F.C.C., warned that net neutrality rules might somehow force bloggers "to give equal time or equal space on their website to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas" determine their content.
Blackburn's comments were just the latest in what Brodsky termed "a brutal assault on the FCC" over the issue in recent weeks. Blackburn also said that Congress needs to ensure that groups receiving stimulus money for broadband expansion deploy "reasonable and effective network management tools" so they can be helpful in tracking down illegal activity.
McCain, who introduced the bill to undermine the new rules, has received some $894,379 in contributions from AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other broadband interests over his career, many of those dollars directed to his 2008 presidential campaign, according to the Sunlight Foundation.
Follow Sam Gustin, a reporter for DailyFinance, on Twitter here. Follow DailyFinance's tech coverage here.
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health bill?
Fed stalls on Chinese bank deal, costs taxpayers $1.7 billion
Dell in a handbasket: Should founder Michael Dell resign?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
10-22-2009 @ 9:02PM
Marcus said...
We need net neutrality rules because these companies are running virtual monopolies. I live in NC, and unfortunately, we have to deal with Time Warner or AT&T for the most part, and they both have slow internet, horrible customer service, and flawed billing practices. I was on a package deal, and my bill was different every month on both of them, but I have no choice but to deal with it because that is all we have to choose from. Now, they want to have a metered internet plan which is really just a way to wait until you go over the usage to charge you more money plan. We have given these companies to improve their networks and cable systems, and I still have the worst service from both of them. I have never seen AT&T or Time Warner improve on anything here, and they should put in rules to give other smaller companies a chance to give them some real competition. I do not know why we do not promote competition anyways. You always see the same companies everywhere, and you never see the smaller ones that are trying to compete. If there were other options here in Greensboro, NC believe me they would be rich large companies really fast. People hate Time Warner and AT&T here, so if you are a strong startup with better tecnology that wants new customers come to the Triad area of NC, and you will definitely get rich here.
Reply
10-23-2009 @ 7:42PM
rp said...
I'm all for freedom, but I'm with McCain on this one.
For example, if someone owns a business that provides a service, say lawn-mowing services, they charge customers based on the amount of resources used. It would be ridiculous to force lawn care companies to charge the same price to mow a twenty acre plot that they charge to mow a half acre plot. Each job takes a different amount of resources.
Downloading/streaming videos, playing online games, etc. takes bandwidth. The more bandwidth required, the more infrastructure that needs to be invested (routers, servers...). This costs money. If net neutrality is forced on companies, they will either have to raise prices for everyone, or offer shoddy service.
I do basic web surfing, with occasional downloads; I don't want to subsidize other people's internet activity.
10-23-2009 @ 11:34PM
Will said...
You both are confusing the idea of bandwidth charges with net neutrality.
It would be like you agreed to mow two people's yards for the same price, but do a crappy job on one of them because you don't like what they use their yard for.
And you're the only lawn mowing company in town. And people can't mow their own lawns.
10-22-2009 @ 11:46PM
frank said...
mccain is suffering from dementia and alzheimers, he is getting pretty bad, it is really starting to show. he should step down before he ruins his career and his good name gets ruined.
glen beck is suffering from paranoia and is starting to show signs of scizophrenia.. he is delusional and is really making the Fox Network look really bad.
Old age is creeping up on folks, and they just don't know when it's time to quit.
Especially McCain.. he is way too old, and really doesn't understand the technology being employed.
Beck is just losing his mind.
Reply
10-23-2009 @ 10:37PM
Daryn St. Pierre said...
Is it really possible to make Fox look any worse than they already do? Haha.
The idea of Government trying to control the internet and what's displayed on it bothers me. I think Marcus above covered everything I loathe about the current situation with ISPs. I live in a small town in Florida and we're stuck with Bellsouth. The service has always been sub-par speed-wise and the only other option is Brighthouse; which I've already had a TERRIBLE experience with on both a television and internet level.
10-23-2009 @ 1:08PM
tinderbox242 said...
If net neutrality is Marxist then Glenn Beck is a card-carrying, goose-stepping nazi wearing a tinfoil hat.
Why is it that any effort to block or hinder monopolization or outright control by greedy corporations is always seen as some diabolical socialist plot?
Reply
10-23-2009 @ 1:27PM
Mike said...
This is stupid.
Net Neutrality is necessary so the ISP don't start trying to restrict access. Broadband is a utility not a content provider. They cannot nor should they be able to restrict access to any part of the internet.
I think it's stupid that republicans, who are supposed to be for liberty and freedom and looking to allow utilities to act as content providers.
Let's get with it people.
Reply
10-24-2009 @ 1:28AM
jill said...
Cool! http://www.electroniccigarettesinc.com
Reply
10-23-2009 @ 3:21PM
Thomas said...
I think you guys need to think about this for a little bit before you answer emoationaly like most liberals do when they have a serous question to answer.
Market forces are the only true way to get best service and best content. Just like anything else IE the banks, or the post office the goverment in all its wisdom will screw this up if they get the power to do so.
Reply
10-23-2009 @ 4:43PM
Brian said...
Do you even understand what net neutrality is? Apparently you do not because you are saying allowing monopolies is good for the customer.
10-23-2009 @ 7:50PM
bradiola said...
The post office delivers my mail quite well, thank you. And it's e.g., not IE. The government created the internet, by the way.
10-27-2009 @ 6:28AM
Charlie said...
Lol. Market forces always lead to the best solution?
If you think that then why don't you get off the web and piss off to AOL then, because a styfled AOL monopoly is all you'd have if everyone thought like that.
Some things are more valuable when they provide value to others. Just be glad that Tim-Berners Lee was a 'socialist'
10-24-2009 @ 2:29AM
andrew said...
Hey, Thomas, would you say Beck is acting logically or emotionally when he (and his audience) calls Net Neutrality a "Marxist plot"?
Reply
10-23-2009 @ 4:00PM
Sam said...
@Thomas
This has nothing to do with emotions creeping into decisions, not does it have to do with government intervening in our lives.
Net neutrality gives all content providers a level playing field by making sure that ISP's don't give priority to certain companies or techonologies.
Good analogy: What if your public freeways/highways were metered the same way as being proposed? Sure there are public access lines but they are to the right and always jammed with traffic and have a lower speed limit. The 4 lanes on the left have cars flying through all day long but you have to purchase access to those lanes otherwise your stuck with everybody else in the slow traffic
Now your argument against this may be: "Well then eventually we're going to have too many people on the freeway and EVERYONE will slow to a crawl!"
Again, does the blame for that go with the commuters for how much they want to drive? No, that would be ridiculous. It falls on the city for not designing a proper roadway system.
Would you agree? Discuss.
Reply
10-23-2009 @ 8:02PM
rp said...
On comment on your analogy:
The freeway system is in a sense metered through gasoline taxes. The more one uses the highways, the more gasoline taxes they pay, which is supposed to go toward maintaining the infrastructure.
Tractor trailers put a tremendous amount of stress on roads, not just in terms of traffic, but in terms of wear. They also use much more gasoline and so their operators pay more taxes than the average commuter to maintain the roads.
In the same way, the internet doesn't just magically exist. People and resources are required to maintain and expand it. So why should people who don't use the internet very much be required to subsidize people who do?
The internet is a service that costs money, it's not a basic human right.
10-23-2009 @ 4:30PM
JAMEYWILSON said...
I'm just reading up on Net Neutrality for the first time. But from what I understand, without net neutrality, Comcast could throttle down my download speed if I'm streaming a movie from Netflix, but speed it up if I'm watching an On-Demand movie from Comcast.
Reply
10-23-2009 @ 7:53PM
bradiola said...
Exactly. Net neutrality has been the name of the game up until now, and is CORE to the idea of the Internet and what has created this incredible marketplace. The internet access providers are consolidating and they will destroy this if allowed to.
10-23-2009 @ 4:38PM
Jason said...
You know what I like about the internet? Being able to do whatever I want on it. ... I would think most people like that Idea.
You know what would suck? Signing up for internet access from an ISP, and then finding out if you wanted to do something other than look at basic web pages you would have to pay extra.
Imagine having extra fees tacked on to your internet bill if you want to be able to play video games/x-box online, or you want to look at videos on You-Tube.
This is exactly what net-neutrality will keep from happening.
Since this article discusses the "as I see it" of people that obviously know nothing let us look the principals of net neutrality:
-access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
-run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
-connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
-competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
and The new one: the nondiscrimination principle that ISPs must not discriminate against any content or applications, and the transparency principle, which requires that ISPs disclose all their policies to customers.
.... currently I like how the internet works, I don't really want it to change, If all of a sudden my ISP starts charging me extra money because I am a power user using their "unlimited" service I will be very upset...
If you want to allow content control by ISP's then you are against Net Neutrality.
On the other hand if you don't want to get screwed over by the ISP's then you are probably for Net neutrality.
If anyone really thinks net NEUTRALITY is a government take over, you obviously can't understand things li
Reply
10-23-2009 @ 4:44PM
Jason said...
->> Like simple English.... not sure why that got cut off above...
Reply
10-23-2009 @ 4:50PM
athensguy said...
Market Forces are the reason America is no longer going to be a superpower. We have fallen significantly behind countries where the government spends money helping its people. Personal Freedom or Corporate Freedom. It's either/or. You can't have both.
Reply