John McCain's 'Series of Tubes'
By Tim Karr, October 25, 2009
The "Maverick" just played his hand on Net Neutrality, and the cards reveal a man who's outsider image doesn't quite add up.
On Thursday, Sen. John McCain introduced legislation to kill the open Internet, the deceptively named "Internet Freedom Act." The bill would stop all FCC efforts to have an open and public discussion about proposed Net Neutrality rules.
This comes from a senator who has received more money ($894,379) from AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and their lobbyists than any other member of Congress.
McCain also infamously told the media that he is "illiterate" when it comes to using the Internet and computers.
If this latest round of sock puppetry sounds an echo, it's because McCain seems to be channeling Sen. Ted Stevens' "series of tubes" gaffe from 2006.
Stevens' comments erupted forth during a Commerce Committee hearing as the Senator tried to squash efforts to establish Net Neutrality rules in Congress. But rather than beating back popular support for an open Internet, Stevens exposed himself to be a senator who is disconnected from any understanding of the Internet, but determined nonetheless to push forth the agenda of those that filled his campaign coffers.
As it was in 2006, social media has noticed, and is now awash with criticism of yet another senator cozying up to special interests. (You can join the critique here.) More mainstream media are starting to pick up on the McCain sellout as well.
This latest episode exposes the right and wrong sides of the Net Neutrality debate. And it poses a fundamental question to everyone:
Whom do you want to determine the future of the Internet?
A senator who is a mouthpiece for the same phone and cable lobby that's vying to rig the Internet and control your clicks, or the more than 1.6 million people who have called for Net Neutrality -- a group that includes the geeks who created the Internet to be an open platform.
McCain has built his reputation as an alleged "straight shooter." If he is truly a person of integrity, he would return the tainted $894,379, spike this bad bill and get behind Net Neutrality.
But don't be surprised if this "Maverick" just keeps playing the cards that AT&T has dealt him.
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Free Press does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media and universal access to communications.
Tim Karr
Timothy Karr oversees all Free Press and Free Press Action Fund campaigns and online outreach efforts, including SavetheInternet.com and Free Press' work on public broadcasting, propaganda and journalism.
Read Tim's full bio »
Comments
Dave - Could'nt disagree with you more
Dave, - I wonder if you even understand the role of government agencies in respect to what you are saying. Is ALL government regulation a bad thing. I think you could argue that a lot of it is red-tape and other boring stuff, but what you cannot ignore is that much of that regulation does insure a level playing field and necessary in the case for Net Neutrality. We have the FAA which determines the standards for flight safety and as a result, we have one of the safest ways to travel under those rules. I would shudder to think what would happen if we did not have an FAA.
The FCC has also served us well with communication standards between telephone companies and allows you to call anyone at anytime without fear of one company restricting your ability to call others.
The FCC is the correct agency to regulate the internet in a fair and open way for all to be able to participate without individual companies to look into your data stream and determine for you what is allowed, slowed down, or otherwise restricted.
It boils down to who do you trust. The companies that can and will demand more money for their priviledged communications, or the FCC to insure that all data packets are treated the same, regardless of the connection points.
By the way, check out your cable bill to see what I mean by priviledged content. You pay it every time for premium channels, but if someone else can provide that content at a lower cost, I'll choose that. I don't want to be restricted by my ISP. I hope you don't want that either.
net neutrality
The goal of net neutrality, if it's to allow the internet to be free and unfettered, is one I agree with. However, why would you believe the government regulating it is going to allow it to continue to be free? This administration would eliminate, if it was possible, Fox News and any other news agency that had the 'wrong' viewpoint. I watched the clip with Rachel & Xenia--you (and McCain) don't need to be a geek to understand the danger of the government regulating the internet. (By the way, how much $$ did the famous band of Dodd and Frank get from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they were testifying that there was 'no problem'). Xenia was asked if it was technically possible for the government to minipulate the speed and/or delivery of favored/not favored downloads and Xenia didn't really answer the question. How would they know without complaints from users? This is just another smokescreen for an attempt to take over communication and free speech in this country. I would trust the companies and the free market long before I'd trust the FCC with BO behind them.
Net Neutrality
I'm suspicious of the government taking over and/or regulating anything. They've proven time after time that they're not capable--special interests, do gooders and people that want to control the only 'free' media. Not to mention that if BO supports it, no good can come from it.
Net What?
One more freedom that is being taken away because BO is an extreme socialist of the worst type. His Czars are talking about looking up to Mao, who killed some 70,000,000 people. Bo is a very smart man but he should run for office in China not the United States. If we have net nuetrality we are on a very slippery slope. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
Once upon a time, two women
Once upon a time, two women created the cutest velour hoodies and matching drawstring pants. The line was called Christian Louboutin and every starlet in Tinseltown had to have one. Soon after, so did the rest of the world. Now the once little brand has blossomed into a fashion empire, complete with clothing, Christian Louboutin, jewelry, handbags, and most recently, fragrance.
Another instance that makes me disappointed with Senator McCain
I live in Arizona and as such am represented like all other Arizona residents in the U.S. Congress by Senators Kyl and McCain. I am very disappointed to learn of McCain's anti Net Neutrality position and just called his Washington D.C. office and left a comment/complaint expressing my disappointment on the Senator's position with one of his office staffers who answered the phone who promised to inform the Senator of my concerns.
I cannot believe this -- this is an outrage that Senator McCain would support passage of a deceptive bill that harms Net Neutrality.
Not the man
i am in full agreement.
Without even considering his positions, his knowledge, his stance.
We can know that man with this level of financial ties to vested interest in the telecom industry that he is not the man we want dealing with this issue.
As free as china?
If this bill passes and gets signed would we be as free as China or would China have more Internet freedom? It seems that as the years go on we have less freedom here in the land of the free.
Although I do not think we would ever be as bad as the Internet in China, why should we go on that road?
And let's not forget...
In addition to largesse totalling nearly $1 million, Verizon and AT&T both went out of their way to provide cell phone towers specifically for the the McCain ranch outside Sedona.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/10/ex...
SUGGESTION: Fire McCain for anti Net Neutrality views
What business does John McCain even have getting involved in this debate he is computer illiterate -- he admitted it before he lost the 2008 Presidential Election to Barack Obama. In any case he's on the wrong side -- he supports allowing the ISPs to gut Net Neutrality.
I say every Arizona resident eligible to vote that's concerned with McCain's anti Net Neutrality views should vote to fire him in 2010 when he's up for re-election. Spread the word to all Arizonans fire McCain, defend Net Neutrality.