Is David All advocating Net Regulation?
I could be missing something here, but in a recent column on Politico, David All appears to be advocating government regulation on the internet. In fact, it almost looks like he’s calling on the GOP to support Net Regulation as a party in order to “catch up to Democrats online”.
As Republicans, we must not only adopt the new techniques and structure of Internet democracy, but also understand the importance of preserving the open nature of the Net as a policy issue. The tools that are available at low cost to Republicans are only there because of an Internet ecosystem that has managed to remain open, despite the efforts of phone and cable companies.Republicans need to adopt a lighter approach that will preserve the values of decentralization and freedom — essential conservative values — on the Internet. If we fail to engage in this effort, the Internet service providers, who control the last mile of the tubes into a customer’s house or small business, will choke off the affordable tools available to conservative activists. They have already started exercising their market power to block applications that enable Internet users to distribute information across the Net.
They will make the Internet look a lot more like cable TV, where citizens lack access to every legal channel available and where, consequently, conservative activists get shut out. Taking away these free tools will come at the major expense of the activists and small-businesspeople who are the core of our party’s strength.
I’ve tried to remain quiet on David All over the past few months, but enough is enough. This is just over the top in my opinion. A self-proclaimed 2.0 Free-Market eActivist should never, EVER jump on the “evil corporation” bandwagon! I mean, how can one be for limited government, yet advocate MORE government regulation?
Right now there is a clear difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans want (well, SHOULD want, but in many cases do not) less regulation, Democrats want more. David All, however, is asserting that Republicans, if they wish to be a serious player in cyberspace, should begin considering net regulation. Is that not the way this reads?
Good grief.
What’s worse about this Politico column, is that it appears to be a carefully planned attack on phone companies and the telecoms, veiled as a cry for Republicans to “get serious about the online revolution”.
I know my position on Net Regulation is not popular, especially in the tech realm, but my position IS the RIGHT position with regards to free markets and limited government advocacy. While I might not like that I will have to pay a few dollars more to continue getting super high speed connections, I must understand that a business has EVERY right to charge it. If I don’t like it, I don’t have to pay it. That is the way a free society works! It’s called CHOICE.
Yeah yeah, I know. “But Google is fighting for Net Regulation to help us have cheap access to the internet”. Look, Google is a business, and its sole concern is profit. Google profits most when more people are online. Simple.
Calling on the government, in David All’s case the Republicans, to get involved and demand business to operate in a certain manner is just wrong. It’s anti-freedom, it’s anti-American, and it goes against everything Republicans were supposed to be standing for.
So while David All cries for Republicans to support net regulation, he seems to miss the part about Republicans losing elections left and right because they refuse to advocate LESS REGULATION and stand for what fiscal conservatives and libertarians believe in.
The notion that the right is behind online because we do not support net regulation is simply absurd. Note to David All… some of us have made huge surges forward online, and we’re strongly against Net Regulation. You sir, create “instant communities” and online tools that become duds, serve no long term purpose on the movement, and eventually fade into irrelevance.
I’m confused as to why any Republican would give David All the time of day as far as political or new media advice is concerned. From a programming standpoint, David All is a champ, but when it comes to this anti-freedom junk advice…
Unbelievable.
Lennie Says:
I couldn’t agree more. Less regulation is always better.
Lennie’s last blog post..Obama: Part of the Chicago Machine
Posted on July 15th, 2008 at 11:00 am
E. M. Says:
Honestly, there are so many better solutions. The current Net Neutrality folks have little to no recognition that, if they succeed, government will step in and regulate where they disallow telecoms. That would be fantastic: government regulating speech content on the Net…or better yet, monitoring it. At least with competing telecoms, if you find that one provider is blocking access to content, you can turn around and get a different provider. Not so with government. And personally, I’d watch out as the Net stands — Google and Yahoo censor in other countries already. Who says they will never censor in America…more then they already are by refusing certain sites access to Google News and dropping their PageRank. You aren’t dealing with altruistic organizations that want nothing from the Net except to see it as a big fuzzy playground for Linux users; they’re out to protect their investment.
With the system as it is now, people like Google get to take in billions because they control everything. Why not open that up to competition from people who know what the telecom market is like? Free markets tend to improve service so long as they don’t collude — AT&T, for example, already upgrades its system routinely to keep up with demand. Compare that to say, Amtrak or the CTA, which hasn’t improved service for ten years and then is forced into expensive, complete overhauls. The free market system is better, period.
E. M.’s last blog post..The New Yorker…Going Soft?
Posted on July 15th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Publius Says:
“I’ve tried to remain quiet on David All over the past few months, but enough is enough.”
This pretty much describes what everyone in D.C. thinks of David All but is too polite to say out loud.
He is a legend in his own mind.
Posted on July 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Eric Odom Says:
E.M., this is an angle I guess I should have commented on. My problem is that I feel this part of it comes mostly from paranoia. The companies aren’t really going to block certain content, are they? I mean, that just sounds a bit far fetched and seems like scare tactic of the left.
Posted on July 15th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
E. M. Says:
If they did block content, exactly what would they block? Content that is ambivalent to their missions? That’s against the law in most states under anti-SLAPP. If you write something about AT&T and they don’t like it, but its in the interest of public policy, you have a lot of rights. They can’t block you altoghether — the Internet is really a goverment creation, like the highway system. Its pretty much a public forum that private companies use. You could call that a symbiotic relationship, meaning that you would have the same cause of action against a private corporation that you would against the government for restricting your freedom of speech. Hell, didn’t this article mention that someone sued an ISP for blocking content and WON? Thats proof positive that the legal system protects you from private interference, right? So why do we need the government to add another layer?
But that brings us back to the first point — if the companies were collecting information and restricting speech, what exactly are we worried about them restricting? If its speech that the government doesn’t like, then…does it really make sense to hand over control of the internet to the government?
I know, I know…the Net should remain neutral from any outside influence, corporate or governmental, and thats great, but its also crap. Big business already controls the web. Who do you use to search? Google? Google can direct you any way they want. The whole practice of SEO is designed to game the Google system and put the user in control of his or her own Google fate — that is a very poignant example of how much Google actually controls, when you have to fight like hell to make sure its not screwing you over. And its not like telecoms would CONTROL the web, like someone like Google already does. They’d only control ACCESS to the web, and even then, they’d probably just use a tiered system like your cable company already does for download speed. What is the worst they could do? Collect market information?
I just don’t see the NIGHTMARE SCENARIO coming to pass. Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea that the web remain free from governmental interference, but thats not what David is saying. He’s actively empowering the government to step in and make the rules. And, I assume, actively empowering the government to decide who they outsource to to make the rules. Google, perhaps?
The only way to ensure cheap access to the internet (and bear in mind, you already pay for internet access…its not free, even at Panera or McDonalds, where they use you as a sitting duck for marketing) is to ensure that people are allowed to compete to bring it to you.
E. M.’s last blog post..The New Yorker…Going Soft?
Posted on July 15th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Jackalope's Voice Says:
“The companies aren’t really going to block certain content, are they?”
Didn’t Google do just that in order to get that Chinese contract? Companies WILL do that and maybe as David All reported originally, they ARE doing that.
Jackalope’s Voice’s last blog post..Turning Civilization’s Virtues Into Liabilities - The Democratic Party War Machine
Posted on July 15th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Eric Odom Says:
@Jack… I was referring to Telecoms.
I’m fully aware that Google does this, but Net Regulation would empower Google to do it even more. Google controls search, not bandwidth.
Posted on July 15th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Eric Odom Says:
And by the way… I don’t think we want to bring Google into this conversation. I’ll take the high road and not mention the details of that thought, but let’s just say it isn’t pretty.
Posted on July 15th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Me Says:
Isn’t David All a consultant for the Open Internet Coalition?
Why didn’t he disclose that?
Posted on July 16th, 2008 at 9:00 am
E!! (Elizabeth Crum) Says:
Hey Eric! I was wondering when you’d finally chime in on the Continuing Saga of the Complete and Utter Nonsense of David All. (LOL) Nice writing.
E!! (Elizabeth Crum)’s last blog post..What a Girl Wants
Posted on July 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Google watcher Says:
David All takes money from Google to be their figleaf. He of course does not disclose this in his writing. He also created a mailing list which was supposed to promote frank discussions among the right about tech issues. Unbenownst to everyone on the list, he secretly invited left-wing bloggers onto it to spy on the conversation. He never admitted it until it was exposed by a list member.
The guy is a corrupt slimeball who is an embarrassment to the conservative online coalition.
Posted on July 19th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
dizi izle Says:
Thanks
Posted on October 31st, 2008 at 2:04 am