Braden has noted the release of John McCain’s tech policy–rightly decrying McCain’s socialistic community broadband concept. But far more outrageous, in my view is this bit of doublethink. First, the good part we should all applaud:
John McCain Has Fought to Keep the Internet Free From Government Regulation
The role of government in the Innovation Age should be focused on creating opportunities for all Americans and maintaining the vibrancy of the Internet economy. Given the enormous benefits we have seen from a lightly regulated Internet and software market, our government should refrain from imposing burdensome regulation. John McCain understands that unnecessary government intrusion can harm the innovative genius of the Internet. Government should have to prove regulation is needed, rather than have entrepreneurs prove it is not.
Amen! Even a hardened Ron Paul/Bob Taft/Grover Cleveland/Jack Randolph-survivalist/libertarian-crank like me can rally behind that banner. But then this self-styled champion of deregulation pulls a really fast one:
John McCain Will Preserve Consumer Freedoms. John McCain will focus on policies that leave consumers free to access the content they choose; free to use the applications and services they choose; free to attach devices they choose, if they do not harm the network; and free to chose among broadband service providers.
That sure sounds nice, but it’s all Wu-vian code for re-regulation, not de-regulation. You might recognize that McCain is talking obliquely here about the FCC’s 1968 Carterfone doctrine, which has consumed much attention on the TLF (see this piece in particular).
McCain then insists that he will be a bold leader for “good” regulations:
When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts. John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like “net-neutrality,” but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices…
What would you call requiring “openness” but “prescriptive regulation” against business models that require closed networks? McCain deserves credit for rejecting, at least on a rhetorical level, “net neutrality” mandates, but what is Skype/Carterfone but “Wireless Net Neutrality?” Whatever fine distinctions one may draw between these two ideas (both spawned from the hyperactive brain of Tim Wu), one finds no such nuance here–just the intellectually contradictory acceptance of a very politically popular position (“openness” for network devices) with the rejection of a closely related, if not inseparable, concept. Indeed, if McCain weren’t such a saintly model of philosophical and political consistency, one might wonder whether his campaign was simply trying have the best of both worlds by appealing to the tech-policy center-left while paying lip-service to the free market community by denouncing the loathsomely anti-free market concept of “net neutrality.”
John McCain has always believed the government’s role must be rooted in protecting consumers. He championed laws that penalized fraudulent marketing practice…
Indeed, where would we be today without John McCain championing the FTC’s ability to punish unfair and deceptive trade practices–which dates back to 1914? Still, it’s certainly a good sign that McCain at least listed is this second (after his idea of requiring openness through regulation as a way of decreasing the need for other forms of regulation). Show me the tech policy issue that can’t be adequately addressed by simple enforcement of privacy policies and we can have a real tech policy debate!
…protected kids from harmful Internet content…
Really? Did McCain help right all the software tools that let parents control what their kids can access online? If not, I’m not sure what he’s referring to here other than Internet censorship.
… secured consumer privacy, and sought to minimize spam.
Ah yes, if it weren’t for the CAN-SPAM Act, we’d all be getting deluged with spam. Oh, wait, it’s spam-filters and not legislation that have actually “minimized” this problem.”
When businesses struggled to assess the legal role of electronic signatures, John McCain led legislative efforts to ensure that these Innovation Age signatures were legally sufficient so that e-commerce could thrive. His record reflects the careful balance between protecting the essential elements of the Internet and securing the Internet as a safe tool of commerce, education and entertainment for our citizens. Offering simple common sense solutions to real problems is at the core of the McCain’s innovation agenda.
It’s hard to argue with “balance” and “common sense.” Both would be a welcome change of pace from the the current chicken-little-ism by which so many Internet policy debates are driven by vague, unsubstantiated fears and shameless scare-tactics by the advocates of regulation.
But what’s ominous about McCain’s Internet policy is that he doesn’t even mention “free speech” or the “first amendment.” This omission from the man who so famously said (about his relentless efforts to restrict political speech in the name of “campaign finance reform”):
I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.
I, for one, find it pretty troubling that McCain’s idea of “balance” when it comes to the Internet is all about “safety” and (mandatory) “openness” without so much as a mention of freedom of expression.
McCain deserves credit for opposing Internet taxation and “net neutrality” (among other things), and Obama’s alternative isn’t exactly Mises 2.0 either. But you don’t have to be much of a libertarian to scan down the list of the government programs and regulations he supports–especially “Internet Access For All Americans”–and realize that he is, at best, a fair-weather free-marketeer. If free-marketeers have learned anything from Kevin Martin’s reign of terror at the FCC, it’s that a “free-market” Republican president can appoint regulators who pay lip-service to free market ideas while selling them out at (almost) every turn–especially when it comes to content Republican voters don’t like.
I won’t hold my breath for a de-regulatory tech policy agenda under a McCain presidency, but “hope springs eternal in the human breast.” Should McCain win, we can only hope that the current vagaries of his tech policy (e.g., “openness” and “protecting children”) will be resolved in favor of McCain’s de-regulatory talk, and that his current re-regulatory positions will either “evolve” for the better or at least not becomes priorities of his administration. As for the good aspects of his policies, let us all remember Regan’s dictum: “Trust, but verify.”
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.