Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Nude & Pregnant Britney: Tres ... | Tomorrow's Issue Online Today! »

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Net Inscrutability

Posted by on June 28 at 12:04 PM

The Senate Commerce Committee is getting set to vote on the Snowe/Dorgan net neutrality amendment. The amendment, in cahoots with Rep. Jay Inslee’s excellent amendment in the Housewould mandate that internet service companies cannot prioritize certain content providers over others. Maria Cantwell is on the Commerce Committe, and she has committed to vote for the Snowe/Dorgan amendment.

Yesterday, I asked the McGavick campaign where McGavick was on the Snowe/Dorgan amendment. They said net neutrality “isn’t something we’ve been asked about yet. We’ll call you back.”

Later in the day, I Slogged it this:

I’m still waiting to hear back from the McGavick campaign to find out what McGavick’s position on net neutrality is. I gotta say, it’s a little startling that when I called McGavick’s campaign this morning, they weren’t prepared to talk about the issue yet. This is a major issue in the techie Puget Sound, with two of our Fortune 500 companies (Amazon and Microsoft) and one of our delegation (Rep. Jay Inslee), taking a leadership role on it. If McGavick wants to replace an incumbent senator like Cantwell, who has a reputation for being plugged in on techie issues, he better start doing his homework.

Today, McGavick’s press people forwarded me this statement from McGavick:

The public has a clear interest in the prevention of online content discrimination whether it is from companies seeking to unfairly squeeze out rivals, or the censorship of unfavorable opinions. I do have concerns about over-regulation, and Congress must always be very careful about regulating an industry in anticipation of a problem. Also, I do think that we will need to acknowledge future costs of internet infrastructure development, and who will pay for that build up. However, the internet occupies such a unique place in our lives that I’m open to some preventative measure to ensure that it remains a free, fair and neutral marketplace for ideas, products and services. I’m not certain that either the Snowe-Dorgan or the Stevens proposed amendments strike the appropriate balance between limited regulation and protection of a neutral internet. On this, as with so many other issues, the sides on each side of the argument are intensely polarized and as a result I fear that a true compromise may be impossible to reach at this point.

Sigh. I don’t know what this means. Does McGavick support the net neutrality amendment or not? Like, would he vote for the amendment?


CommentsRSS icon

No matter what side of the political fence you are on, net neutrality is a vital issue for us all. Remember, this is the issue that makes Move On PAC and the Christian Coalition team up. Everyone needs to call or write their elected leadership about this. Get off your rear ends and do it.

You nailed it, Josh. McGavick's campaign strategy is to not commit to an opinion on anything (a play right out of the Democrats' book).

Why bother the incoming Senator with such trifles when there are larger issues to wrestle with -- burning flags, marrying fags, fellating frogs, etc.?

The frog fellatio bill is finally going to see a vote? Hooray!

He's against over-regulation, but he's open to the idea of regulation.

In other words, he's sitting so squarely on the fence that if he wriggles a little, he could be in Hump2.

Good luck getting this weasel McGavick to say ANYTHING about what he stands for... other than "niceness." Not only does Mr. Overpaid CEO sound like a typical politician, he sounds downright BORING.

I’m not certain that either the Snowe-Dorgan or the Stevens proposed amendments strike the appropriate balance between limited regulation and protection of a neutral internet.

See this all the time... He's giving you lip service to shut you up, and saying he's not voting for the bill.

Well, duh, Josh. He stands for nothing! And everything!

Good lord, if McGavick were vanilla he'd be too spicy.

BTW, Speaking of McGavick, the OTHER Josh says that Mike is rumored to be anti-Social Security:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008873.php

Surely THAT"S a subject he's thought about. Wanna ask him about it?

He's for it AND against it. Duh. That's the McGavick worldview. It's how the Republicans are going to get around the "Bush problem" in states like ours. I'll betcha dollars to doughnuts he's got a speech ready for both viewpoints, one for Eastside Microsofties and the other for Comcasters.

I've had bologna sandwiches on white bread and mayo that had a better taste then that load of crap.

That PR piece reads exactly like it was written by the national party just for that talking point to maintain McG.'s well crafted image (which is that he is JOE EVERYMAN who is not a democratic voter). I wonder if he "rubber stamped it" or actual gave it a read before approving it? Hmm... I will never know.

Of course he is for big business, former Safe-co CEO he is and all, and will vote according to his "conscience".

His "conscience" will do the following mental process: it will tell him that Big(ger) Business = Good.

Limiting Big(ger) Business' potential to maximize profit through government regulation = Bad.

It takes a democrate to understand what is happening in the home districts. Repubs have no loyality to voters who are not voting Repubs.

Why not just take him at his word?

He's obviously not for it so he must be against it. Mike McGavick is against net neutrality.

Run with that. If he feels his position is being misrepresented, he's more than welcome to clarify it.

I take that statement to mean "I am waiting to see if Comcast or Microsoft wants to give me campaign money. Depending on how that goes, I will decide how much regulation is 'too much.'"

At least that seems to be how the elected officials are making their decisions.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).