Lessig On McCain's Technology Platform

Agthorr writes "Lawrence Lessig has created a video analyzing John McCain's recently released technology platform (available here). Lessig's video touches on broadband penetration, competition, and network neutrality." Note that while Lessig has come out as a supporter of Barack Obama, this video is not from the Obama campaign.

To sum it up...

McCain's has the foresight and intents (and motivations like "faith") of GWB. Not that Obama is a saviour, but let's try to minimize the severe damage the internet will suffer under either candidate (in America).

Re:To sum it up...

Anyone who expects an openly non-religious person to be 1) nominated by either major political party, and then 2) elected president, is at least as crazy as as any church-goer. It's an empirical fact that belief in the supernatural is necessary to be elected to the office.

Re:

Well, 50 years ago it was an empirical fact that being white was necessary to be elected to the office.

If you're an optimist, this means that all those cold hard facts can eventually change, and everyone will be free! Yay!

If you're a pessimist, this means that Americans are just as bigoted as they were back then, only now it's the gays and atheists destroying America instead of blacks and Jews. Progress?

Re:

Just because you believe that there is something out there larger than yourself does not mean you turn your brain off

Just the part that processes things like the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

the last poll I saw ~80% of the adult population in the US believed in God (not necessarily Jesus but a creator) so why do you find it surprising that the candidates would pander to a group that large?

No, the real question is, why would someone who calls himself the Candidate For Change, and who is proclaim

Re:

No, the real question is, why would someone who calls himself the Candidate For Change, and who is proclaimed by all of his media talking point specialists as a staggering intellect, a man of science and reason and "progressive" thinking (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), not use the opportunity of having the public spotlight to actually see about making it less fashionable to proclaim belief in the supernatural?

Perhaps because even intelligent people don't necessarily agree about things, especia

Re:To sum it up...

The difference is that Obama's faith isn't the rigid taking-orders-from-god kind, but rather the kind that's supportive of using logic and rationality to decide issues. He's on record supporting atheists and denying that religion is a requirement for morality. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

Re:

You guys

Huh? I'm not registered with either party. I already know where McCain's coming from, religiosity-wise. He really hasn't changed in any way - though it would be nice if he woke up one morning and realized it was silly.

I'm paying more attention to how interesting it is to watch people on the left try to reconcile their mental image of Obama as a cerebral, rational, pillar of tolerance and understanding (and promoter of science and education) even as he loudly proclaims that he's an adherent to

Re:

Despite what many people here think, science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Re:

So, which is worse, they guy who people say is old, slow, from another era and believes it, or the guy that's presented by the media as a brilliant, towering intellect... who has such a flawed grip on reality that he still believes it?

It doesn't matter if McCain has a better grip on reality than Obama, because it doesn't change the fact that everything* about his platform is wrong!

(*with perhaps the sole exception being his support for the 2nd Amendment -- if only he felt that strongly about the rest of th

To save you 16 minutes,

Lessig says the only two issues at stake are broadband penetration and net neutrality. McCain will try to solve the broadband penetration "problem" by providing subsidies to the cable and telecom monopolies, and he will oppose net neutrality.

Obviously Lessig would prefer to see more competition and open networks.

Personally, I think the broadband penetration number ("our rank has fallen to #22") is a bit of a red herring because the US is far less densely populated than most other countries and thus perfect broadband penetration is not feasible. And while I'm all for net neutrality, that issue alone is not going to determine who I vote for.

Despite the current lack of regulation I think I get a fairly fast, unrestricted Internet connection at a fairly low price. I think that as long as there are at least two providers available in any locality the market will force reasonable prices and net neutrality.

Re:To save you 16 minutes,

Personally, I think the broadband penetration number ("our rank has fallen to #22") is a bit of a red herring because the US is far less densely populated than most other countries and thus perfect broadband penetration is not feasible.

Lower population density may mean that universal broadband access isn't as profitable for commercial vendors as it might be otherwise (ditto with access to electricity, running water, telephone service, mail, etc.), but it certainly does not mean it is not feasible.

Re:

This is a good argument for selling the 'last mile' to consumers. Some companies are looking into selling the last mile to consumers or smaller communities that way they do not have to pay for the cost. This also would make a much better argument for net neutrality in consumers and communities owned the last mile.

Re:To save you 16 minutes,

Allow me to elaborate on the broadband issue. If you look at average and top speeds available in NYC, LA, Chicago, or any other major city, you'll find that they are 2-5 times slower than the average available to the whole country of Japan, South Korea, France and Sweeden.

The fastest speeds you can currently get from Verizon (via FiOS) are 50/20 (down/up), for which you'll pay $145 a month. This is below the average of what you'd get in the above countries, and I'm almost certain it costs 25-33% of the above rate.

A more reasonable 20/20 or 20/5 costs 70 or 57. The bottom line is that IF you can get the service, you'll pay 3-6 times the cost per mbps as you would in another country. One could argue that markup is to pay for further penetration, but eh... we're still well behind in internet speeds even in our metro areas.

To my knowledge Verizon offers the fastest service plans available for residential access, and I'm guessing their $/mbps is competitive as well. I'm glad that they're at least offering a 20/20 or a 50/20 package, but don't kid yourself - we're still pretty far behind in our coverage.

Re:To save you 16 minutes,

I have cable 20/2 Internet connection, and I'm in Romania (a small country in Europe with neighbors Hungary and Bulgaria for people with less knowledge of geography).

Inside the country, I can max the connection anytime, full 20mbps. Outside the country, the speeds are on average 13-14mbps.

This is the result of heavy competition between two ISP that bought almost all the small ISP companies in the country.

Also, no bandwidth caps and it costs about 20 dollars. Bundled with cable TV (576p, about 55 channels) the total cost is 40$.

For an additional 10$ a month, the company can give me a set top box that takes digital tv out of the same cable (still 576p but digital up to the set top box so crystal clear. HD is still in testing in the country).

About two years ago, for the same price I would have received 2mbps download, 256kbps upload.

So what I'm trying to say is that it's quite possible to saturate your connection, if I can for example by downloading two linux iso's from two different servers in my country.

It's your provider that doesn't invest enough to have the backbone capable of handling the speeds.

Re:To save you 16 minutes,

I attempted to compare apples to apples. The population density in NYC or LA has to be greater than the population density of any of those countries outside their cities. Nowhere did I mention our average broadband speed, which even in the best of states is under 5 mbps IIRC. I didn't mention the average (under 3 mpbs), and I certainly didn't mention Alaska (under 1 mpbs)

Now an above poster mentions that a former USSR country (Romania) gets 10-15 times faster actual download speeds (20/2) than a 20/5 person in the US, and pays 1/3 as much.

As for your argument about density - Romania's average density is 236/sq mi. There are 11 US states with a density greater than that, according to wikipedia.

In my opinion (not to disparage Romania at all), but when a country that was under Communist control until 20 years ago has better internet speeds for 1/3 the price of the US, it should be entirely unacceptable.

Since you like economics, you should know duopolies (which are what most local ISPs are) and oligopolies (nationwide ISPs) don't allocate resources efficiently in many cases and reduce consumer surplus.

I'm also pretty sure U.S. telecoms have been given subsidies and/or tax breaks in return for guarantees on broadband penetration and speed. For the most part, telecoms are years behind where they promised to be if they got said subsidies.

If there's anything else you have a question about, let me know.

Population density

Personally, I think the broadband penetration number ("our rank has fallen to #22") is a bit of a red herring because the US is far less densely populated than most other countries and thus perfect broadband penetration is not feasible. And while I'm all for net neutrality, that issue alone is not going to determine who I vote for.

Was the USA more densely populated eight years ago?

I'll point out that Arizona is more urban than the Netherlands. Almost all of Arizona's population lives in major urban areas; the Netherlands has a higher net population density but a much higher percentage of their population lives in nonurban villages.

This is by way of saying that population density is a red herring, because broadband penetration is measured by people, not square miles. The USA's ranking isn't being driven down by the lack of broadband on the Yuma Proving Grounds or the Plains of St. Augustin.

Re:To save you 16 minutes,

The trouble with the "less densely populated" argument is that even in wealthy and thickly settled areas our broadband is expensive and crap. It would, I agree, be wholly unrealistic to whine about how rural Idaho has internet access that would make Tokyo cry. Obviously so. The fact that even in major metropolitan areas, we face an effective duopoly; both options fairly lousy, is not at all unrealistic to be upset about.

Re:To save you 16 minutes,

Personally, I think the broadband penetration number ("our rank has fallen to #22") is a bit of a red herring because the US is far less densely populated than most other countries and thus perfect broadband penetration is not feasible. And while I'm all for net neutrality, that issue alone is not going to determine who I vote for.

Yeah, population density explains it. That's why a typical Canadian broadband connection is faster that a typical broadband connection in the US (or any particular part of the US, regardless of population density.)

Looking at the post from the fellow in Romania, I think it's interesting that HDTV is normal here is the US, but basically doesn't exist in Romania, while the reverse is true for fast Internet. It's not a matter of technology level, or wealth. It's just a matter of priorities. Romania invested in a key enabling technology that has impacts in education, the economy, and individual political empowerment. The US invested in American Idol with extra pixels. And, this makes me sad. I know we could do better, and I just don't understand why we as a society choose not to.

tax cuts vs subsidies

A subsidy is very different from a tax cut. Of course, one shouldn't be surprised that Lessig makes this confusion as his political leanings...

Lessig first refers to them as tax cuts; he obviously is not "confused" about the distinction, he quite deliberately equates tax cuts with subsidies, and the end result of a selective tax cut and a subsidy (assuming the subsidy is not larger than the amount taxed) is the same thing, as you well know.

If you don't see the distinction ... imagine calling a decrease in y

All I want to say about McCain is

John McCain [johnmccain.com] has a comprehensive economic plan that will create millions of good American jobs, ensure our nation's energy security, get the government's budget and spending practices in order, and bring relief to American consumers. Click to learn how the McCain Economic Plan will help bring reform, prosperity and peace to America.

Re:All I want to say about McCain is

McCain's website is written in ASP. Obama's is in PHP. I rest my case.

Re:

sadly those who have banned flash on their pcs can't access content that could have easily been done with 2-5 small images and a text based blog entry instead of making a 2 minute shockwave flash video and wasting everyone's bandwidth.

Re:I can't watch this

Here's the video in mp4 format, for those who won't enable the Flash plugin for a few minutes:

ftp://definethis.org/video.mp4 [definethis.org]

It's 57.3 MB (60,102,443 bytes), straight from Google's servers.

For those complaining about dial up, here's only the sound:

ftp://definethis.org/sound.mp3 [definethis.org] (22050, mono, 3.82 MB (4,016,064 bytes))

Links are ftp to allow for bandwidth limit in case download goes overboard.

Re:

How many people who might vote for mccain either know or care who Lessig is anyway? I won't be voting for McCain, and I'm only marginally aware myself.

Re:I can't watch this

My argument is just as strong as the argument I was responding to, which claims that the quality of the media affects whether or not someone is going to listen to an argument -- ie, judging the book by its cover.

Except that it does, and people do.

Can you honestly tell me that you've never seen anyone get modded up for a well written post that didn't really say anything? Or conversely someone with a valid point get modded down because they write like an idiot?

That video added nothing to the point Lessig was trying to make, and in fact, actively detracted from it. I agree with every word he said and I thought that video was terrible. It was 16 minutes of poor PowerPoint emulation, bad parodies of Apple marketing, the implication that AT&T is *not* a villainous entity in the same vein as Comcast, and blatant political pandering (all of that Iraq war commentary was a distraction from his main point). Did you actually watch the video or do you just like arguing?

If I'm judging a book by it's cover, then you're too busy trying to see the forest to realize that the trees suck.