Obama official insults net neutrality opponents
November 25, 2009 by Valerie HelmbreckPosted in: Communication, In this week's e-newsletter, Internet Service Providers, Latest News & Views, Web sites, e-commerce
So what’s the worst thing you could call a good old American-style captain of industry? “Commie” springs to mind, and that’s just about what an Obama administration official called corporate opponents of proposed net neutrality rules this week.
Several times in recent weeks, White House deputy chief technology officer Andrew McLaughlin compared censorship in China — where President Obama’s recent comments on open Internet values were blocked from Chinese Web sites — to the need for net neutrality rules that would prohibit corporations (mostly the big ISPs) from acting as gatekeepers of information and speech.
“If it bothers you that the China government does it, it should bother you when your cable company does it,” McLaughlin said at a recent policy conference.
McLaughlin’s remarks were consistent with his pre-public service position on the topic. He joined an administration that’s made net neutrality a cornerstone of its technology agenda.
McLaughlin and others in the new government maintain that one secret to the rapid success of the Web has been unfettered access to it. Letting corporations have the power to control that access, by slowing down or blocking certain sites and giving priority to others, would diminish that freedom of access.
As you can imagine, ISPs don’t like net neutrality or any curbs on their control of Internet traffic. They don’t like it even a little bit.
Likening a great capitalist institution like AT&T to an evil communist empire especially didn’t sit well with the telecom’s chief lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, who fired off his own statement, saying it was “ill-considered and inflammatory” to connect censorship in China to the practices of American ISPs. Just why, he didn’t really say.
“It is deeply disturbing when someone in a position of authority, like Mr. McLaughlin, is so intent on advancing his argument for regulation that he equates the outright censorship decisions of a communist government to the network congestion decisions of an American ISP.
“There is no valid comparison, and it’s frankly an affront to suggest otherwise,” Cicconi said, who used to work in the White House for George H. W. Bush., but who’s now gone the way of many former public servants — into the ranks of industry lobbyists.
For perspective, the Computer and Communications Industry Association also weighed in — on the side of the Obama administration’s efforts to keep Internet access from being controlled by corporate interests.
Said the CCIA leader, Ed Black: “CCIA is encouraged that this administration with truly tech-savvy people on board along with those who understand and respect the Constitution, will find ways through the minefields of powerful special interests to make universal access to an open Internet a fundamental American free speech protection.”
This fight should heat up in the coming months. Stay tuned for more histrionics and name calling. The fun’s just getting started.
FinanceTechNews.com delivers the latest Finance news once a week to the inboxes of over 150,000 Finance professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to FinanceTechNews!
Tags: net neutrality

December 1st, 2009 at 2:53 pm
How can they say it is the same thing? The corporations do not block access to competitor sites, but pay to have their names listed first, burying the competitor under a bunch of other names. Not the same thing. China outrights prevents access for its people to many sites.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:02 pm
This story title and tease line are silly and gratuitous. Your writer needs some basic training in logic.
The government of China is a huge, powerful organization that is more interested in self protection and growing itself than in the needs of its citizens.
The ISPs are huge, powerful organizations that are more interested in self protection and growing their profits than in the needs of their customers.
Suggesting that anyone who would not trust one huge, powerful organization as gatekeeper should perhaps not trust another huge, powerful organization does not suggest anything more than this:
Both are huge, powerful organizations that don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
The political leanings of the title are ironic; how about some REPORTING neutrality…?!?
December 8th, 2009 at 3:17 am
Awesome Post.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Helped me out a bunch, great post!