« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Tech at Night: Claire McCaskill on a Net Neutrality leash, 4G LTE is amazing stuff, Internet censorship doesn’t work

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  May 21st, 2011 at 03:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Tech at Night

Ah, Claire McCaskill. Her not particularly active Twitter account said this week that she wants to be careful about regulation of privacy online, lest those regulations cause us all to have “less access to amazing stuff.” True statement I think. Too bad she refused to stick to her guns on the radical left’s key policy, Net Neutrality. On that issue, McCaskill told MyDD government regulation could cause “an open and free exchange of information” and that she would be “happy to wage” the fight to regulate.

Not sure how to reconcile these two positions except that when the radical left tugs on Claire McCaskill’s leash, she jumps, regardless of what’s good for America or for Missouri.

How good is the 4G LTE wireless technology that the public really needs AT&T to deploy? The technology that AT&T needs T-Mobile’s spectrum to roll out properly? testing already puts it 7 times faster than the current stuff and 4 times the theoretical cap of my current wired line. So good that Clearwire may switch from WiMAX to LTE. This is great technology. I want, as McCaskill pointed out when not under the thumb of radicals, “access to amazing stuff.” I want government out of this.

Government isn’t even all powerful. It can’t always achieve its intended aims. As I’ve pointed out before in this space, the UK is learning that lesson when it comes to so-called superinjunctions meant to protect the rich and famous from having their lives gossiped about in the press. The global Internet is ruining that plan. Sadly, California wants to learn that lesson next and drive innovation out of state or overseas.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    that there are a number of people that not only are content with the current speeds, but many that aren’t interested in data at all, right? One of the concerns about the merger is AT&T has a history of trying to force people into more expensive data plans that they really don’t want.

    The more I read about and think about this merger, the more I’m opposed. This merger will reduce competition, and that’s not a good thing for consumers. This whole quest of yours appears to be based on the fact that you don’t like Verizon and want to stay with AT&T and still get the higher data speeds of LTE.

    On the good side, AT&T has apparently gotten then message about opening up their phones and is starting to allow non-Market apps on some of their Android phones (with more to come soon). That’s a positive thing. If AT&T continues to adopt some of the innovativeness and openness of T-Mobile going forward I’ll be a lot less opposed to this merger.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    … it means that you agree that government has the right to interfere in legal business activity.

    What sort of a conservative agrees with that?

    It may be the case that AT&T is trying to do something that will be bad for consumers. If that’s the case, you can also expect some other vendor to correct the practice eventually by offering something that’s better for consumers at an advantageous price.

    NightTwister, gain back your free market credentials and oppose government interference wherever it occurs, even if it has the potential of doing something to make your life marginally less pleasant. Your convenience is not the ultimate test of economic morality — and insofar as it is, the market will lead us there sooner or later.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Now that you’re trying to personalize this, I’ve lost any respect I have for any thing you say on this matter.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    If I’m opposed to the merger I’m not a conservative?

    Please show me in my comment above where I said anything about supporting government involvement.

    I can be opposed to the merger without wanting government intervention.

    I’m amazed at the lack of reading comprehension around here lately.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I decided last year I’m going to the first national provider with good LTE in my area, just as soon as iPhone supports it.

  • rogershru2

    What Neil is opposing is government intervention in the free market. He has made that clear numerous times. Fighting government intervention is a worthy cause. Disparaging that “quest” made some question, understandably, your conservatism on this matter.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I’m more frustrated with losing the service I want than anything you’ve said.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    That has been part of his argument. I agree with him that the government should stay out of this one.

  • Xasteius
  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    n/t

  • http://chucksomerville.com/ Chuck From Dayton

    Government’s desire to control it, or have a “kill switch”, or to censor is doomed to failure.

    It is not the US power grid, or the US phone network.

    There’s a reason HTTP traffic is referred to as the “Worldwide Web”. It is indeed worldwide, and the topology is a “web” of connections.

    As one internet wag put it… “The Internet considers censorship a defect and routs around it”.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I used to have great Internet service at home. But since Verizon gobbled up my old provider, it just hasn’t been the same. In fact it went from stellar to unreliable.

    I still miss GTE.