Vint Cerf has come out in support of Barack Obama for United States president.
In a YouTube video he recorded, Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, said he was supporting Obama primarily because of the Democratic candidate's position on Net neutrality.
Cerf commands wide influence throughout the technology world due to the role he played in the development of the Internet. Cerf co-designed the TCP/IP protocol with Robert E. Kahn. While at MCI, he oversaw the development of the world's first commercial e-mail service to be connected to the Internet.
Here's a transcription of what he had to say:
"The concern that some of us have is that broadband access to the Internet in the United States is not very competitive. There are two kinds of providers--the cable companies and the telcos--but often they don't actually compete with each other directly for services to consumers or to businesses that need access to the Net.
"The problem with this relatively uncompetitive environment is that those who control the broadband access to the Net may in fact introduce discriminatory practices that interfere either with competitors who are offering value-added services on the Net, or maybe they will interfere with consumers trying to get access to services all around the world who may actually be using those broadband facilities in order to reach the consumer from someplace else.
"We believe that the Internet should remain an open environment. It's vital to innovation. Companies like Google, and Yahoo, and eBay, and Amazon, and Skype, and so on, got their start without having to get permission from any ISP or any broadband provider to offer services. They simply acquired access to the Internet, put their services up and then made them available to the general public."
"We think that's the best way for the Internet to evolve, and I'm pleased to say that in the upcoming presidential elections, the two candidates have rather different views of this particular matter. Senator Obama in particular sees things the way I do, which is that the Net should remain open, fully accessible and providing access on a nondiscriminatory basis to people who want to offer new services on the network."
If you reside in Washington for any length of time, it's not long before you believe that the world revolves around the Beltway. The same can be said about Silicon Valley, where a similar fishbowl effect often fosters an exaggerated image of the high-technology industry's impact on the larger culture and society.
Even more so when it comes to gauging the political influence of the technology business on the fall presidential campaigns. You might think the Democrats and Republicans are eager to raise the banner on behalf of their friends in Silicon Valley. The assumption is that the two major parties will cater accordingly. After all, the industry has so much money to spend and all those political action committees, and they naturally want to get their rightful share. Right?
Not so fast.
Sure, the Democrats and Republicans are eager to court deep-pocketed donors. But the power broker image exists more in the minds of the people living between San Jose and San Francisco than it does with the movers and shakers guiding the Obama and McCain campaigns.
With the candidates hitting the road after the wrap-up of the political conventions, this much is certain: The resolution of policy issues like Net neutrality may be near and dear to folks from the likes of Cisco and Google. But neither Barack Obama nor John McCain plans to give impassioned speeches urging passage or rejection of this, or other pieces of, tech-related legislation over the next couple of months.
Earlier Monday, I spoke with my colleague Declan McCullagh on the CNET News Daily Debrief about where the tech agenda fits in with the two campaigns. Declan's back from covering the Democratic and Republican conventions for us where he had an extended opportunity to chat about technology policy with regulars from both parties. You can check out our conversation by clicking on the video link below.
Any one of sound mind must be disappointed that Hillary Clinton hasn't yet put away Barack Obama. Or that Barack Obama hasn't yet put away Hillary Clinton.
Because it means both sides are going to drive us nuts up until the Democratic convention this summer.
I suppose that's a small price to pay to live in a republic. So since the spin-meisters from the competing Democratic camps are so hell bent on convincing the rest of us that God is on their side, here's a golden opportunity to use the Internet to advance the cause of civic education.
Check out what Dave Winer's been doing of late on his Web site where he's reposted a few MP3s of conference calls held by the Clinton and Obama campaigns with the press. When I first heard about the experiment, it triggered one of those "Duh, why not?" moments.
Good question. It makes all the sense in the world.
The two political parties are quite adept at using the Internet to promote their interests--especially when it comes to raising money or putting out position statements--let alone political hit pieces. There's no mystery any longer about how to use the Internet to reach voters. Democrats and Republicans can afford to hire the best Webmasters money can buy. So why not extend that expertise in the cause of better informing the citizenry? Call it a cyber-addition to Civics 101.
If there is a convincing reason why the political campaigns shouldn't automatically release raw recordings of press conferences, I haven't been able to come up with one. You put more information in the hands of the public and that will lead to more familiarity with the candidates and, in theory, at least, a more informed choice.
Maybe it's because I'm a news junkie that I so thoroughly enjoyed the grilling meted out by reporters to the campaign hacks. The farther these folks get from the television cameras, the more likely they are to let down their hair. At least that's been my experience as a working reporter. Let's hear what they say when confronted with someone more challenging than Larry King.
I suppose some bright bulb on the campaign staff might reason that's as good as any argument why to prevent the public from listening to the raw Q&A. Something along the lines of, 'Who wants to see sausage being made?' In this case, actually, I think the answer is that a lot of us would.
"Four years from now," Winer writes, "we'll look back at this in amazement that there was a day when campaigns hid their words and ideas behind the filters of the press."
Couldn't have said it any better than that.
Postscript: I received a call from Mark Memmott at USA Today to let me know that the paper has been posting audio from the conference calls at USA Today OnPolitics.Kudos. Hopefully, it's a harbinger others will follow.
- prev
- 1
- next
