To date we’ve had the opportunity to talk with 2008 presidential candidates Governor Mitt Romney and Senator John McCain about their positions on various technology related issues. As promised, Senator John Edwards, our first Democrat, is next up. See his PoliticalBase page here.
Last week we asked for your questions and received a great response. Senator Edwards has now answered many of those questions.
He is planning bold initiatives in a number of areas. He’s promising to support Net Neutrality (this issue is now falling firmly along party lines – Republicans either won’t address it or favor a free market approach; Democrats are behind it):
I believe that if we do not guarantee net neutrality, the Internet could go the way of network television and commercial radio – with just a few loud corporate voices and no room for the grassroots and small entrepreneurs.
He wants to see universal broadband available to all U.S. households by 2010, half way through his first term (and voters can therefore hold him accountable). And he’s firmly behind Google in the new mobile spectrum allocations (good update on Google’s plans is here).
When it comes to clean energy, he wants to find ways to freeze demand for electricity and reduce our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. His plan includes a $13 billion a year New Energy Economy Fund to invest in alternative energy sources, and tax credits/guaranteed loans for renewable biorefineries.
Regarding China, Edwards says he’s pro market and wants to encourage trade and cooperation. He does not address the current issues, such as the Yahoo/China debacle, head on.
One of the best reader submitted questions asked Senator Edwards to explain the differences between his tech policies from those of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. His answer, along with the rest of the discussion, is below.
Q&A With Senator John Edwards
Michael Arrington: Let’s start with a broad question. The U.S. technology industry has been a world leader and has grown substantially through international markets, what would you do to advance these efforts?
Senator John Edwards: I believe that the single most important factor for America’s future prosperity is investment in education, science, technology and innovation. But today we are challenged by other countries which have invested aggressively in education, engineering and infrastructure, giving them an edge in the global economy. The country that developed the Internet is now 16th in broadband deployment, and America’s competitiveness has suffered. In 2002, for the first time ever the US imported more advanced technology products than it exported—the deficit is now $40 billion. The spread of broadband has been uneven and costly, too driven by the profits of a few entrenched companies and technologies to allow the nation as a whole to realize the billions in economic benefits promised by truly universal Internet access.
I will set a goal of universal broadband by 2010, make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent, make higher education affordable with College for Everyone and improve patent quality by reforming our patent laws and devoting more resources to the patent office. I will also enact smart trade policies that provide a level playing field for American business and workers and fight currency manipulation and illegal subsidies.
Finally, I will reverse the trend of having America invent transformative new technologies like the electric car and the solar panel, only to have other countries lead in deploying and marketing them. As part of my plan to combat global warming, I will help American usher in a new energy economy based on clean, renewable, and energy-efficient technologies.
MA: Would you make it a priority in your first year of office to re-instate Net Neutrality as law? What is your specific plan to ensure equal access to all players, regardless of size?
JE: In May, I – like thousands of citizens – wrote a letter to the FCC urging them to guarantee net neutrality. I believe that if we do not guarantee net neutrality, the Internet could go the way of network television and commercial radio – with just a few loud corporate voices and no room for the grassroots and small entrepreneurs. Our country is already divided enough between the haves and have-nots. Where we go to school, where (and if) we get health care, whether we can retire with dignity – we have big divides in all of these areas in this country.
While we work to create One America, we should not allow the Internet to be divided or corporate censorship to take root. That would make the other important work we have to do that much harder. The Internet is not the answer to everything, but it can powerfully accelerate the best of America. It improves our democracy by making quiet voices loud, improves our economy by making small markets big, and improves opportunity by making unlikely dreams possible.
As president, I will do several things to encourage innovation and neutrality online. First, I will ensure that the FCC preserves free expression and competition on the Internet by enforcing net neutrality, ensuring no degradation or blocking of access to web sites. I will also bring the Carterfone rule to wireless so that Americans can connect any device or applications to their wireless service, just as they can to their landline phone service.
MA: The U.S. higher education system is among the best in the world. But not enough students seem to be interested in science and math at younger ages, and some studies suggest we turn out far fewer engineers than India and China, among other countries.
The purpose of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act is to help bridge the gap between primary and secondary education. Among other things, it has a goal of ensuring that every student is technologically literate by the time they finish the eighth grade, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, family income, location or disability.
Do you believe we are achieving these goals and serving our children today? What do you think is the best way to reach the goal?
JE: We all pay a price when young people who could someday find the cure for AIDS or create the next Google end up sitting on a stoop because they didn’t get the education they need. Today, too few of our schools are teaching our children creative, analytical skills, and too few students have access to the technology that can light that spark. Ninety-five percent of urban high schools report problems getting qualified science teachers. American 9th-graders are 18th in the world in science education.
No Child Left Behind has lost its way by imposing cheap standardized tests, narrowing the curriculum at the expense of science, history, and the arts and mandating unproven cookie-cutter reforms on schools. As a result, it has lost the support of teachers, principals, and parents, whose support is needed for any reform to succeed.
Every year, 200,000 college-qualified students cannot enroll because their families cannot afford it.
Our children are every bit as talented as our foreign competitors, but they have not been given the tools they need to succeed. I believe that every school should be wired and that we need to overhaul our curricula to emphasize technological skills, math and science, creative thinking and problem-solving. I also support Career Academies in high schools that link students to local employers and skills in high-demand industries, including information technology. If we do not invest in developing these skills among our children now, the United States risks becoming a technology follower, rather than a leader.
As president, I will overhaul No Child Left Behind to center our schools around children, not tests, and help struggling schools, not punish them. I will also launch a “School Success Fund,” a Marshall Plan-like effort to rebuild and restore America’s schools. I would ask teams of experienced educators, what I call “education SWAT teams,” to spend a year at struggling schools helping launch reforms where we need them the most.
To ensure that every child is prepared to succeed, I will provide resources to states to help them offer universal high-quality “Great Promise” preschool programs for four-year-olds. I will work with states to give all teachers in successful high-poverty schools up to a $15,000 raise. I will also create a national teachers’ university – a West Point for teachers – to recruit 1,000 top college students a year, train them to be excellent teachers, and encourage them to teach where they are needed most. Finally, I will create a national version of a program I started in a rural county in North Carolina, called College for Everyone, which provides a full year of public college tuition and books to any college-qualified student who is willing to work part-time.
MA: The Digital Divide is roughly defined as the gap between those with access to computers and the Internet with those who don’t. More broadly, it includes not only access, but the skills and ability to use those resources effectively.
The controversial Federal E-rate program allocates money from telecommunication taxes to poor schools without technology resources. Some statistics suggest 100,000 or more schools have been provided with Internet connectivity and additional computers.
What is your opinion of the E-rate program? What else can be done to increase access to technology in our schools? What can be done outside of schools to address the digital divide more generally?
JE: First, let’s talk about what the digital divide really means in America. It means that while half of urban and suburban households have broadband, less than a third of rural homes do. It means that African Americans are 25 percent less likely to have Internet access at home than whites. The Internet has been an engine of innovation and opportunity – one that started in America and then revolutionized the world. Yet, here at home, too many are denied access to it, including 40 percent of rural Americans. That is just not acceptable.
As president, I would do a number of things. First, I will help create universal, affordable access to broadband. There should be no neighborhoods in America where the lights of the Internet are not on.
The starting place for that is setting a goal of giving all U.S. homes and businesses access to real high-speed Internet by 2010. I will establish a national broadband map to identify gaps in availability, price, and speed. I will also create public-private partnerships to promote deployment and require providers not to discriminate against rural and low-income areas. I will work to improve Internet accessibility for people with disabilities. I believe we need to improve the e-rate program with a goal of universally wired schools.
Since achieving truly universal broadband will require every tool at our disposal, I will encourage local service providers and municipal wireless projects, and use the newly available 700 megahertz spectrum and broadcast television white spaces to support wireless networks that can connect with all digital devices.
MA: The U.S. has fallen woefully behind Asia and Europe in terms of mobile technology innovation. Most of the innovative startups we see in the mobile space today are based outside the U.S. and have no immediate plans to enter our market.
Current rules allow mobile carriers in the U.S. to “lock in” customers, which prohibits them from adding or accessing third party services via their phone. The effect has been a stifling of competition or, as the NYT’s David Pogue puts it, a “calcification of the U.S. mobile market.”
The FCC is currently in the process of allocating a new area of the spectrum – 700MHz. There are two schools of thought surrounding these auctions.
The first, supported by the big mobile carriers, is that the new spectrum should have few regulatory requirements around how services are offered to consumers. This should maximize government revenue but would, as we’ve seen, likely result in increased calcification and reduced competition in the market.
The second, supported primarily by Google and everyone except the big carriers, is to force spectrum holders to allow open access to their platforms once they offer services. This would likely result in lower revenues to the government from these auctions, but our mobile markets could gain a competitive edge over Europe and Asia.
What is your position on the mobile spectrum? Should government force open access or should they simply auction it off to the highest bidder and let the carriers decide what types of services to offer?
JE: I was the only presidential candidate to write to the FCC in May to urge it to adopt auction rules for the 700 megahertz spectrum that would unleash the potential of smaller new entrants, transforming information opportunity for people across America — rural and urban, wealthy and not.
I called for as much as half of the spectrum to be set aside for wholesalers who can lease access to smaller start-ups, offering the potential to improve service to rural and underserved areas. Additionally, I wrote that anyone winning rights to this valuable public resource should be required not to discriminate among data and services and to allow any device or application to connect to their service, just as they can to their landline phone service. This open access rule will force service providers to compete on quality and price, not just on exclusive contracts with in-demand products.
I also support using at least part of the white space spectrum that will become available in the transition to digital TV for unlicensed wireless use. Unlicensed uses in other spectrum bands have resulted in innovations we now take for granted, such as the cordless phone. I believe that offering some of this “beachfront” broadcast spectrum for unlicensed use would not only expand wireless Internet access but would allow new technologies and business ideas to flourish, without interfering with nearby television transmissions.
MA: What will you do to encourage U.S. innovation into renewable/sustainable energy sources? Should carbon emissions be taxed? What else, if anything, should the government be doing?
JE: New energy technology holds incredible potential to unleash innovation and reshape our economy. Clean tech venture capital has doubled in the past year to $2.4 billion, and American entrepreneurs, farmers and manufacturers can lead the world in technology to generate clean, reliable energy and use it more efficiently. My climate change plan includes three great goals: reduce our carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, transform energy use in America to usher in a new energy economy, and freeze the demand for electricity with efficiency for the next decade.
I will create the $13 billion a year New Energy Economy Fund to invest in clean, renewable energies like wind, solar, and sustainable biofuels, develop a new generation of efficient cars and trucks, and put new energy-saving technologies to work in buildings, transportation and industry. The result will be more than 1 million new jobs – with a new Green Collar Jobs training program to ensure that the opportunity is widely shared.
I will make the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit permanent and provide loan guarantees for renewable biorefineries. By opening the electric grid and requiring utilities to consider local, distributed generation of electricity before investing in central power plants, I will guarantee market access for local entrepreneurs including co-operatives like “community wind” projects. I also believe that we need a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants without the technology to capture their carbon emissions, and a major investment in developing carbon sequestration technology.
We need to be honest about the need to sacrifice some as we make this transition. Under my plan, polluters will pay for all their carbon permits under a cap-and-auction system after a short transition period of less than five years. This will not be easy, but global warming is a crisis, and I believe it is time for a president to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war.
User Questions:
Internet Taxes
JE: I believe we must continue to keep the internet affordable and democratic. When I served in the Senate, I voted for the 2004 Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, which extended the federal ban on state and local Internet access taxes.
How are your high-technology policies meaningfully different from those of Clinton or Obama?
JE: I believe that I am more willing to set ambitious goals and to fight for the kind of transformation we need. For example, in the past year alone I’ve written three letters to the FCC on issues where there have been armies of lobbyists for entrenched corporate interests: net neutrality, the 700 spectrum auction and media consolidation. My philosophy on these issues is simple: we need to take away the corporate bullhorn and let many voices be heard.
But today, Washington is broken – too often, our laws are written by big corporations and their lobbyists, and what’s good for the rest of us gets lost completely. Where some of the other Democratic candidates use the language of compromise or are in fact taking money from and in support of the corporate interests who are blocking real change, I think the policies I’ve released and the way I’ve spoken out show that I’m more willing to fight to achieve the change we need.
What do you think are the responsibilities and benefits of internet companies operating in oppressive regimes like China?
JE: I firmly believe that it is good for us and good for China when Americans do business there – especially when they offer technologies with the democratizing potential of the Internet. But we have to be careful always to support our fundamental values, such as freedom, democracy and human and labor rights. I am also concerned about China’s practices like currency manipulation and unfair subsidies which threaten American competitiveness.
American businesses can have a tremendous amount of leverage over repressive regimes, as we saw in the 1980s when American companies helped open up the Soviet Union. They should refuse to cooperate with authoritarian and anti-human rights practices abroad, and help move societies like China into the world’s mainstream. In the coming years, China’s influence and importance will only continue to grow—and the United States will have to continue to show moral leadership. On issues such as trade, climate change, and human rights, our overarching goal must be to get China to commit to the rules that govern the conduct of nations.
thanks for such wonderful post
Was this interview done via email rather than “live” like Romney and McCain?
Do the candidates receive the questions beforehand and have time to prepare responses?
Many of the answers here seem pretty canned. I’d prefer to see a level playing field in the interview approach to the candidates. They likely have their preferences, but I admire someone who doesn’t require prep time and still delivers solid answers.
Mike – what happened to the most important question of all, Mac or PC ?
Hi Mike,
Just wanted to say thanks for taking the questions I submitted on the digital divide and technology literacy for your Mitt Romney interview and carrying them over for your Edwards interview. Hope you get a chance to ask them of other candidates as well.
Great post! @Shafqat- I think the most important question is “what’s your favorite website?”
John Edwards has led on Spectrum, supporting net neutrality – and opposing media consolidation.
Rupert Murdoch has sponsored fundraisers for Hillary and when questioned about media consolidation – Hillary was non-committal. Instead, she defocused and blamed the Telecom Act of 1996 on Al Gore.
No more plants! No more Bushes!
Go Edwards!
Sounds to me Edwards is for “fair radio/tv/etc”.
Radio is the way it is because of ratings, not because of big money. Otherwise, Air America would be a huge hit rather than falling off the radio dial because of pathetic listening numbers.
Edwards has the looks and that Kennedy like persona but please, this guy is no more quick on his feet than Bush.
erick – I would say Edwards is approximately three times as smart as Bush.
“erick – I would say Edwards is approximately three times as smart as Bush.”
Don’t you think a lot of Bush’s misspoken statements, and redneckisms are intentional?
I’m not so sure he’s that stupid.
All these candidates seem to dumb themselves down to reach the populous with a message that they can understand. Bush is especially good at that.
Most people are not intelligent, but they do have the right to vote.
A lot of people sympathized with Bill Clinton’s problems with cheating, and I think they felt sorry for his wife. I think she’s actually viewed as overcoming that and rising to the occasion which is part of why she’s so popular. Like it didn’t get her down or whatever.
Edwards is a little stale from the last election and he’s low in the poles. The interview is long and I don’t feel it’s worth reading for me, even though I can still vote in NYS.
Chris – I’ll try to keep these interviews much shorter in the future so that you will be able to make it through the whole thing.
0.01 * 3 is still a small number…
If you’d like more info regarding John Edwards, you can check out his PoliticalBase page here
Sean – good catch, forgot to add a link to it. I fixed that.
Mike, I can read and suppress my ADD. I just don’t feel it’s worth investing the time in somebody with such a slim chance. We only have so many resources, and we have to put them where they are best used.
You’re right Mike, unfortunately, this HAS fallen among party lines – with the Dems supporting net neutrality and the Repubs opposing it.
It’s a shame that an issue such as this has become a facet of the bitter politics in Washington.
If we lose net neutrality, we’re surely going to miss out on a lot of great startups that have great concepts.
Net Neutrality is one of the most important issue of our day. We must remain net neutral at any cost.
Entrecard – yeah, i’m obviously a fan of NN myself, although frankly I think the stranglehold the carriers have on the mobile spectrum is a larger problem.
Chris R., that is the same argument that people use to cover up Jessica Simpson’s goofy remarks.
I think that media can definitely get attached to certain slips and remarks (potatos, I [helped create the environment that] invented the Internet) in a way that makes people look dumber than they might be. And they often do this for Bush (and Ms. Simpson). However, after the 3rd or 4th or 20th such remark, you just have to use your instincts and make a judgement that this person might be less intelligent than some other people.
Chris, have you ever watched a debate with Bush in it? I mean the guy would have to be a great actor to pull of the impression of “just as dumb as you are” that he does. I might credit Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger with the kind of performance needed to sound so dumb, but there is no reason to think that Bush has these kinds of acting skills. He would be using said acting skills in a lot of cases where he’s gotten in trouble (bring it on…).
Also, it is not common for media and politicians to attack somebody’s intelligence (on this kind of scale) when they are in fact intelligent. There was no attack on Bill Clinton’s intelligence. No one attacked Gore’s intelligence (even though the Internet line gave them an opportunity – instead they said he was arrogant, funny that).
Two things:
Isn’t “net neutrality” a free market solution?
By “investment”, Edwards means taxes. Shouldn’t I have a choice in what I “invest” in?
“Chris, have you ever watched a debate with Bush in it?”
Yes I have. I think it’s intentional. Most Americans are going to vote for the shoot em up, go get’em guy than the fancy pants lawyer in a suit. Every time. Hillary will probably end up winning just because the Republicans don’t have a gun slinger this time around.
DIsclaimer: I am not a republican, but our VP was an almost religious republican, who didn’t like McCain because he thought that McCain was the CNN leftist media republican candidate. I also know several other people that lean on the Republican side, and they are much the same way.
Thank you for continuing the questions regarding energy, Techies care about that. I don’t think energy should be a political issue, Many republicans, and some democrats just need to be called out, because the notion we don’t need a price on carbon just flies in the face of global warming, and cannot be swept under the concept of letting capitalism sort it out.
It’s easy to take potshots at Bush.
How about fill in these blanks…
Edwards is _____ times smarter than Hillary
Edwards is _____ times smarter than Obama
Edwards is _____ times smarter than Romney
Edwards is _____ times smarter than McCain
I appreciate this series, but am disappointed that Edwards wasn’t forced to explain his extreme protectionist stance to an industry crowd that is, for the most part, ardently free trade.
One meta observation: Sadly, it’s growing apparent that the Net Neutrality question is becoming the tech equivalent of the abortion debate. Lots of rhetoric, fury and polarization that ironically obscures a serious, worthy debate.
I work for the Hands Off group opposing new net neutrality regulations, so this interview comes as some amusement to me. For example:
“I believe that if we do not guarantee net neutrality, the Internet could go the way of network television and commercial radio – with just a few loud corporate voices and no room for the grassroots and small entrepreneurs.”
Please. The very nature of TV and radio makes it more likely that a few big companies will dominate, while the diffuse nature of the internet makes that all but impossible. This rhetoric is programmatic.
On the other hand, some small comfort — Note also, he doesn’t actually say he supports a new regulatory scheme. The FCC is probably still the best place to address any issues that arise.
On the other hand, very dismaying to hear he wants to bring back Carterfone. I doubt he would be successful if he tried, but even trying to do so would be going in the opposite direction of expanding broadband access.
Damon, yes it is easy to take potshots at Bush, and he deserves them. He’s stifled the progress of every group that he doesn’t consider “the have more’s”
Worst president ever, with “war on the poor” Reagan as a close second.
Reagan as a 2nd runner up for worst president ever. It’s always good to calibrate people, and you just fell off the left side of my desk.
Good one!
I do prefer the option of having an interview hear via podcast, however. It adds another layer to to the post.
So much for intellectual discourse! This discussion, for the most part, is just a bunch of vitriolic rants by those who haven’t the slighest idea of what they’re talking about.
I’ve got news for you “wanna be” intellectuals; Bush is smarter than anyone in this discussion. If Bush is such a moron, then any one of you nimrods should be able to run for President and win, dazzle us with your brilliance, and solve all of the world’s problems. But alas, you hide behind a computer and spew uninformed hatred.
I’ll take Bush over any of you twits any day.
MA: Would you mind answering the 2nd comment?
Was this interview live or emailed?
Do the candidates receive the questions beforehand and have time to prepare responses?
… and I thought he was just a prick with very nice hair.
I believe that if we do not guarantee net neutrality, the Internet could go the way of network television and commercial radio – with just a few loud corporate voices and no room for the grassroots and small entrepreneurs. I’m sorry, but anyone who thinks about this for half a second will realize that the reason tv and radio are controlled by a big few is precisely because of government regulation. When you take away business’ choices, you take away the consumer’s choice.
Net neutrality is just another flavor of regulation. None of the dire predictions about what will happen without NN haven’t even come close to happenning. There is certainly no need for preventative action on the part of big brother. Regulation (restriction of freedom) should always be considered as a desperate last resort to something that has no other mechanism of control. So far, the individuals making themselves heard through the market is handling this just fine, and it looks like future avenues for bandwidth will become more numerous, not less… and thus consumers will have the ultimate vote with their dollars.
Love ya Mike, but trust your libertarian instincts on this one.
“…he wants to find ways to freeze demand…” two sentences later “…says he’s pro market…” WT___?
He’s also planning on increasing taxes. Go with any of the mainstream candidates and its lip-service as usual and business as usual.
@31, David
I don’t see the status quo as a shining example of a free market – I see it as corporations colluding with politicians such that ordinary people with good ideas can’t implement their ideas.
Barack Obama shares similar views but hes doing more for net neutrality. Go to barackobama.com or youtube and listen to some of his speeches. Barack Obama also had a recent interview at Google headquarters. The vids are on youtube.
Obama/Edwards 08
I am all for net-neutrality as a concept, but I think the last thing we need is government regulation. First its net neutrality from the gov’t, then its taxation of the internet.
Let the free market do its work,if one company chooses to have tiered networks, some of its competition will stay neutral
Surprising that net neutrality is such an issue in this campaign.
“When it comes to clean energy, he wants to find ways to freeze demand for electricity and reduce our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.”
Yet,
“He wants to see universal broadband available to all U.S. households by 2010″
Where is the electricity going to come to run all of these new computers, modems, monitors, etc.? Solar power or E85 maybe?
to #37
- net neutrality is not a big issue in this campaign
to #38
- reduce carbon emissions by 80% blah blah blah, how about reducing the deficit, or the number of illegals, or the farm bill pork, etc…
If this was a phone interview, why was it not recorded via audio? That would have made it seem a lot more candid.
At least she’s not Bomber!
Okay, enough with the lame name defacing…
Hellary? You’re not even trying. Try “Hitlery” next time.
Thanks for doing this, and the interview series as a whole.
i’m sorry is this a political blog??
thanks
exapted (#34) – I have to agree, there is already regulation… so corruption is inevitable. Additional regulation is not the answer.
The only “neutrality” we need in the net is neutrality from the government. Once Washington further restricts consumer choice by restricting market operation, any “neutrality” is abandoned.
John Edwards thinks gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.
see: http://www.yout...h?v=fQFhdFfl6rM
Period. End. This is a dangerous power hungry authoritarian. Ron Paul FTW. These elites think they run society! The People run society per the constitution which secures the rights of the individual against the tyranny of this government we have now.
We are sick of people taking our rights away!
Hey Indian people want to become a millionaire in ten days please visit my site http://www.becomerich.tk pLEASE READ EACH AND EVERY WORD TO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT AND HAVE FAITH IN YOURSELF Thank You
People from Mumbai, Thane and Navi Mumbai please read this carefully. If you want a BPL postpaid (billing) sim card for free please fell free to contact me at asifkhans@in.com ot at 9930735691 if the number is not reachable as Vodafone has a very bad network where i stay you can also call me at 9222097209. Thank You and call soon as offer is limited still stock lasts. Free home/office document pickups and card delivery.