1) Declare the Internet a Public Good. What does this even mean? Is the PDF suggesting that the federal government should nationalize the internet? If so, where does it end? Should “the public” (i.e. a handful of bureaucrats in Washington) own the fiber and coax that carry traffic? How about Google’s server farm? The physical stuff that makes up the network we call the Internet all belongs to someone. It is all very much privately owned, and should be. I have the feeling this isn’t what the PDF means, so what do they mean? In practice, making the Internet a “Public Good” means we’re going to cede control over content to the FCC, just like with other telecommunications “Public Goods” like the airwaves. Do you really want the same people who had an aneurysm over Janet Jackson’s covered nipple deciding what can and cannot be accessed on the “public” Internet?

2) Universal Broadband Access. This belongs in the same category as “a chicken in every pot”, a “guaranteed living wage” for every American, “universal health care” and every other socialist utopian promise of big government. Broadband access may never be “universal” in the sense of having coast-to-coast wireless, or FTTH to every home, but the market will get us as close as is economically viable, so long as the government stays out of the way. Nobody has a “right” to internet access, any more than you have a “right” to health care. The role of government should be to protect the rights of the sovereign people, and nothing more. I don’t trust the government to deliver my mail, I certainly don’t want them trying to deliver broadband access.

3) Net Neutrality. Ah yes, let’s have the government decide once and for all whether they’re going to allow the lobbyists for Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc to write the laws, or whether that privilege goes to the lobbyists for Google, Microsoft, AOL et al. Here’s a better idea: let the market decide! Don’t want “tiered” internet service? Punish companies who offer it by not using their products and services. Let’s not rush to get the government to institute price controls. We tried that with oil in the 1970s. It didn’t work so well, ask your parents.

4) “Every Child Connected”. Once again, we have a chicken in every pot. It’s interesting that the PDF refers to “No Child Left Behind” here; that particular piece of legislation has been such a complete disaster that it’s a real wonder that people can still seriously believe that national centralized planning can work for anything at all. I’m not saying that having everyone connected to the Internet is a bad thing; far from it. But you guys have to realize that the government is the least efficient mechanism for delivering goods and services of any kind to anyone.

5) Connected Democracy. Finally, something with which I can agree! Yes, absolutely our federal, state and local governments should be readily transparent through the internet. This is already happening to an extent; you can go to house.gov or senate.gov and actually read the bills that have been introduced to Congress. Expect this trend to continue.

6) Create a National Tech Corps. Crap, and after 5, I was hoping we’d have at least 2 good ideas. My god people, a “National Tech Corps”? You know who would work for the “National Tech Corps”? People who aren’t quite smart enough to get a job in a real IT shop, that’s who. A National Tech Corps would end up looking like an even more bureaucratic version of GeekSquad, if you can imagine such a beast.

I’ll give the PDF some modicum of credit, at least they’ve realized that a tech-friendly president would be a good thing, which is a no-brainer. But spare me the notion that government involvement is going to improve things. Government involvement will bring only censorship, higher prices, and a slew of unintended consequences. The best thing the government can do for IT is: Laissez Faire! Hands off, don’t touch, stay out of the way of the productive, private individuals who can actually address the issues.

Also, Josh — I’m pretty sure your comment was posted after PDF, which happened on Friday.

Your right the technology doesn’t create the content. People do. Hopefully with intelligence and not with a hidden agenda.

I’ll be there with a group from the National Wildlife Federation, it would be great to catch up with you.

The people who think they do are people who have already learned things from teachers, who then supplement this with stuff they learn by using the internet. If you take a 7-year-old, put him in front of a computer hooked up the internet, and come back a year later, he will not have learned much about mathematics.

- Any movie Americans want should be available for streaming or download at any time. Even the really bad Robert Altman and Hal Ashby ones.
- No pop-ups. They are the tool of freemasons and subversives.
- Free access to The Wall Street Journal as a public service.
- Broadband over power lines, NOW.

But seriously: I’m no advocate of complete government naptime as free markets sort everything out, but aren’t the ideas articulated above already things that are sort of happening on their own? Is this what presidential candidates should be yakking about on the trail? Not sayin’ what they’re yakking about now is any better, but let’s keep in mind the scope of what a U.S. presidential race is all about…

What will happen is what has happened before. Each candidate will have some junior flack on staff who will get the “tech geek” beat — any reporters who call on those topics will get referred to Flack X who will often force them to leave a message and wait for a response. If the NYTimes parachutes in to do one takeout about tech platforms, that will be the last word on the subject. Amen and godspeed.

Oh, and he would be the first Green president, too.