Sununu: Protecting Net Neutrality is "Dangerous"

Idiotic (4.00 / 2)

"Writing regulations based on how we think companies might behave and how we predict customers might act in response to that behavior is dangerous indeed," he said.

Oh come on. He can't possibly believe this.

The reason why you write the regulations is because if the law is not clear, no money will go to enterprises that may or may not be legal. So by holding out the threat of such action, ISPs can cripple industries without ever taking explicit action.

How do you get money for Vonage, if it it could turn out at any point that their entire business model could be overturned by an ISP.

This isn't a brain teaser -- it's in fact the classic case of why regulations should be put in place -- to make the rules of the game evident. You can say the rules should be this or that -- but to say there should be no regulation in this area is insanity.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 23:48:44 PM CDT

False assumptions (0.00 / 0)

Most economic arguments are based on false assumptions.  In this case there's the assumption that market participants welcome competition.  This is false.  There's always a strong impulse towards monopoly (driven by the profit motive).  So, it's important to have rules that insure equality and  fairness.

Republicans have a more fundamental concern that directs their attitude towards social regulation.  They are convinced that inequality is the natural condition of man.  So, to promote equality strikes them as contrary to the laws of nature.

How are you going to keep people unequal if you educate the ignorant and protect the weak from abuse?

---

by: hannah @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:54:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Writing regulations based on (4.00 / 1)

how we think companies might behave" -  why,  that's as absurd as setting up boundary lines before the football teams take the field!

---

by: elwood @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:14:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A very important issue (0.00 / 0)

that the tech-savvy should keep in the forefront. It's tricky as it is not necessarily an urgent topic for most but long term important.

Do we have a idea on where Shaheen is on the issue? I did not see anything with casual googling.

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 00:24:15 AM CDT

Good place to posit role of government. (0.00 / 0)

This seems as good a place as any to suggest that the role of government is to address and deal with the vagaries of man and nature we don't want--i.e.

incineration
inundation
invasion
incarceration
injury
infestation
ignorance

I suppose more could be added, but seven is always a good number.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:58:49 AM CDT

This kind of thinking (4.00 / 1)

 is the root of many of our present problems:

Sen. John Sununu argued that instead of predicting marketplace and industry activity, Congress should wait until abuses appear and then respond.

The problem with most things, IMHO is that there is no planning, no vision of how we want the whole to look. Just band-aid approaches after the fact, like Sununu is suggesting. And he's an engineer?

It is way too difficult to run around and respond to perceived abuses one at a time.

Our regulation in general is so bass-ackwards. For example, in Europe, a food additive must be proven safebefore it goes to market. Here, things are put on the shelf until or unless proven unsafe. Not to mention it's much harder to prove a negative, we're basically human guinea pigs for genetically modified organisms, to cite one example.

Net neutrality is a very important issue. The powers that be aren't happy about all the organizing and fundraising progressives have been doing. We're way ahead of the right wingers on this one. Don't think for a minute that doesn't play into it.

How the internet is used is very important to our future. It's a double edged sword because through cookies, etc. we can also be tracked and spied on.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:43:03 AM CDT

Call me suspicious, but.... (0.00 / 0)

I wonder how Sununu's objection to a prohibition against monitoring content is related to the cyber warfare program the Air Force is gearing up to set up.  Is it possible that, despite overt criticism of N.S.A. efforts to collect information (perpetrate espionage) via private telecommunications entities, they're still planning on piggy-backing on the private collection of usage information for marketing purposes to promote their cyber-warfare agenda?
If you assume that the internet is the warfighting domain of the future, then prohibiting the collection of data to map it might well be considered "dangerous."  
In other words, what I'm suggesting is that the protection of the free market is being used as a smoke-screen.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:31:33 AM CDT

One who truly believes in free markets should believe in net neutrality. (0.00 / 0)

With respect to the internet, ISPs are very much governing entities, as they are the gatekeepers.  Should not they be forced to have a laissez-faire approach?  Nobody should be able to show any favor to anyone in internet service, based on content, corporate ties, or anything else--and that includes the Chinese government.

I love to see candidates show that they understand technological issues--it makes me cringe to hear that several of the Justices of the US Supreme Court refuse to use computers or cell phones, at all.  That's not right--you can't be in that position and not keep up with the infrastructure of society, particularly when it is up to them to rule on it.  The idea that people who make the rules about a whole new frontier of law don't have as much understanding as the average 12-year-old is absolutely unacceptable.  It's one of the reasons I support Obama, I tend to think his positions on tech issues are more developed.  I still get a smile on my face thinking about Bill Richardson's Blackberry addiction (which, I will verify, is real).

On a similar note, I wish we spent more time here talking about media consolidation, not that I've ever written a diary about it.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:01:34 PM CDT

It really doesn't require keeping up with technology (0.00 / 0)

At least as I understand it.

Net neutrality is about the notion of "common carriage:" an economic principle that goes back to shipping, railroads, and trucking. These industries tend to coalesce into just a few competitors. If you add vertical integration on top of that - if UPS and Federal Express start competing with Amazon and L.L. Bean, and give their own mail order operations favored freight terms - It's a Bad Thing. Competition suffers.

Same thing when ISPs decide to offer their own content services and give them better network transport than they give Google.

Justices and legislators can appreciate that without ever using a cell phone.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 14:13:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Net neutrality is easy. (0.00 / 0)

Napster/iTunes/DRM type issues are hard, and there are a lot more where that came from.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 21:50:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Net should "remain that small d, democratic platform" (4.00 / 1)

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on Pearl Jam, Net Neutrality

(h/t Open Left)

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 14:46:41 PM CDT

This is what the FCC should be regulating, not the use of the word "fuck" on television. (0.00 / 0)

PS: I just said "fuck".  If you, the reader, find the usage of the word "fuck" more offensive than internet censorship by the corporate gatekeepers of this century's most vital communication infrastructure, then I very strongly urge you to troll-rate this comment.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 21:58:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wrote Sununu about this last year (4.00 / 2)

And he didn't say it was dangerous then. I told him small businesses all over NH (including mine) depend on Net Neutrality to be able to function and sell things on the internet. And he said, lessee, he wrote a couple of pages here...hmm...he said...well, not exactly said right out...hmm...

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, as usual, I got two pages of verbiage from Sen Sununu on this subject that said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! And then he promised to keep my concerns in mind. And then he voted the other way. Like he usually does.

It was so refreshing getting new Congressional representatives! Let's try it with our Senators, shall we? Good! I'm ready!

---

by: inclusive @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 16:16:01 PM CDT

Interesting. (0.00 / 0)

Generally, when I write to Sununu or Gregg, the response is a lengthy message about how they passionately agree with me, their staffer having ignored my position on the issue and sent me the form letter intended for those who share the Senator's position.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 22:01:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

People that are Market-Based like Sununu think regulations (0.00 / 0)

somehow are hinderances to innovation in business. But these so-called innovations are nothing more than abuses or loopholes due to the lack of regulations. His concept of the internet is that its a wide open opportunity for businesses to rake in money from us average citizens. He doesn't see that the internet like most of us do. He isn't interested in innovation, rather the opposite he wants exploitation of the internet. And he wants his buddies to do the exploiting.

Business and Politics should not be mixed.
Wynter

---

by: Wynter @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 17:59:35 PM CDT

For those who may be new to thinking about this subject, (0.00 / 0)

there is an excellent section of Bill Moyers' PBS web site that functions well as a primer, based on his "Net at Risk" program. The site has videos, etc. and is well worth the time taken to investigate this complex and vitally important issue.

They. Don't. Care.
We do.
Rinse, repeat.

---

by: GreyMike @ Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:23:41 AM CDT