« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Tech at Night: Net Neutrality scheduled, Sprint admits the truth, Hutchison fights, Anonymous loses

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  September 24th, 2011 at 03:30 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Tech at Night

November 20. That’s the day the Obama administration has chosen to regulate the Internet after what even The Hill calls “a partisan vote” at the FCC to pass the Net Neutrality regulations. I’m hoping Verizon and/or MetroPCS will sue and win a stay before that date, though I don’t know how likely that is for a court to act that strongly.

I’ve said much about the House and its strong opposition to Barack Obama’s regulatory overreach, but Senators are unhappy as well. Kay Bailey Hutchison is ready to fight. It looks like she will push to get the Senate to go forward with using the Congressional Review Act, as the House already did, to repeal Net Neutrality.

In AT&T/T-Mobile news, Sprint Nextel has stopped pretending its antitrust lawsuit is even about competition. Sprint wants the deal stopped, yes, but only because Sprint wants to merge with T-Mobile. And that’s not me saying that. See this quote of Sprint CEO Dan Hesse from the Wall Street Journal:

“I don’t believe that what the DOJ said in any way, not even a little bit, should be viewed as we want to keep four [major telecom carriers]” Hesse said at an investor conference today, according to Deal Journal colleague Shara Tibken. “My view is [the DOJ] would look at other consolidation very differently.”

Yup. The Justice Department’s own lawsuit AT&T is just the government choosing to prop up Sprint Nextel and protect them from lower prices. They’ll never admit it as Sprint does, though. This isn’t about protecting the public from oligopoly-created high prices at all. Good on AT&T for calling out Sprint as well.

Sprint truly is having trouble, too. Their big marketing campaign, hoping to swipe customers from Verizon and AT&T, has been promoting their unlimited, unthrottled data… but now they’re announcing plans to cap some data. Oops. They just can’t compete.

It’s been a bad week for Anonymous, heh. Just after they announce a “Day of Vengence [sic]” for Saturday the 24th, the FBI pounces and rolls up some of the members. Frogmarch! Frogmarch!

Free State Foundation says cable set top box regulations should die. I have to agree, because I know they are ineffective. Providers have already worked around CableCARD regulations by using new technologies to increase channel bandwidth, which happen not to work with CableCARD. So just give up already and try something new.

Quick hits: Moonbeam signed the Amazon tax bill, keeping California on its path to enforce an unconstitutional Internet sales tax.

Samsung is trying to get iPhones and iPads banned in Europe over patent issues, in retaliation for Apple’s legal successes against Samsung, as well as Apple announcing plans to drop Samsung as a supplier of even more iPhone and iPad parts. If patents get all gadgets banned, can we just repeal them? Thanks.

A note to regulators and legislators: People don’t actually care about privacy. We know this because they’re not actually doing anything about it. People talk about it because the teevee says to talk about it, but talk is cheap.

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

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • utahtim

    “If patents get all gadgets banned, can we just repeal them?”

    This may have to happen, especially in the software area, before Congress will pay any serious attention to the real problems of the patent system (and copyright), as opposed to merely doing what the companies with the biggest lobbying budgets want. The sooner it happens, the better, IMHO — like ripping the bandage off fast.

  • synergist777

    Even Adam Smith knew that, in order for the law of supply and demand, or even capitalism itself, to work, the market must remain free. And one of the responsibilities of government is to ensure that the market remains free.

    In competition, it is one thing for a store to offer better prices and incentives for people to come to their store instead of the competition. It is another thing to set up roadblocks to prevent people from going to the competition.

    And removing net neutrality is, in fact, placing roadblocks to prevent people from going to the competition. The major Internet companies got there through net neutrality; now that they are on top, they want to allow for monopolistic, anti-competitive measures to ensure that nobody else can ever compete with them, by cutting off traffic to competing sites. And it is not like the Internet was a private venture; it was bought and paid for by the money of the U.S. taxpayer, and given to the custody of private organizations under, among other things, the condition that net neutrality be continued.

    Now, given that, it is important to realize that the FCC is the wrong agency to be enforcing net neutrality. This is a matter of trade, not communications, and therefore the province of the FTC. I can definitely see the worries involved that if the FCC can create regulations to prevent censorship of the Internet, they can create ones that will enforce it. If the FTC does it, then it’s just a matter of keeping the market free.

    The far left has a belief that anarchy will lead to Communism. Historically, anarchy has always led to systems more akin to feudalism. I am therefore surprised that so many believe that economic anarchy could possibly lead to anything other than economic feudalism. Unless, of course, that is what is desired.

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

    You Obamanauts are using government to prop up Sprint Nextel and Clearwire, and have the nerve to mention Adam Smith?

  • synergist777

    Since I was the only one to mention Adam Smith, I assume you are referring to what I wrote. Except that what I wrote had nothing to do with Sprint Nextel and Clearwire. Also, I made it clear that I was anti-Left, so I cannot see how it could possibly be determined that I am in favor of Obama.

    In leaving comments, we are requested to be respectful. I had thought that those making the rules considering themselves to be above them was the province of the Left, not us.

    If you were referring to someone else, then I apologize.

  • fightnright

    Mr Stevens, do you know this commenter personally, that you label him an Obamanaut? Or is your opinion on this issue so strong that you have preconceived bigotry for him/her simply because of his opinion, which on some issues might not align with yours or redstate’s?

    Some of us here actually DO know some of redstate’s audience personally, having met each other and identified ourselves at tea party rallies, Republican headquarters during volunteer meetings, had lunch with our Republican volunteer neighbors, or open houses during Republican debates. Other posters may be our friends, or members of our families, and so on. Since we may know their political sympathies, and since your Obamanaut claim is an uninformed smear (as it is based on a guess about the writer) – in future I’d gently – and redstate respectfully! – suggest that you know the facts before you attack the arguer instead of the argument.

    sincerely,
    fight’n'right

  • fightnright

    was intended to be a response to Neil Stevens’ ‘How Orwellian’ comment. Apologies to all for the misplacement. Thank you.

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

    You’re the joker who came here to stick up for the radical socialist agenda of Obama with respect to corporatist regulation.

    Maybe you should check your biorhythms or something. Get a psychic reading of the stars. Whatever you do, get your mind right.

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

    People who defend Obama’s socialist regulatory agenda are effectively Obamanauts.

    So yeah, learn to read what he wrote, learn to use the website, *then* comment.

    Unless you’re pro-Obama regulation, too, then please, stop posting.

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

    I promise you I have and will now no respect for anyone stupid enough to defend the Obama anti-growth, anti-liberty agenda.

    And I don’t care how that makes you feel.

  • fightnright

    I’ve met so many sincere, hardworking, conservative tea party members who will vote for Romney despite Romneycare which many consider Obama-lite, or part of that Obama anti-growth, anti-liberty agenda, and their own principles on that issue. I’ve met many who will vote for Perry despite HPV /Gardasil and Perry’s mandate which my own opinion and principles may consider Obama-lite… not to mention Perry’s opinions clashing extremely with so many conservatives on immigration! And you can’t imagine how I upset I feel about conservatives who will not vote Republican if their ideal candidate litmus test is not met, at this crucial – nay, critical time.

    Yet I would never be rude enough to rashly label them Obamites, though I may think that their candidates and a few of their candidate’s past decisions may indicate mindsets that will lead us dangerously closer to that trail. There ARE opinions, on one or two issues, with which I may clash with other conservatives, but I’ll still be respectful of the majority of their principles, and yours, too! As a hardworking conservative myself, I’d never respond as nastily to another conservative as you have to me, though I still am grateful for Redstate, and its contributors.

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

    What does some whining about Rick Perry or Mitt Romney have to do with defending the actual social corporatist power grabs of the Obama administration?

    Obamanauts gotta Obamanaut.

  • fightnright

    Remember, I myself have not defended or argued the issue of net neutrality!

    Having seen quite long debate threads on Redstate where we conservatives differ on specific polity questions (most recently on major issues of Republican candidates’ stances re: Romneycare; Perry and the immigration problems, which I used as examples in my last comment) I defended what I honestly believed was the right of a Redstater to make one comment containing a respectfully articulated argument of a conservative with a differing opinion on the net neutrality question, and to be respectfully treated in return as per the posting rules.

    I have understood and appreciated that endless spamming and advocating for certain candidates and positions (Ron Paul, birther-ism) were not welcome here, but I wasn’t aware yet that one single posting expressing disagreement on the net neutrality issue would not merit the Redstate posting rule regarding civility in discourse.

    Most importantly, however, I am aware that it is not my site, and I fully support that the site directors DO get to make and enforce those rules in any interpretation they feel fair! Thank you again for your ongoing work and contributions to Redstate.

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

    I don’t know if you read Tech at Night constantly, but I check the comments on my three nights a week posts, and I’ve been putting up with drive-by talking points machines for many moons now.

    I’ve just reached my breaking point. I’m tired of the same Soros talking points. I’m tired of the same seminar callers telling me they’re lifelong Republicans defending Obama. I’m tired of arguing with them only to have my arguments ignored.

    I stands all I can stands, and I can’t stands no more.

  • fightnright

    because as a former moderator/manager a few years ago in a (non-political) comments forum, I KNOW first hand how hard it can be to distinguish between one time deviants (ooops, that would be me), and serial offenders who keep re-joining and spamming, re-joining and commercializing, re-joining and taking advantage & being opportunistic, etc…..

    That’s why I always said thanks for your hard work, whatever your take on things, I know how sincere it is.

    What we need now is (are?) no-excuse, hard line conservative voices – like yours. It’s a matter of life or death for these United States.

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

    .