BMG has obtained an advance copy of Senate candidate Steve Pagliuca’s policy statement on Net Neutrality. You read it here first!
Defending Net Neutrality
A Pagliuca for Senate ReportPreserving the internet as an open resource for free speech, innovation, and job creation
Since its creation, the internet has been a transformational force in the United States and an engine for job creation across a vast cross-section of the information economy. In Massachusetts, thousands of high tech and service firms rely on access to the internet for their businesses to succeed and grow through online innovation. For years, the internet has driven economic growth and creativity nationwide. But the enduring principles that have made the internet open to innovation and widely accessible are now under threat in Washington, DC.
In America, access to the Internet is facilitated by more than 4,000 Internet Service Providers but the four largest companies account for more than half of all revenues. Right now in the United States Congress, there are two distinct approaches to regulate these giant companies and the internet traffic they control.
One, advocated by Senator John McCain and the Republican Party, would allow service providers to slow down connections for individual users that they target. Under their plan, a provider could deny access to a site that provides a rival service or take money from another party to block access to any internet user.
Steve would strenuously oppose these provisions and work with Democrats in the US Congress to advance legislation that would protect the rights of internet users, defend net neutrality, and enact a smart regulatory policy to govern cyberspace. If elected to the United State Senate, he would pursue the following concrete priorities:
1. ESTABLISH A NATIONAL POLICY TO PROTECT A FREE AND OPEN INTERNET. The best way to ensure the continued viability of the internet is to proactively establish national standards which regulate companies who control access to the Internet. Steve supports Rep. Markey’s proposed Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 and would support similar legislation in the Senate.
2. SUPPORT CHAIRMAN GENACHOWSKI’S PRINCIPLES AND PROPOSED RULES. The FCC has adopted guiding principles of Net Neutrality which prevent ISPs from prohibiting access to legal content, applications, or services and from preventing users from attaching legal devices to the network. Steve also supports the Chairman’s additional proposal to prohibit discrimination against certain types of internet content or applications and that would permit ISPs to engage in limited network management practices as long as such practices were disclosed.
3. MAKE THE RULES APPLY TO WIRELESS NETWORKS. Wireless networks are the future of the internet. By the end of 2009, 250 million users will have subscribed to wireless and that number will rise substantially in the years to come. Steve believes that the principles of Net Neutrality need to apply to wireless networks as well as wire-line internet. Opponents of this principle, namely internet access providers and their lobbyists, argue that technological differences make a position of neutrality difficult. Steve knows that the rules ensuring net neutrality can be modified to account for technological challenges without offending the fundamental principles of an open Internet, and would fight for such an outcome in the Senate.
I’m a frequent reader here but infrequent commentator so I apologize in advance for my crankiness in the following comment, but you’re falling into a common trap of traditional political journalists here.
<
p>I’ll bet you were emailed what is essentially a press release by Pagliuca campaign officials and you’re running it like its some kind of newsworthy press exclusive. I mean, “BMG has obtained an advance copy of Senate candidate Steve Pagliuca’s policy statement on Net Neutrality.” c’mon man…
<
p>I want BMG to break to news and I want BMG to get the respect in the media it deserves as a source of news for Mass politics but this is not news- this is clever Pagliuca campaign staff feeding you a story.
No one else has this yet. Why shouldn’t we run it? It’s an interesting issue, and one that is of particular concern to the blogosphere.
I know, your probably right, it is a policy position that should be out there in the public domain, I guess what makes me feel icky about it is the manner in which it was distributed.
<
p>First, I don’t think it was “leaked” or “obtained” I think Pags campaign staff sent it you because they knew you’d run it and give it prominence because a). its a blog and blogs care about net neutrality and b). because its an exclusive for the next few hours until the press release goes out.
<
p>For me, I can’t help but feel that BMG is being used in a situation like this to give something more prominence than it deserves because of the manner in which the information was released. Partly, this is a reflection of the fact that I think the Pags campaign (and by extension its staff) are a bunch of overfunded hucksters, but also because this kind of PR behavior and complicity of news orgs in the game is one of the reasons I like blogs because they can stand outside of that dynamic.
<
p>Anyway, I’m being overly picky for a Friday afternoon and probably not explaining my position very well.
I see your point, if he did it every day, but he doesn’t, and it is news. I’d front page it.
good to know your position on Net Neutrality.
<
p>I’d be interested if any candidate disagrees with this position. I would not think so, but Pagiuca can now say they agree with him as he said it first (could be wrong on the first thing haven’t researched).
Everyone but Coakley answered a question about Net Neutrality already.
<
p>http://www.cwunbound.org/2009/…
net neutrality is a dead issue. Note the keyword here “legal” content. Of course all kinds of definitions may apply here such as anti-government topics like 911. Just pick a profession and add 911truth as a suffix.
<
p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…
That is one internet shut down proposal.
<
p>You may find altenative methods in the concept called cloud computing, which essentially means the net owns your computer and therefore you.
<
p>Or if you happen to be a well heeled globalist elite parasite you might get to access Internet 2.
<
p>Guess what. If Obama needs a Six Thousand dollar Blackberry custom built by General Dynamics to make it “secure” that makes the one you use……….
<
p>Yes, we must continue to make the issues appear to be geared to simpletons. The champions of empty hollow causes, a new science of astroturfing using astromonically large numbers.
“the net owns your computer and therefore you”.
<
p>A owns B. C owns B. Therefore A owns C.
<
p>That’s the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Nevermind that that’s not at all what cloud computing is about.
<
p>”if you [are] a globalist elite parasite you might get to access Internet 2″.
<
p>I don’t think you know what Internet2 is. You make it sound like a shadow conspiracy that the Bilderburg Group, Tri-Lateral Commission and Illuminati use to plan world domination, when actually, none of these groups has access to Internet2. Internet2 is a high-speed research and educational network. So unless professors and scientists are globalist elite parasites, you’re simply dead wrong.
<
p>Besides which, the Bilderburgs et al use Internet3. I’m surprised you didn’t know that already.
I’ve heard this pop up here and there, never took the time to understand it’s meaning and the importance of protecting it. I would say this is a very important issue and should be discussed regularly. What exactly do John McCain and the Republican party hope to achieve by compromising net neutrality. I would imagine it would cause monopolies and control, two things the Repubs love.
<
p>
http://stevepagliuca.com/netne…