Sununu Against Telecommunications Reform
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7- Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), speaking at a telecommunications forum Wednesday, said he opposes the rules originally meant for the telephone companies in the 1930s being applied to Internet service providers in the 21 st century.
At issue is the federal government’s commitment to provide basic communications access to all American citizens, regardless of income level or geographic location.
While Sununu said he supports reforming the $6.5 billion program, which provides universal service nationwide by subsidizing small telecommunications companies and regulating the industry’s business practices, he specified that he favored federal intervention only when it came to emergency services, low-income residents, and rural areas where the cost of communications services might deter corporations from providing service or pass unreasonably high costs onto consumers.
“I’m not saying walk away from rules and regulations by any stretch. But let’s ask the questions in a thoughtful way,” he said. “What is it that is so compelling about it [telecommunications technology] that requires more regulation than the auto industry? What is it that is so compelling about the SCI-FI channel?”
Sununu also said the subsidy program that provides Internet access to public libraries and schools had become corrupt and mismanaged.
“There are clearly people on the receiving end of funds that you would never justify giving [them] a subsidy,” he said. “It is meant to be a subsidy to those in the highest cost area — rural — or to those consumers with low-incomes.”
The Progress and Freedom Foundation, which organized the event, is a think tank that favors government deregulation of the telecommunications industry. The foundation is supported by major telephone, computer, and television industry corporations like Comcast and Verizon Communication, two of the largest telecommunication companies serving New Hampshire.
Cath Mullholand, a telephone utility analyst for the New Hampshire Utility Commission, said that a rural state like New Hampshire may be adversely affected by total deregulation of telecommunications services.
“We may be rushing just a little bit too fast into deregulation,” she said. “Competition can replace regulation, but there needs to be competition. Service is very spotty in rural areas of New Hampshire and there is one service provider. What happens when the cost to maintain the network becomes too expensive and the corporation leaves or charges a lot more for service? The government will have to come back in and regulate again and it will be more costly.”
Jeff Chester, the executive director at the Center for Digital Democracy, said that he views the effort to deregulate universal service with skepticism.
“You shouldn’t be denied your right to Google as a civil right,” he said. “We live in a digital society and the equity gap is not going to close itself. There needs to be a federal mandate to provide basic communication services to all people.”
Sununu suggested that deregulation would not break the program.
“It is really only dramatic if you were cryogenically frozen in 1934 and woke up today,” he said. “Universal service has some significant weakness: It distorts the marketplace, no question about it. It undermines innovation.”
He also criticized the basic thinking behind some of the program’s components that required telecommunications companies and Internet providers to register with the federal government.
“This in my thinking is out of the 1930s,” he said. “I don’t even know if it’s fair to compare it to the 1930s as it is to the Stalin era. Find an 8 th grader. Ask them if they can understand or see a reason for Internet providers to register with the government. They will tell you in their capacity as an 8 th grader: Get rid of the regulations”
Dr. Mark Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America, agreed with Mullholand.
“In rural state like New Hampshire, there isn’t likely to be very much competition because it is expensive,” he said. “If a competing network doesn’t exist in a rural area, there will either be a monopoly, or a no-opoly: No service at all. Do we care about making sure everyone in society has access to the basic means of communication?”
#####
