Internet Firms Raise Profile on Capitol Hill

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Internet companies have long been dwarfed in Washington by the lobbying might of telecoms. But now some firms are beefing up their D.C. operations, the Wall Street Journal reports, partly in an effort to push legislation that would prevent telephone companies from charging Internet companies for guaranteed fast delivery of Internet content. A telecom lawyer hired by Google last summer to build the company's Washington office tells the WSJ, 'Carrier control over Internet activity is bad for consumers. ... We're not worried consumers won't be able to reach Google. The real threat is to the next Google and to the services that are important for consumers.'"

Comments

Lobbyists are just bad

[Rooked_One]

if we want to ever have a decent form of government, we can't have the big corps making all the rules. We are "THE PEOPLE" and when "A COUPLE OF PEOPLE" are making the rules instead of us, then why don't we just bend over for them to save some time. ;(

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[Kickboy12]

Because legally a corperation is a person, as defined by the surpreme court. So... tecnically they do make the descisions. Which is bullshit.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[danidude]

if we want to ever have a decent form of government, we can't have the big corps making all the rules.

I agree, but... electing someone is really expensive. Big Corps have the kind of money it takes to elect a goverment. Well, of course corps will make sure to elect someone who represent 'em... this way, we have the big corps making all the rules... sad.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[c0dedude]

Well, worse, money that could have been distributed to shareholders is going to finance these Washington operations to counteract financing from the other side. It's shameful how cheaply Congressmen and Senators can be bought, and how high that transactional cost is. It seems corporations would pay less if there were a market for legislators, as troubling as the thought may be.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[rolfwind]

Agreed, but it might be a good way to respond to the Telecoms with their clamoring to be allowed to do this.

I hate class action lawsuits - though I think the prosecutors against Sony gave up too easily with a lame settlement - really more Sony downloads free? YAY!, but I think it's time for a couple of telecoms to face class action lawsuits other than lobbyists.

When I pay for the internet, I pay for the internet. I don't pay for verizon's net (verizonet), SBCnet, or any other net. It's called fraudulent advertising.

And no, fine-print legalese promising the exact opposite of what they advertise in 6000 pt font should not make it okay.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[Neoprofin]

Actually there are a lot of perfectly justifiable reasons to have lobbyist, what you're you're against seems to be the corrupt state the lobbying has reached today where it has become more of a way for the rich to influence those in power with a golf trip rather than paying someone to make sure congressmen know how things effect your interests. There are limits to the effects and logistics of letter writing campaigns.

If your company is involved with in international trade (say Kodak) and you think that curretn trade laws are being exploited by your competition (say Fuji) how would you tell congress that the laws need to be looked at? Have all your employees take a day off to write to their congressmen? No, you hire a lobbyist to get the attention of some power people and tell them you're being screwed. Of course right after he leaves the Fuji lobbyist will be right in there saying that nothing they've done is unfair and no action needs to be taken. The same system applies for political action campaigns like gun control or environmental issues as well as for the big companies looking to protect their market.

There is nothing wrong with teh practice of lobbying, there is certainly something wrong with the Money For Votes program that exists today.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[Nugget]

The only solution I've heard that makes any sense is very well-stated by Ron Paul:

"Last week I mailed each of my congressional colleagues a copy of a speech outlining my views on the lobbying and ethics scandals engulfing Washington. Iím afraid many of them wonít like my conclusion: to reduce corruption in government, we must make government less powerful-- and hence less interesting to lobbyists.

I find it hard to believe that changing the congressional ethics rules or placing new restrictions on lobbyists will do much good. After all, we already have laws against bribery, theft, and fraud. We already have ethics rules in Congress. We already have campaign finance reform. We already require campaigns and lobbyists to register with the federal government and disclose expenditures. We already require federal employees, including the president and members of congress, to take an oath of office. None of it is working, so why should we think more rules, regulations, or laws will change anything?

Lobbying, whether we like it or not, is constitutionally protected. The First amendment unequivocally recognizes the right of Americans to ìpetition the government for a redress of grievances.î We canít deal with corruption in government by ignoring the Constitution.

I donít believe the problem is corrupt lobbyists or even corrupt politicians per se. The fundamental problem, in my view, is the very culture of Washington. Our political system has become nothing more than a means of distributing government largesse, through tax dollars confiscated from the American people-- always in the name democracy. The federal budget is so enormous that it loses all meaning. Whatís another million or so for some pet project, in an annual budget of $2.4 trillion? No one questions the principle that a majority electorate should be allowed to rule the country, dictate rights, and redistribute wealth.

Itís no wonder a system of runaway lobbying and special interests has developed. When we consider the enormous entitlement and welfare system in place, and couple that with a military-industrial complex that feeds off perpetual war and encourages an interventionist foreign policy, the possibilities for corruption are endless. We shouldnít wonder why there is such a powerful motivation to learn the tricks of the lobbying trade-- and why former members of Congress and their aides become such high priced commodities.

The dependency on government generated by welfarism and warfarism, made possible by our shift from a republican to a democratic system of government, is the real scandal of the ages. If we merely tinker with current attitudes about the role of the federal government in our lives, it wonít do much to solve the ethics crisis. True reform is impossible without addressing the immorality of wealth redistribution.

After all, criminals by definition ignore laws; unethical people ignore the rules of ethics. Changing the rules or the players is merely a band-aid if we donít change the nature of the game itself."

We need 534 more of him in Congress. The Texans who have repeatedly voted to send Ron Paul to the House of Representatives should be commended and the rest of us need to get on the ball and do likewise in our own districts.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[blair1q]

The only thing you get by making government less powerful is less need for lobbying because the corporations will then have ALL the power.

We need government to be

a) independent of corporate interests of any kind
b) zealous in guarding individual freedoms against corporate power
c) zealous in guarding individual freedoms against government power

Lobbying, by the way, isn't wrong. In its true form it consists of standing in the lobbies of Congress waiting to tell the legislators something you want him to hear. That's just free speech.

What's wrong in lobbying today is that the lobbyists are buying favor rather than just presenting information.

Prohibiting anyone from giving anything to a member of government will take away that method of persuasion.

Serving your country is an honor, not an excuse to feed at the trough and sell out your countrymen.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[Nugget]

I believe you've missed his point. Namely, that "ALL the power" need not be the same amount of power that we currently permit the government to hold.
The government has a monopoly on the use of force to extract taxes and redistribute wealth and in the absence of that, Corporations cannot assume the same degree of influence and control over our lives and wallets.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[Khaed]

Actually, the problem now is that most elected officials aren't smart enough to understand technology. We have people who couldn't even start a computer without help out there making laws about computers*. Why not just let the blind make traffic laws while we're at it?

* I have no actual evidence about any individual elected official. I'm just assuming they're as stupid as they act.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[blair1q]

That's rather naive.

Government has the power to govern, i.e., regulate every aspect of individual or corporate life.

But individuals have certain rights, and in the United States of America, those have actually been protected.

Until now.

Taxation is a necessary part of governance of economic systems. It provides a negative-feedback loop that prevents massive oscillations.

Corporations want to have more rights than people, and as the people and the government, it's your job and mine to make sure they don't get it.

Money is not votes, and never should be.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[blair1q]

Actually, it's worse.

We're letting the criminals make the criminal law.

That's what we do when we allow lobbyists to write legislation regulating the corporations they represent, and paid-for legislators insert it verbatim as amendments to omnibus bills, where it's passed along with the other "necessary" parts of the bill.

Lobbying and graft are just the first reform; we need to change how laws are constructed, or we won't get a rational government.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[servognome]

We are "THE PEOPLE" and when "A COUPLE OF PEOPLE" are making the rules instead of us, then why don't we just bend over for them to save some time. ;(

Cuz "THE PEOPLE" don't care. If you have 50% voter turnout, that means that it only takes 25% of the people to actually make law. Out of those probably half actually have any insight into the issues (the rest just vote incumbant or party lines). So you end up with a small vocal minority that the politicians have to listen to who end up making policy.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Lobbying is a >$2E11 industry (some think it is >$5E11). Lobbyists aren't going to give it up without a fight. And since the lobbyists effectively control Congress, the only way we can change it is by a massive public backlash or a Constitutional amendment.

Being able to do something simple like requiring purpose and authorship statements for pork and FOIA requests on closed door sessions would go a long way to holding Congress accountable. But those rules do not exist solely for the reason of allowing pork to slide through Congress as if it was lubed with bacon grease.

Government will not shrink on its own. Government is the only 'industry' that grows every time it makes a mistake and fails to deliver on its promises. Every time there is a problem, the bureaucracy grows to compensate, whether it helps or not.

Based on the above, there are a couple of possibilities on what can happen:
1) People get fed up with the government being corrupt and threaten to hold Congress accountable. Congress then passes legislation to try to fix the problem. This will be like the campaign finance laws in the 70s. We all know how much that helped.
2) People get fed up and try to pass a Constitutional amendment. As a result *every* politician in the country comes out saying how this will destroy our country. As a result, it fails, but Congress decides to pass some legislation to make it look like they've done something. See #1.
3) Congress is able to keep this under the radar. Due to wars, hurricanes, etc., they shove it off to another election year like they have done for decades. This is the most likely case.
4) Pigs fly and Congress spontaneously abandons pork (probably because they greased it up too much and flying pork is tough to hold onto).

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[killjoe]

"The government has a monopoly on the use of force to extract taxes and redistribute wealth and in the absence of that, Corporations cannot assume the same degree of influence and control over our lives and wallets."

Considering that you depend on corporations for food, water, gasoline, entertainment, information and just about everything else except for air I'd say that is an amazingly naive point of view.

Without strong govt you will be ruled by monopolies. The natural tendency of completely free markets is monopolies. History is full of examples all over the world. Hell in most third world countries half a dozen families own everything including the govt.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[jadavis]

We can change all that by eliminating career politicians. We could have a term limit of 1, and require that X years pass before they can hold office again. And then we pay every congressperson some large amount of money, like $1-10M/year, to attract successful people who can make 6+ figures in the private sector.

I'm tired of politicians spending our money to get themselves re-elected. We need high-quality people from normal life to enter politics. If they haven't made it in the real world with a respectable job before they run, they probably would never be elected.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[jadavis]

It's impossible to stop corruption once you give someone the power. And make no mistake, the Congress should take most of the blame. Often, congressmen will solicit "expected contributions" and punish those who do not bribe.

Right now Congress has a huge amount of power to make and break individual companies or groups of companies.

If you take away as much of that power as you can, by restricting government to only its necessary functions, you eleiminate the possibility of most of the corruption that takes place.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[MoogleEXE]

But, of course, if you tried to psychoanalyze such a person, from not caring about other people, to not caring for the environment in which they live, to distancing themselves from their families (outsourcing, anyone?), this "person" matches closest to a psychopath. Interesting, ne?

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[TallMatthew]

He is an example of what used to be known as a "small government" Republican. Those are actually real Republicans, like the kind that founded the country. God, do I miss those guys.

His argument, that the country evolved into the state its in today when it started pursuing Democratic ends, holds weight historically. The government used to be something of a laissez faire entity. When it started to reach out, with the New Deal and welfare and the various human interest administrations, it developed a new personality that, despite good intentions, has grown into the overbearing greedy monster we're burdened with today.

But if you give him that, then you have to ask the big question. If the Republican party isn't governing this country by PFKAR (Principles Formerly Known as Republican), which they most certainly are not, then what principles are they governing this country by?

Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[Zontar The Mindless]

I've a better idea: trash the legal fiction that corporations are persons. Which is actually based on a misreading of a Supreme Court decision.

A nice followup to this might be banning political contributions from anyone other than private individuals, and limiting them to something easily affordable by the majority of citizens - say, $50.

Discuss.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[cyber-vandal]

Define necessary functions though.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[Elektroschock]

We have several problems:

a) lack of money for lobbying (e.g. no US anti-swpat campaign)

b) lack of experience

c) IT generation gap

More involvement is needed, sure. And don't pay the US congress Internet Caucus or Europarl's European Internet Foundation but sound people.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[graystar]

Considering that you depend on corporations for food, water, gasoline, entertainment, information and just about everything else except for air I'd say that is an amazingly naive point of view.

The corporations rely on the consumer. If they were to withdraw the above, they go broke. If some consumers are left out, other business will provide it. If you dislike something, you withdraw your choice to trade with them.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[ZoneGray]

We do have a decent form of governement, and judging by immigration, people prefer to live under our government over most others.

But it's probably more accurate to say that it's less bad than the others. I'm continually amazed that simple Constitutional constructs enable us to live under a permanent standoff between two horrible but basically ineffective political parties. Yes, I disagee with most everything that Washington does, but that's not the point... the point is, compared to the damage that COULD be done, they're remarkably benign. But that's not because they're nice and civil and cooperative and deliberative, it's becasue the Constitution ties their hands and prevents them from effectively doing worse.

In any event, there's nothing inherently wrong with lobbyists... I'm sure there are folks in Washington lobbying for all sorts of things I would favor if I hadn't learned to ignore Washington's daily BS. And as often as not, lobbyists are in Washington to prevent Congress from doing harm as they are seeking goodies.

The problem lies in the fact that Congress has things to give lobbyists, and what Congress can do if they don't pay up. If you really want to eliminate the influence of money in politics, the only way is to limit the money that Congress controls. That's why I'm in favor of all general tax cuts, and against all "targeted" tax breaks.

In any event, I don't see why acceding to lobbyists' wishes should produce any worse results than letting Congresspeople figure it out for themselves.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[jcorno]

We can change all that by eliminating career politicians. We could have a term limit of 1, and require that X years pass before they can hold office again. And then we pay every congressperson some large amount of money, like $1-10M/year, to attract successful people who can make 6+ figures in the private sector.

Good luck getting the career politicians to vote on that ammendment.

I do like the idea of term limits, but the huge paycheck is a horrible idea. People would start to look at a term in the House like winning the lottery. Congress would be full of charismatic rednecks (even more than it is now) with ZERO accountability to voters and no reason to fulfill their campaign promises.

I think it would be better to pay them nothing. Political service should be looked at as a civic duty. You get in, accomplish what you need to accomplish, and get out. Of course, then you have the problem that nobody has time to learn the system, but that's really more of an education problem.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[hazah]

I see you've watched "The Corporation". Good movie. Highly recommend it.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[Rooked_One]

well, living towards the US/Mexico boarder, I do feel the need to add one point. Although your arguement is very well founded, I feel it to be flawed in one aspect. The "immigrants" (lets assume mexicans in this scenario) from mexico for the mostpart come to the US for low paying construction jobs. We all know that. But what happens to most of them in the winter time? They take their money that they have horded away while living in a one bedroom apartment with 10 other mexicans and go back to mexico with thier families where they live like kings through the US winter. I used to work on a golf course - I have first hand accounts.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[mrchaotica]

Define necessary functions though.

Why should we need to define that, when the U.S. Constitution already does?

Necessary functions consist of only those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including a strict interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause and respect for the 10th Amendment.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[mrchaotica]

What bullshit! By that logic, we've got a weak government now, because we are ruled by corporate interests already. Of course, it's not really that the government is weak, it's that the government has allied itself with the corporations, by declaring them to be "persons" and by allowing corporate lobbying. The key is to break the alliance, and if we reduce the power of the government we reduce the power of the alliance too.

Of course, that's not the entire solution: we need to also somehow give the government the power to stand up against the corporations. That's the hard part, though.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[cyber-vandal]

Dude the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, the world's changed just a little bit since then. Does the Constitution cover corporate indifference to the well-being of their customers? Shouldn't our elected representatives step in to prevent the sale of dangerous goods for example?

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[killjoe]

"What bullshit! By that logic, we've got a weak government now, because we are ruled by corporate interests already."

Obviously our govt is not strong enough to avoid a rule by corporations. I suspect this is due to legalized bribery scheme we have going.

SO in effect we are saying the same thing. The govt has been bought.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[killjoe]

"The corporations rely on the consumer. If they were to withdraw the above, they go broke."

Only if they sell nothing else. Even a company like GM will not go out of business if they stopped selling cars.

"If some consumers are left out, other business will provide it. I"

Only if there is not a monoply, there is not a high barrier to entry, one corporations does not own all the natural materials or infrastructure, only if one company does not get executives of the other company thrown in jail or killed.

All those things happen in third world countries. Hell in a lot of first world countries there are only one or two providers for some critical item like power, dairy, cellular service, etc and they collude to keep prices high.

Finally If you succeed in weaking the govt the country will quickly be dominated by monopolies. There will be no such thing as competition. As soon as a competitior pops up they will be driven out of business by the monopoly who will make sure their vendors stop selling to the little guy or lose the business of the monopoly.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[jadavis]

I've a better idea: trash the legal fiction that corporations are persons. Which is actually based on a misreading of a Supreme Court decision.

I'd agree to that. The way I look at it, corporations limit the legal liability of the owners, and are double-taxed. So, basically, the government allows them to be irresponsible in exchange for extra tax revenue. Sounds more like a bribe to me.

A nice followup to this might be banning political contributions from anyone other than private individuals, and limiting them to something easily affordable by the majority of citizens - say, $50.

I disagree here. This essentially limits free speech. Dollars talk, and if you limit the dollars spent, you limit the speech. If an independent politician wants to get their message out, they need money, and lots of it. What would actually happen is this: Democrats and Republicans would jump for joy, because no 3rd party could challenge them. It would limit choice. It would also give a major advantage to the incumbants. And PACs could never accomplish anything.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[jadavis]

I think it would be better to pay them nothing.

You get what you pay for. If you pay them nothing, then you will only get the type of people who seek power above all else, exactly what we don't want. The only way they could make money is by selling what they've got (the power) to the highest bidder. And we'd get all the people who couldn't make it with normal careers. And that's exactly what we have now.

The best and the brightest are generally too tied up in a career to enter politics. It would be a major risk to their families to go from a job paying $100k to $0.

We'd be driving away the best, most successful people in society and attracting the worst.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[jadavis]

Shouldn't our elected representatives step in to prevent the sale of dangerous goods for example?

If it crosses a state line, then the federal government is a possible solution (if the problem doesn't solve itself through other channels). If not, the federal government should have no authority.

Why is your first response to a problem to give the federal government the power to solve it? There are all kinds of alternatives to federal power. Certification and brand names go a long way to ensuring product quality and safety. If you buy from a brand that's been around 200 years, it has a major reputation to hold up. And if something goes wrong, you can bet they will have the money to pay when you sue them. Or if you buy the item from a reputable merchant, same story.

If you still need more regulation after that, how about the states? That's what states are here for. All the details that the Constitution doesn't talk about are reserved for the states or the people (10th Amendment).

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[Zontar The Mindless]

Dollars talk, and if you limit the dollars spent, you limit the speech.

So we're supposed to give the guy with the greatest number of dollars the greatest opportunity to speak?

How is this any different than what we've got now?

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[mrchaotica]

If indeed the Federal government should [do some thing the Constitution currently doesn't give it the power to do], then the proper thing to do would be to propose an Amendment to allow it. That's what amendments are for, you know!

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[mrchaotica]

SO in effect we are saying the same thing. The govt has been bought.

Yes, but we have differing opinions about the solution -- I say power should be taken away from the government; you don't.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[Anonymous Coward]

To remit the power that corporations currently hold, one of two things need to happen:

1.) A constitutional amendment needs to be passed that states something along the lines of "corporations are not people, do not rights as people, the rights of people outweigh the PRIVILEGES of corporations, and so on".

2.) The current judiciary needs to be replaced with judges that do not interpret case law to mean "corporations are people".

The first is far more likely. America need a leader to unite its people, break their apathy, and push this forward though.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[killjoe]

That's right. If you weaken the govt (in reality the legislature branch of the govt) two things will happen.

1) The overloaded courts will be even more backed up and people appointed for life will have full power over our lives.

2) Corporations will have a hayday. Imagine walmart with 100 times more power!.

Re:Lobbyists are just bad

[jadavis]

Well who should speak then, and how do we decide? If we allow anyone to speak freely, at least then there is a chance for the underdog to get their message out. They can use initial support to raise funds to get more support. That initial money is crucial, and it's often a lot more than $50 dollars.

If we put financial limits, then only the incumbants and established parties get to speak.

"Fair Speech" is the enemy of free speech. It can be used by powermongers easily because it's vague and arbitrary.

Ironic

[ZachPruckowski]

It's funny that this is happening at the same time as the whole Abramoff thing and both parties promising to clean house. I don't expect actual change, but it's sort of funny that they're picking now to establish themselves.

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[saskboy]

" A telecom lawyer hired by Google last summer to build the company's Washington office tells the WSJ, 'Carrier control over Internet activity is bad for consumers. "

Oh, so controling the content delivery is bad for consumers, is it Google? This rule doesn't apply in censoring content delivered in China?

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[Talez]

So let me get this straight:

Company shitting all over US law = BAD COMPANY! NO! STAY!
Company shitting all over China law = GO DEMOCRACY!

You, sir, are the hypocrit.

Google + Lawyers

[bloggins02]

A telecom lawyer hired by Google last summer to build the company's Washington office...

Ahh yes, the highly successful but less-well-known Google "Summer of Torts" project...

Re:Google + Lawyers

[ScrewMaster]

Well, at least they have the brains to hire industry insiders. That can make all the difference, and if nothing else Google's pockets are deep enough to have an effect in Washington. Hopefully Microsoft (which massively increased its lobbying presence after the antitrust suit) will see things the right way and realize that the telecoms' designs on the network don't bode well for them either, and lend a lobbyist or two to the cause.

Re:Google + Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, and they just started building a European office as well...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/m oney/2006/01/29/cngoog29.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/mo ney/2006/01/29/ixcitytop.html

Google, the giant internet search company, is to lead industry opposition to new proposals from the European Commission to regulate online content.

Am I the only one?

[PornMaster]

Am I the only one who read that as "Internet Firms Raise Capital" at first, then were confused when the summary said things about Washington? VC. DC. It's all too confusing for a geek drinking alone on a Saturday night!

Carriers are paranoid, and rightly so

[postbigbang]

Their lobbying efforts are huge. Bills written in the past 18 months aren't nearly as bad as those that came from Billy Tauzin, the king of telecom lobbying debauchery, but nearly so. A backlash is forming, coming from numerous quarters. Shortly, the head of the NTIA will switch out, and another hullaballoo will ensue.

If you really think that the carriers are benevolent, just go back a couple of issues of 2600 and look at the cover. The Bells are united again, and they're pissed. They own their 'goddamn' networks and we don't. They're purporting their own long lines and internal warmed over x.25 networks as part of the deal. It's stomach churning.

Their enemies are clear: anyone else, and especially cable companies, dark fiber owners, and anyone that thinks twice about FTTH-- if it's not theirs. The last mile will be fought with lobbying money, and tooth and nail. Armies of lawyers, and the boorish threats that telcos have made, will win them no friends. But they have $$$.... just like our friends the petrochemical companies. And they'll use it in Washington where they can now usurp all of the state PUCs. And they're doing it right now, under your noses. Have a nice communications day. Love that latency, don't you?

Re:Carriers are paranoid, and rightly so

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah, this kind of thing could pretty well kill off online gaming if it gets popular among ISPs. Oh, well, of course there will be a "gamer package" that will give you low latency to specific servers for a nominal charge. Great if you're a Sony or a Blizzard, although I'm sure they also will have to pay protec^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ "guaranteed delivery" charges as well. All those folks like me that run a public game server for the fun of it will likely be out of luck.

Re:Carriers are paranoid, and rightly so

[Anonymous Coward]

Their enemies are clear: anyone else, and especially cable companies, dark fiber owners, and anyone that thinks twice about FTTH-- if it's not theirs.

Hehehe, I have 20Mbps fiber which I am sure SBC and Comcast are not too happy about, but they can kiss my big black ass! As hard as it might be, we can only wish more small companies such as Surewest will be able to steal away customers from the behemoths.

Re:Carriers are paranoid, and rightly so

[killjoe]

Your govt is for sale to the highest bidder and you are worried aobut the latency for your online games?

Re:Carriers are paranoid, and rightly so

[G-funk]

And that my friend, is why their government is still for sale. Of course our governments will follow suit, and they're the only ones that still have guns, so pity us, not them.

Re:Carriers are paranoid, and rightly so

[joaobranco]

Yeah, but for how long? Assuming the telcos can really blackmail content providers into paying them for delivery, your local company will be facing even a bigger struggle than it does today: its competitors will be earning a lot more for the same task...

Re:Carriers are paranoid, and rightly so

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the possibility of telcos losing money due to their actions? There are alot of companies that are going to fight this, and if these companies make big enough of a deal about it, then the telcos might not be able to implement these policies, or eventually start losing customers because of it.

the old-fashioned way

[shmlco]

I suggest we resolve such disputes the old-fashioned way. Two opposing lobbyists with unreconcilable differences would pace off thirty paces, turn, take aim, and fire. Winner takes all.

At the very least, we'd halve the number of available lobbyists... and if successful we could apply it to CEOs, lawyers, and politicians.

Re:the old-fashioned way

[Guysmiley777]

What do you do when a lobbyist plays both sides of an issue to different people?

Re:the old-fashioned way

[Anonymous Coward]

Make him shoot himself. Everybody wins!

Re:the old-fashioned way

[jpardey]

I think a modern method would be more appropriate. Find an underground nuke test site, give each lobbyist an H-bomb, and twenty paces. Winner takes all. This method would work fairly well on the afformentioned CEOs, etc, as well. And the efficiency rate is double!

Re:the old-fashioned way

[shmlco]

We're talking about paid lobbyists, not presidents.

Re:the old-fashioned way

[cyber-vandal]

Russian roulette.

The machine changes hands...

[TheNoxx]

Whenever the structure of power and technology changes, there is a brief opening window to actually implement good change. I would advise that people up their efforts of letter writing and such to Capitol Hill, as the newly refashioned, malleable nature of the machine makes it vulnerable to ensuring good.

Re:The machine changes hands...

[epee1221]

A legislator's duty to represent his people has been replaced with the goal of being reelected. There is little incentive to follow the constituents' views on most issues because the constituents won't vote based on them. Unless it looks likely that anyone in Congress is likely to lose their seat because of their actions regarding granting monopolistic power to telecoms, they'll keep doing it because that's where they can get money (to fund their election campaigns, thus helping them achieve their real goal). The new balance of power may help, but I'd say term limits would be more effective (due to the elimination of most of the "career politicians").

MOD PARENT UP! [Re:Lobbyists are just bad]

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful++

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[NitsujTPU]

The issue at hand is the use of a multi-tiered network model that charges a premium for superior service.

So, the telephone company might have a "consumer" tier, where consumers pay for Internet access, and then a "commercial" and a "really expensive." On top of that, you might split the network... high speed media lines with fast downstream, but slow upstream.

It's completely different from censoring out certain websites because they have "freedom" written on them.

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[saskboy]

"Company shitting all over US law = BAD COMPANY! NO! STAY!
Company shitting all over China law = GO DEMOCRACY!"

I think maybe you misunderstood me. Google is the hypocrite here, they are in the USA saying that carrier control of the Internet will stifle capitalism [which most people equate with democracy]. Yet just this week in China they were willing to censor the world's Internet content that they are [essentially the monoploy] carrier of.

How exactly is my view of this hypocritical, and why isn't Google's as you see it?

Worst idea since internet tax....

[ShyGuy91284]

I still hope they prevent this from happening. I'd be rather pissed off if I have a personal site from my own server for my resume, pictures, or whatever anyone would use an internet server for (maybe even a site....), and no one can get to it because large companies are hogging bandwidth. And then calling the company that hosts me, and hearing "Do you have $2000 a year to give us? That's what company x gave us, so they get more bandwidth". All I see this as is a way to shift the equal ground on the internet that allows small businesses to have a website to a more restricted and costly advertising/service like TV advertising. If a company has a good product, they can start and market it online (like Google at first). But with this, it would probably be fairly difficult to start up unless you had a lot of cash to guarantee your service will get bandwidth.

Re:Worst idea since internet tax....

[rolfwind]

It's also double dipping and fraudulent advertising - customers of ISPs pay for the internet - not VersizonNet(TM), SBCNet(TM), etcetear.

Re:Worst idea since internet tax....

[jc42]

... customers of ISPs pay for the internet - not VersizonNet(TM), SBCNet(TM), etcetear.

And it's perhaps worthwhile to point out once again that the Internet wasn't built by big telecom corporations. It was developed almost entirely with US government funding, mostly from the Defense Department. Their funding went mostly to academia and a lot of small startup companies, because they understod very well that the big corporations were unwilling to develop the sort of network they wanted.

It's really another case of innovation coming from small developers with government funding; when it's successful, the big corporations sweep in take control of something profitable that they didn't have to pay for.

Of course, the big telecoms are as powerful as they are because the government helped set up their legal monopolies. But "the government" isn't monolithic; it's made up of lots of semi-independent organizations that mostly don't know what the others are doing. Your local government agency that gives a specific telecom giant control of that one wire coming into your house is not the same government agency that funded all those geeks to create the Internet. Those agencies' goals were and are rather different.

This governmental disorganization is the main thing that let the Internet appear in the 1970s and 1980s. Without it, the DoD would have funded AT&T to build the ARPAnet, and we'd still have a total comms monopoly. So we should concentrate on the benefits of this disorganization, and encourage extending it into the private economy. Then we might have a bit of competition, and the corporations will have to give us better service for our money.

Re:Worst idea since internet tax....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that this is a bad idea at all.

Companies should have the right to pay more for better performance. Its called traffic shaping, and its what every good system administrator should be doing anyway.

When you download a huge video file, can you read your email without performance loss? A good traffic shaper would give priority to small transfers and delay long bulky transfers.

Shouldn't important data (in this case time sensitive, because no one likes to sit and wait to read email) have a higher priority?

Don't we judge the importance of data by how much we spend?

A good ISP would do the same. Charging money for traffic shaping benefits us all.

How many of you are running a free ISP or evey used on like Net Zero? The $10 a month for a real ISP is worth the headaches of a free ISP.

For my web site, I spend a lot of time trying to get my applications to deliver data to the user faster. It would be nice to just pay a bit more to do that.

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[Cheapy]

"How exactly is my view of this hypocritical"

Because you are posting anti-Google things on Slashdot. ;)

Guaranteed Fast Delivery?

[drooling-dog]

The wording of this post is already allowing "them" to change the terms of the debate to their advantage. Will the carriers really be charging for guaranteed fast delivery, or extorting money from internet companies to avoid artificial delays?

Re:Guaranteed Fast Delivery?

[HiroProtagonist]

They're framing the argument well to be sure. But the fact of the matter is, that technology marches on, and these telcos will do exactly what they've always done, charge more for the high end due to "equipment costs" and allow the low end and it's equipment to get older, and comparatively slower & slower.

They want their pound of flesh from the consumer and they're not about to give that gravy train up.

Re:Am I the only one?

[skayell]

It really isn't as simple as that. Having spent 20 years in the industry (until I burned out, not just with a spark, but with a spectacular flame), one must really take into account the entire industry. Not just that of the dot.coms, but the whole telecommunications industry. There is no room, in the governments' minds (Sorry, Bill - your administration, too) for those who would change the status quo. Whether it's Google or SBC or whomever, the administrations all seem to back the big names. Safer? Maybe. More lucrative? (on the side of course) Certainly. Don't expect fairness. Expect to get screwed and you won't be disappointed. Singed, Been there, done that, need the vaseline 'cause I've been screwed...

Re:Am I the only one?

[Duhavid]

I thought they meant that the capital building was at a higher elevation that previously.

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[saskboy]

It's not completely different, actually it's just an economic barrier to service instead of a technological or political one like Google is implementing with China's government.

Do you think the average poor sap on AOL is going to invest or even know to invest in premium Internet tiers? A tiered Internet will be as good as a censored one.

So, youse internet guys

[Maxo-Texas]

If you want "protection" from those telecom boys, you going to need to pony up some cash to us in the Congress gang.

lobbying will only become more prolific

[Dr Kool, PhD]

Thanks to the Incumbent Protection Act of 2002, AKA The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, corporations and individuals can no longer freely express their opinions of candidates using the public airwaves. Therefore those who wish to influence public policy hire lobbyists to influence those already elected rather than trying to elect candidates who fall on their side of the political spectrum.

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[NitsujTPU]

No man, it's completely different.

The dude on AOL will get whatever service plan AOL bought from the telphone company.

He'll receive all of the same content, it just might come a bit slower.

It's a completely different issue. One is censorship, where content actually isn't available, the other has to do with the ability of the providers of the network infastructure to charge rate plans based on priorities placed on packets going over the network. You still get all of the content.

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

If you have anything anti-Google/Apple/Linux/BSD or pro-Microsoft, then get the fuck out of here.

We don't want to hear it.

I guess they need more say

[jerryodom]

With Congress demanding private information from these companies I suppose someone has to tell them why it is or isn't a good idea to do certain things. Having Google just hand over log data probably looks like a perfectly harmless thing to some of these 50+ year old Senators who know jack about the Internet.

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[saskboy]

"You still get all of the content."

So you're telling me that someone on dialup can still get good service like downloading the new Ubuntu Linux, as well as their broadband cousin? Some things will just be out of reach for all but the extremely crafty or determined, and it will be an economic barrier where a technological barrier no longer should exist.

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[NitsujTPU]

Someone on dial-up can't get Ubuntu as well as their broadband cousin now. This bit of action on the part of the telephone companies wouldn't change that.

The guy with dialup can't download Ubuntu as well as their broadband cousin because the dialup line can't carry that bandwidth.

I really don't see what you're driving at now. Are you arguing that subscribing to a dialup provider is to voluntarily submit to a form of Internet censorship?

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[saskboy]

" partly in an effort to push legislation that would prevent telephone companies from charging Internet companies for guaranteed fast delivery of Internet content."

Bandwidth or QoS, I really don't see the difference as a consumer. Both will make certain Internet connections undesirable and other ones desirable. The companies who can control who gets which type of connection will be able to control the message since the "media is the message". Censorship in other words can be accomplished by withholding service to certain groups when the technology is available to provide equal service to all groups.

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[NitsujTPU]

Under that argument, I'm being prevented from driving fast by an Illuminati hell-bent on my destruction. They place high prices on sports cars, after all.

4 more years?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is sad that this story doesn't surprise me. In fact, back when Bush stole the election from Al Gore, I explained to my republican friends that its not that I'm so much for Gore, but every ounce of my being is against Bush. The country would have been in good hands with Gore and none of the bullshit we've seen come to pass would have occurred. And I'm not talking about 9/11, I'm talking about our childlessly impotent response to 9/11 and the subsequent sacrifice of 1000's of American lives and countless Iraqi lives by Bush under the guise of a lie.

I gasp when I hear anyone suggest that the Monica Lewinsky "scandal" amounted to more than stealing from a cookie jar and lying about it- when Bush lies to us daily, spies on us, and breaks our laws; setup to keep the government from doing just that.

If you want to argue about this, please don't bother- I'm not hanging around for responses. Like the rest of the country, I'm tired of this guy being in office and I'm ready to split the country in half and move if my half has to have him as president. I'd be happy to give the religious right their own country and leaders because I don't want them in my life. The scary thing is that they'd probably immediately declare war on the other half because the last thing the extreme republicans and the religious right want is freedom of religion and beliefs in the world. I sometimes believe such a war is coming...just like the middle east, we can't escape these morons whose belief in imaginary deities cause them to butt into the lives of others and attempt to legislate their religious edicts into law. Whether you're talking about the Taliban or Bush Administration, both hope to legislate their religious beliefs and both are a threat to freedom.

You know what really bothers me? People will turn their heads the other way when this hits all the papers. "So what if Bush tries to silence scientists...its bad, but what am I going to do about it?" What you can do about it is vote for Democrats in the coming election so we can get enough seats to boot this guy based SOLELY on the countless laws he has broken. Donate money to the DNC. Throw out your politics, just count the number of laws he admits he has broken, but claims authority to break in the name of the American people! No President is above the law. If the president can break the law, then we have no law and he's not the President and we owe no allegiance to him- because the law is the only thing that makes him the President. Once he shows us that the law means nothing to him, he ceases to be the President of the United States. I don't care if he is "protecting the american people". The American people don't need a King who protects us- we had that- and we delcared independance and wrote our own constitution.

We are not going back to a ruler who thinks they know better than our laws. Impeach today.

Re:4 more years?

[jc42]

I'm tired of this guy being in office and I'm ready to split the country in half and move if my half has to have him as president. I'd be happy to give the religious right their own country and leaders because I don't want them in my life.

Sorry; it doesn't work that way. Religious people have a long history of being rather dangerous to their neighbors. If we split the US into a Christian half and a secular half, the religous folks' main project would be "converting" the immoral secular state. They wouldn't do it peacefully.

Read a bit of history. A religious state next door does not make you safe. We're much better off with a big social mess, with people of all types. Then we stand a chance of keeping the religious groups divided and fighting each other, and it's less likely that they'll come after you.

And media pundits

[quokkapox]

The Republicans are all over it.

I'm starting to think....

[Statecraftsman]

that politics.slashdot.org is their most important subdomain.

Politics is what happens when more than 2 people get together to do something. At this point there are a whole lot more than 2 people on the internet and controlling the wires and running the servers and administering the routers.

It's time the bloggers and the users of the internet start lobbying for themselves....no not buying golfing trips but educating congress, educating the administrative branch, and educating the judiciary. Only through education can our government regulate the internet that they(Al Gore) created. Only through education can the internet's contribution to free society and the efficient spread of information be fully realized.

Re:I'm starting to think....

[nathanh]

It's time the bloggers and the users of the internet start lobbying for themselves....no not buying golfing trips but educating congress, educating the administrative branch, and educating the judiciary. Only through education can our government regulate the internet that they(Al Gore) created. Only through education can the internet's contribution to free society and the efficient spread of information be fully realized.

Pfft, education doesn't work. You're living in a fantasy world. The only way to influence politics is with bribes aka political donations. If you can't match the oppositions bribes then start a revolution, because you've got buckley's chance of changing the outcome any other way.

Re:I'm starting to think....

[thedletterman]

I'm just curious as to what you educate the judiciary about? I'll relent, that there's alot of people that could slam some common sense into politicians, but I see little room to educate Judges, they seem pretty up to snuff on legal issues to me.. well except that guy who sentanced the child rapist to 2 years in prison.

Nine more months

[quokkapox]

All this nonsense from our current leaders is really coming to a head, like a boil. Nine more months until we get to lance it on the first Tuesday after the first Monday this coming November.

Homework assignment: by November, find out who's currently in office, if you don't already know. So you can vote for the other candidate.

I think a lot of senators and representatives are going to find out just what blowback means.

But of course, a terrorist attack or another bin Laden tape might come at just in time to alter the outcome of the elections.

Re:Nine more months

[Anonymous Coward]

Nine more months until we get to lance it on the first Tuesday after the first Monday this coming November.

Naah. In six months the next Bin Laden missive is released with suspicious timing and you'll all be cowering behind mommy's skirts and voting the current set of criminals back into power.

I wish it weren't true but we all know what will happen. (Really does make you think that old Osama is still an active US agent doesn't it?)

Stop Legislating!

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy fucktards, Batman!

We don't need more laws. That's a fallacy. Look, BS came out with a pathetic scheme to charge content providers. Content providers told them to buzz off. It's done!

It's the legislation that screws things up, far more often than get them right. Telecoms want legislative permission. Content providers now want legislative protection. It's a crock, because "in the market" the fight is already over. People who think they can legislate political favors are the ones who, after being defeated "in the market," turn around and try to fight in another arena: legislation.

It's been done thousands of times and the people are almost never better off because of it.

(At the very best, the "internet firms" could keep a war chest to prevent legislation. However, they most certainly do not need to enact legislation.)

Who is John Galt?

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[Anonymous Coward]

Such presumption! He is not necessarily a hypocrite.

Some people believe in the principle of only following just laws, for an unjust law is no law at all.

Or would you support unjust laws by barking at dissenters? Oh, right, we have our answer. Grrr, baby. Very grrr.

Just you all wait...

[chaoticgeek]

Well when I get a wee bit older then I will run and you all can vote for me :). Brandon aka nugget Give me about 10-15 years though before I am old enough to run for Prez or Senate.

that would require honor

[Anonymous Coward]

something that its missing in modern day USA (perhaps it was never there and you are still cowboys), being a coward and a charletan seems to be the most popular option in DC thesedays

Clash of the Titans!

[Classic Novels]

It might seem Google is fighting for sanity, but really all they care about is their bottom line. Tomorrow they might be lobbying on behalf of stuff that is negative for users. When competing commercial interests fight, what happens to the little guy?

You might say it's great if Godzilla and Kong fight it out, but remember, either of them might squash you without even noticing!

Re:Clash of the Titans!

[rickbender1940]

Yeah, there's no real reason to expect that tech will be any different than the myriad corporate sleazeballs buying congresscritters. They might start all noble but where will it end?

How Aggressive will they be?

[putko]

How aggressive will Ebay, Amazon and Google be?

Will they just want to keep the current favorable sales tax treatment, unregulated selling (of tchochke) between individuals and keep network neutrality of internet connections?

Or do they want more stuff -- which might in the end be bad for consumers.

Normally you get your office in DC due to a threat. After you deal with the threat, you've got an "organ" set up that can try to get more stuff from DC -- so that's what you do.

Even the telecoms, in the beginning, had no lobbyists. They were small and scrappy -- high growth businesses. At some point they perceived entrenched powers as the threat to their services. Perhaps the post office, or messenger services.

Now the telecoms spend more on lobbying than any of us can imagine. A truly disgusting state of affairs -- for consumers. It is good for expensive DC restaurants though.

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[gkhan1]

You totally miss the point here. You take a far to idealism way, way to far, and in the process, you are abandoning realism.

You say that Google is essentially the monopoly carrier for information. That is simply not true, especially not in China. There are tons of search engines which produce results that, while perhaps not as brilliant as Google, are certainly good enough for 99% of all searches. In China, this is even more true. Do you know what the 4th most visited site on the internet is? A hint: It's not in english. Just because google is biggest, does not mean it has the monopoly on information.

Now, there is the matter of wheter google should have censored it's results. People are saying that it is in blatant disregard for the "Do No Evil" policy, and it is, as you say, hypocritical. It's not, it really isn't. The googleblog explains this quite well. The only other argument that i've heard is that google should not be laying down to insane Chinese censorship laws, that they should Fight The Evil Chinese Government, and Stand Up For Freedom, Democracy, and Puppies Everywhere. But you know what, that is not for Google to do. Do you think a damn thing would change if Google refused to censor, and would be itself censored in China? No, not a damn thing (as there are Chinese replacements who don't even tell you that stuff is being censored). It shouldn't be the companies who force humanitarian change. It's not the role of Google to make the world better, because they can't! They say that they will collect and organize all the worlds information, and they will do so without resorting to evil practices.

Are you saying that, in addition to that, they should also rid the world of evil?

Get of your ideological high horse, and come live in the real world

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[wfberg]

There's a difference between shitting over laws and working lawfully to change those laws. The latter includes, in democratic countries, a whole lot of activities, including lobbying. In China, there being a distinct lack of democratic process, the opportunities for lawfully working within the system to change laws is fairly limited. Not that they are non-existant - even the tyranny isn't perfect. So you can choose to either leave their country completely and give up the tiny bit of bargaining power you DO have, or stay there and play by their rules, and gradually get yourself more leeway.

The Chinese aren't necessarily against such gradual change. It's one reason for the "one country, two systems" policy which embraces some (but not all) of Hong Kong's civil liberties and most economical liberties, as well as the Special Economic Zones.

Chinese leadership is, probably rightfully so, scared shitless of revolution though. They have had their share of ones gone wrong.

This is in no way a defense of Chinese policies, but you might get some feeling of where they're coming from, and which approach is most likely to actually change the country in a beneficial manner. Pulling out entirely accomplishes nothing. Staying in at least gives you a fighting chance at changing things one at a time.

Of course, google's motives may still be entirely evil. Who's to say.

Re:Maybe not

[masklinn]

Yes, me thinks corporations should have the rights to own slaves, and anyone should be able to become a slave by will or force.

Bright future ahead

I will control the air

[aplusjimages]

Joe, I'm currently working on controlling the air, so don't worry about that. Very soon it will be like living on Mars in the movie "Total Recall" starring Governor Arnold.

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is not censoring content in China. The Chinese Gov't is censoring content. Google is filtering search results.

Think of the internet as a book. Google is the index. Google has removed some parts of the index. Google did not take a marker and black out content.

WE ARE THE COMPANIES

[a_greer2005]

I see some here saying that "the companies" shouldnt lobby, but cho owns the companies? I would say that a great majority here have a stake in Goog, MSFT, Walmart, Bell South, Verizon and other "evil big companies" via investment vehicals like retierment plans, and mutual funds. If these xompanies didnt make money, a lot of people would be worse off.

I dont support some actions of major companies, but they are owned by a LOT of people, not just the C*O.

The building trades

[musselm]

"A telecom lawyer hired by Google last summer to build the company's Washington office"

Multi-talented individual: attorney by day, carpenter by night.

Corporations don't have first amendment rights.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Without strong govt you will be ruled by monopolies.

Without governmnet you would not have corporations.

Their very existence is a creation of government - the birthing of a pseudo-person, with a subset of the rights and privileges of a human, and the rasising of a wall between the actions of that pseudo-person and drains on the pocketbooks of those who invest in it and control its actions from liability suits by those its actions harm.

Unlike actual human beings, corporations themselves do not have first amendment rights. Only their investors, officers, and employees have those. The corporation itself - and employees of it when acting or speaking for it - only have privileges granted by the government, and these are revokable by governmental laws and rules. (This is why, for instance, there are weeks of "silent period" before each quarterly report, when it is a crime for the corporate "insiders" - officers and employees with internal knowlege - are forbidden to comment on the company's business.)

If congress wishes to ban corporations from hiring lobbyists and directing employees to speak to congressmen on the company's behalf, as I understand it they are welcome to do so. The corporation would then be dependent on the voluntary lobbying of the investors and employees.

So far Congress has apparently not seen fit to attempt this. Whether this is a wise move to avoid creating another set of unintended consequences (as corporate officials find devious ways to speak out on the company dime), an unwillingness to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, or both, is unclear.

Re:Corporations don't have first amendment rights.

[killjoe]

"Without governmnet you would not have corporations."

That's not true. Maybe it's technically true in every country (including the weak ones) corporations exist because they are an efficient means of trade with the rest of the world.

"Unlike actual human beings, corporations themselves do not have first amendment rights."

Not according to the Supreme court. Makes one think, if corporations have first amendment rights, don't they have second amendment rights?

"If congress wishes to ban corporations from hiring lobbyists and directing employees to speak to congressmen on the company's behalf, as I understand it they are welcome to do so."

NO they can not. See above. Corporations do have first amendment rights. The supreme court said so.

My ISP can't reach Google

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not worried consumers won't be able to reach Google.

Maybe they should be worried. My cellular Internet service can't use Google.

Eisenhower was right...

[dw09577]

From a blog series written a while ago in disgust to this whole situation:

This posting is part of a series from a speech made in 1961 by then-president Eisenhower. It accurately warns the citizens of the Untied States of the times to come, the time when the military and sociological agenda of the Untied States would be dictated by military industry. At the time, this was corporate America. In modern times, this speech rings painfully true as an unheeded warning to the level of control corporate America now holds on our country.

I have chosen to go back to this era, as it seems to be 'where it all went wrong' in modern America. You will never hear these types of warnings again, as it seems that corporate America has finally purchased its way to the top. In reality, it is my sincere hope that this speech inspires any readers of this blog to stand up for what is right, for what they believe in, and to refuse to let the power of money over-run your own sense of morality.

The fears of President Eisenhower to date have been, and are currently being realized. When asking yourself what happened to the United States of the Moon missions, Norman Rockwell, apple pie, etc., consider this speech as it was in 1961: a warning of what was to come.

I post this speech not as a criticism of our current government, but as a criticism of the control it has allowed itself to fall under, and the losses, both physical and ideological, which we have suffered.

Intro
Eisenhower's speech, in 7 parts

and yes, it is a blog, but a good speech nonetheless.

Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not hippocritical because they're following the system. The US is (supposedly) an open democracy featuring a market economy. This means that the rules are always open for appeal. Furthermore, Google not giving up the names to the government is only happening because in their interpreation of the law at hand, they're acting properly not cooperating to the government request. In China, there is no interpretation, no grey zone... It's quite clear that if you want to provide content to their citizens, you have to filter it accordingly. If the US were to have the same law and stance I'm sure Google would have acted accordingly.

Although I personally disagree with the Chineese stance and as a private person would like to help the people there have a choice, I'm not so self righteous that I would destroy their government. if the people there want to be subversive and try to change their government, I'm more than happy to help them as I believe their cause. But who am I to directly act against their government? For all I know, for every 1 chineese that wants an open society there are 99 who like it the way it is and want to keep it that way (I happen to have been there long enough to know it's not the case) but nevertheless... Get off your moral highstool!