Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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?
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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").
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
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.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
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
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
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.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.