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.'"
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. ;(
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.
" 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?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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.
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...
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.
At the very least, we'd halve the number of available lobbyists... and if successful we could apply it to CEOs, lawyers, and politicians.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
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.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
"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?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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?
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.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
If you want "protection" from those telecom boys, you going to need to pony up some cash to us in the Congress gang.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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.
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.
For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.
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.
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.
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.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
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_
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 dont support some actions of major companies, but they are owned by a LOT of people, not just the C*O.
Intro
Eisenhower's speech, in 7 parts
and yes, it is a blog, but a good speech nonetheless.