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.'"

19 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Lobbyists are just bad by Rooked_One · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. ;(

    1. Re:Lobbyists are just bad by Kickboy12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Lobbyists are just bad by c0dedude · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?
    3. Re:Lobbyists are just bad by Neoprofin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Lobbyists are just bad by Nugget · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.
    5. Re:Lobbyists are just bad by Nugget · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Lobbyists are just bad by blair1q · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Lobbyists are just bad by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  2. Ironic by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China by saskboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    " 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.
  4. Google + Lawyers by bloggins02 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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...

  5. Carriers are paranoid, and rightly so by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  6. the old-fashioned way by shmlco · · Score: 4, Funny
    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.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  7. The machine changes hands... by TheNoxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China by saskboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.
  9. Guaranteed Fast Delivery? by drooling-dog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  10. lobbying will only become more prolific by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  11. 4 more years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. I'm starting to think.... by Statecraftsman · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.