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

[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

[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.

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?

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.

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: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?

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?

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.

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.