Slashdot Mirror
How Washington Will Shape the Internet
WebHostingGuy writes "As reported by MSNBC, 'The most potent force shaping the future of the Internet is neither Mountain View's Googleplex nor the Microsoft campus in Redmond. It's rather a small army of Gucci-shod lobbyists on Washington's K Street and the powerful legislators whose favor they curry.' The article examines several pieces of legislation and lobbying initiatives which are poised to affect you and your rights online. Topics covered include Net Neutrality, fiber to the home, the Universal Service Fund, codecs, and WiFi bandwidth usage." From the article: "After years of benign neglect, the Federal government is finally involved in the Internet — big time. And the decisions being made over the next few months will impact not just the future of the Web, but that of mass media and consumer electronics as well. Yet it's safe to say that far more Americans have heard about flag burning than the laws that may soon reshape cyberspace."
.....we won't see ONE permissive regulation. We'll see MANY restrictive regulations. If lawmaking comes to the internet, I for one am looking forward to the next big thing.
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is subject to Bigguv'ment trying to screw it up.
Any technology vulnerable to governmental and corporate interference is insufficiently advanced.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
but the US implying laws on internet usage will not completely change the internet. The rest of the world won't just follow along, and you'll find hi-tech companies moving to companies that are more forgiving to their line of business.
This article was broad, but shallow. It buys into and repeats a whole lot of common misconceptions. For example, it phrases the net neutrality debate as wanting to charge different prices for "complex" and "simple" data, using VoIP and e-mail as examples. This is completely wrong. This is about charging money to people who are not your network peers for not intentionally slowing down traffic from particular, wealthy, people, groups, or organizations despite the fact that that traffic is otherwise identical to other traffic. Networks 5 peers away want to extort money from google for not intentionally crippling traffic to them and not to MSN search or Yahoo.
They also parrot the whole DRM as an anti-piracy measure. Everyone knows it fails miserably in that area. It is a content access control, so they can use differential pricing using regions and so they can charge you for the same content for different locations and devices. Anyone can point a camcorder at a TV screen and then upload it to the Web or make DVDs. Then, the masses can download it or buy it. What they can't do is easily move music they paid for from their Creative player to their iPod, car stereo, and CD player.
It is pretty sad that marketing dollars can speak loudly enough that even supposed technically competent reporters just spew out the same crap that they have heard over and over again. What ever happened to critical thinking and investigation?
On "Net Neutrality:"
...If the Googles of the world win, the network owners will undoubtedly figure out some other way to raise prices.
No matter which way it goes, it means a new element of government regulation. And as far as who pays to build out the networks -- in the end, one way or another, most of the costs will still be passed on to the consumer.
It pits network owners such as Verizon and AT&T against the companies who buy their bandwidth, such as Google and Amazon, and it hinges on whether the network owners can charge extra to deliver certain kinds of bits -- bill more for streaming video, for example, than simpler data like text e-mail.
My question is this, if it's simply about building and upgrading networks and the costs will be ultimately be passed on to the customer, why not just raise rates to those that purchase bandwidth accross the board? Why add the overhead of lobbying Congress to COMPLICATE the process of selling bandwidth?
Its a very worrying time (as someone who makes his lving doing web-related stuff) when it comes to the net and government regulation. Its frought on all sides with peril - government letting corporations do whatever they want can be just as dangerous as governments coming in and dictating what goes on. There is a narrow path on which government can walk and not hurt innovation and consumers. I dont think they'll be able to pull it off.
What astounds me is how bad google, MS, etc. are at lobbying. It seems like google and MS should be winning and not losing (as my current perception leads me to believe).
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
...... Someone says "I for one welcome our new overlords," but I guess they've been around since 9/11 haven't they and this is just an extension of that.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Yep, flag-burning is a wedge issue. The purpose is not only to distract, but to create a meaningless* issue that can will unify (a majority of) people into an us-vs-them voting bloc.
"Family Values" comes to mind... as does embryonic stem-cell research, etc.
*Meaningless as in politically meaningless -- I don't mean to deride the value of a lot of these issues on a personal or even local level. When the nuts and bolts are counted, these wedge issues mean nothing in the big picture of what it is that Congress/POTUS actually does.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Now, If verizon is allowed to start sending media down that fibre line, I think it should be fair that any other Company or Startup (new Media Broadcaster??) should be allowed to do the same to complete
Theoretically that is the case now. It is one of the things that they are trying hard to change. Realistically, unless you have big bucks to fight it out in court, the phone company will refuse to comply with smaller businesses requests to use the lines. After much work I had the provider I chose for DSL tell me that they just could not get access and I'd have to go with the local monopoly if I really needed a DSL.
Also, last I checked, doesn't the gov subsidise the majority of the costs to lay the initial infrastructure, so the telcos should not be whining about incuring such major costs.
Yes, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to date.
It's all part of God's plan to move all successful business to India.
Yes, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to date.Not just direct subsidization... government also subsidizes them by granting them monopoly rights. This allows the telcos to charge more to the consumer than we'd likely have to pay in a competitive market.
It's one thing to pay for the infrastructure out of tax dollars. It's quite another to then have no choice of who uses that publically-financed infrastructure.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
And don't try to blame the Democrats. This is bought and paid for with large cash donations, the vast bulk of which go to Republican lawmakers, who close the loop by hiring K Street lobbyists as staff. You can try to deflect blame by suggesting that if Dems were in power they'd be getting the millions, but that ignores the reality that they're not, and Republicans are the ones ramming sweetheart legislation through Congress for Bellsouth. Republican corruption in action.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Soon, the internet will be rendered a privilage in which you need a license to access. We've seen it happen with roads, its only a matter of time before it happens to the net. Also prepare for internet taxes.
Honestly, I don't understand how a conservative government can increase the size of government this much, and ask for internet regulations, I mean it does not follow the philosophy at all. Am I the only libertarian here?
When law making comes to the internet, another internet will be invented, just not anytime soon. My advice is, start the planning stages for the next internet, and then when there is the will to bring it forward, bring it forward. Let's just admit once and for all that it must have been Al Gore who gave us the internet, he did not invent it, but he handed it so us. Before that, the masses didnt know what the internet is, and the masses won't know what the next internet us when us geeks invent or find it, hey we mmight already have it.
Well, maybe that's the reason why somebody set you up the bomb.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
To bring this back OT, let's not forget it was President Clinton who signed CIPA into law imposing on libraries and schools the duty to block "obscene material," which for some years helped fuel widespread use of censorware. The idea of a free Net has much to fear from all American politicians, particularly in our pandering age.
to avoid damaged segments, such as any US restrictions.
In an interconnected world where China has more Net users than the US, and so does the EU, one country standing in defiance of the Net is like a small earthen dam trying to constrain the massive tsunami that will either go around it, go over it, or crush it beneath its massive weight of inevitability.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Oh, look. Online fraud is the only thing they're not planning on strangling in the crib. Shock, surprise...
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Discussing politics is fine, but whats the point in discussing national politics? All of these issues are local, REALLY local.
If you don't want big federal government, why did you vote for it? This goes for Democrats and Republicans. Federal government is big under EITHER party. Most of us internet geeks seem to be libertarians, and as a result we can't feel comfortable in either party.
In the Democratic party of old ideas, we hear them discussing going back to the days of FDR, and that is completely unrealistic. The Republican party always talks about tax cuts, and smaller government, but somehow government is bigger than ever?
I think we need to drastically cut taxes, maybe go with just the sales tax, or even the negative income tax. There are a lot of ways to reform the tax system that will make EVERYONE happy. Once the tax system is reformed, and you can get more of your own money, that is how we all benefit. Social programs are a thing of the past, they worked when the population was smaller globally and nationally, they worked when we werent consuming this much, but time is running out and some changes have to be made.
You and I may never live to see social security, so why fight to save it if by the time we get it the world isnt going to exist and none of us will be here? I'd rather recieve the tax cuts and invest it.
This type of issue, requires a lot more creative touch in my opinion, than simply coming up with old ideas. We need revolutionary ideas to save the internet, and if you do not have them, then dedicate your brain power into creating the next internet. I do not think video franchising is the kind of idea that is revolutionary. Open Source was a revolutionary idea, maybe we should contact Richard Stallman and see what he has to say. Maybe we need a new set of internet protocols? The wiring is not the issue here, the issue here is an issue of how the internet is modeled.
The next internet for sure won't be modeled anything like this one. The client server model is what lead to this. When you model the internet in a slave/master type of frame work, the result you get is a top down internet hierarchy. Beyond the protocols, the technology itself is also top down. I think all of this will change eventually when the technology adapts and becomes smaller, but this issue is a lot more complicated than simply, legal. In fact, legalese language is meaningless in the long term. It's always about design.
If you do want to think of legal language, the language itself has to be strategicially designed. The invention of the internet will go down in history as being as important as the invention of the constitution or the bill of rights. Of course it was not going to last forever, but you have to put the internet itself into historical context.
If you had any idea how this world works, you'd see that the economy is global, and when the economy is global, what is happening in the US is happening everywhere. The new laws get tested on the US population first, and then exported to our trading partners. The countries which don't accept our rules, well we know what happens to them. So I don't see your point.
I'm not saying the world population will go along with it, but the decision makers are all on the same team, and all profit together. Do you really think that lawmakers in the US are going to pass laws that the world leaders do not accept? The laws that get passed are precisely the laws that world leaders want passed.
Global opinion is not the same as Global leadership or Global decision making, or Global economics. The global economy is somewhat planned out in advance, the rules are decided on, there is a world bank, a world trade organization, and economic leaders meet to discuss these topics. So if we are discussing it now, they discussed it months or years ago and made decisions on it already.
Really...the anything goes wild wild west anarchy internet is a *complete total threat to governments all over the planet and large corporations*. Everything about the current and past model is a threat to them. It's a threat to their rule, (they call it governing but it really is rule-technofuedalism) a threat to their money(your money is their money by default), the way they want power over you politically or economically, etc. All of it. So..apply occam's razor and some extrapolation-what do you think will happen? What this article says-and more.
It is about inevitable they will slice it up into something that looks like a combo of your cellphone bill and cable TV bill. You'll be seeing a large number of "nets" and be forced into "subscribing" to one or another-think a lot of different closed up walled garden type AOL experiences. And be paying through the nose to go outside that area-or be denied totally. And they'll be completely happy if 95% get herded into their control more, they'll pick off the other 5% at their leisure and when it suits their purposes. No one is completely leet enough to avoid it if they get a notion to mess up your day. No one.
He speaks the truth.
Armies of lobbyists and lawyers go into the Rayburn building and across the hill to cow legislators. It's not a partisan issue-- it's a Jack Welch/We're Big And Here's Our Army To Prove It posture.
Look at where the lobbying dollars and perks are spent, and by whom. Then mod the parent up as he/she's absolutely on target. This isn't about common sense, this is about re-writing the Telecom Act of 1935 (as amended) and pulling back decades of consumer-focused legal decisions and legislation to one specific end:
THE TELCOs. IT's THE MONEY, STUPID. FOLLOW IT AND FIND THE ABYSS OF YOUR ONCE FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
You can vote as much as you want, I'll tell you this. If you are a consumer, you only have the right to consume. Thus the label consumer, because you consume and consume. Your opinions do not matter, if your opinions mattered the politicians would be meeting with you and asking you for your opinions.
If you really worked for a politician like you say, you'd know that the average voter has little to no influence on what deals are made between leaders. If you want in, then get in, join the club, work for the company, invest! If you want, start an investment club.
Just talking about politics will change absolutely nothing. Politicians do not care about our opinions. The have experts to tell them what to care about, they have pollsters to tell them what our opinions are, and they can shape our opinions when they don't like what our opinions are. In the end, it's ultimately just about money. You can buy influence, you can buy politicians, you can buy just about any favor. It's about favors.
Teleco companies are VERY VERY powerful, they have infinite leverage over any politician. The telecos know everything, and had these abilities before the whole NSA wiretap scandal, so what politician is going to challenge the big telcos, or big oil? I wouldnt, you wouldnt, and a politician wouldnt for the same reasons we wont.
The best thing you can do is work with these big powerful corporate entities, and try to make policies which in a give and take fashion, where you make deals. If you expect to be a politician, it's a dirty business, it's a VERY dirty business, but ultimately it is a business, and the way to be successful is to do business with big business.
If you actually think you can be involved in politics, and that Google has more influence than telephone and oil companies, you are insane. The hardware companies have more influence than the software companies. The phone companies have more influence than the hardware companies. The energy companies have influence over ALL companies.
If you were smart, take an economics class and see how society is organized.
The telcos seem to be setting themselves up for lawsuits down the road. Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, said today in a press release that all of this is about "hypothetical business plans" and thus shouldn't be addressed now.
If Net Neutrality isn't addressed proactively then we will see it end up in the courts where some activist judge could potentially really mess up the internet.
The best thing that could happen at this point would be for the telcos to come out and openly debate the merits of their Tiering plans instead of using front groups and lobbyist, short of that the next best thing might be some form of legislation.
But the worst thing to do would be to do nothing and wait for lawsuits.
that the internet exists outside of the US of A already, right?
As important an issue as net nutrality is, and as much as is will affect the internet, it will hardly matter to people in say, the EU, where many lawmakers are moving away from internet regulation.
Just a point, is all.