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."
I don't think it's too cynical to say that's probably intentional. Flag burning seems to be one of those hot-button issues that conservative politicians trot out when they want to (a) drum up votes or (b) distract people from other issues. (Liberals have their own hot-button issues, though these days the conservatives seem to be punching them just fine from the other side.)
I interned for a congressman last year. My former boss is in charge of a lot of the tech stuff coming out, but I can tell you that most congressmen could not care less about most tech. For example, I heard a congressman ranting about how consumers don't have a right to choice in telco providers. I have also seen that many policies are nothing more than clunky attempts to maintain the status quo of regulation in an era of never before seen change. It is nice to see government trying hard to catch up with the times, but the minority of uber-users, hackers, and /.ers need to watch out to maintain what we love doing. I do not see any major problems (like China's level of Internet control) coming, but there are issues that could prove quite annoying at least. The most important thing that we can do is vote. Early and often. :)
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
Any technology vulnerable to governmental and corporate interference is insufficiently advanced.
Can you please give me an example of a technology NOT vulnerable to governmental interference? It's nice to drop out one liners like that, except when they have no cover whatsoever. If government wants to get involved and regulate a tech field, chance are it will. On my side, I'd rather see a split internet then face regulations imposed by the US on a global network.
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
Yet it's safe to say that far more Americans have heard about flag burning than the laws that may soon reshape cyberspace.
/. writup this week. It is truly shocking that more Americans have heard about an issue that has existed many times longer longer than the word "cyberspace" than the recent goings on in congress related to the latter.
Congratulations, this is the single most useless comment in a
Yes, more people should be aware of and care about this, but this is a ridiculous way to word it. Also in the news, more people have opinions on school choice than IPv6 adoption. Shocking!
Back to the issue at hand. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that our elected representatives will have a say in this any more than any other issue. The reshaping of the internet will be done SOLELY by Microsoft, AT&T/SBC, Verizon, Google, Cisco, Amazon, Hollywood, and the usual suspects. They will be writing the laws and casting the votes. There is no reason to even pretend otherwise anymore. Sure they will be be doing this via proxy with the elected representatives, but those reps (almost without exception) have no clue what they are talking about and just repeat the talking points given to them by their corporate masters. These issues will be determined exclusively by how money and favors are allocated.
I know as Americans it feels better to pretend that corruption and corporate ownership are the exceptions in government, but to do so hurts as a nation. EVERY person currently in congress has been bought and sold to a special interest or company (no expections, don't even try to parade your favorite one out and claim them to be virtuous and pure, you are wrong). When it comes down to it, they will ALL vote they way they are told and the opinion of the voters matters not one bit.
Finkployd
You don't vote someone out. You vote someone else in.
So, who do we have to vote in? (That are actually any better, that is.)
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Libertarians don't have a corner on the civil liberty market.
Greens share those values. Without throwing us all to the wolves for the sake of "indvidual freedom".
You may not like the idea, but you don't get to just do whatever you feel like because, believe or not, your actions do sometimes affect other people. EVEN MORE SO, if you're rich and powerful. Then we REALLY need to watch you. Because then, as a private individual, you have the ability to do a whole lot of damage to people in all kinds of ways that are not "direct victim crimes". Say, buying all the companies in an area and dropping wages. Sure, some might move. But many won't. And you win.
People have only two possibilities for fighting power if they themselves don't have the resources. Democratic rule, or revolution.
If you cripple democratic rule to dissallow the right of a community to establish its own codes of conduct, including some encroachments into your personal freedoms, then eventually, people have to take option number two.
I'm all about civil liberties. Do what you wilt and all that. But, sometimes there do have to be limits. I'm personally pretty glad that you have to learn a few things to drive a car, for example. It may not be ultimate freedom, but it's pretty freaking prudent.