How Washington Will Shape the Internet 373
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."
Let me hazard a wild wild guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Corollary #14 to Clarke's Law (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Hate to break it to you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shallow (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Question... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Perrilous time... (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
This is the part where....... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Flag Burning (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Broadcasting over Fibre... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Civilization Marches On (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Broadcasting over Fibre... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Telcos are pushing hard (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Let me hazard a wild wild guess... (Score:3, Insightful)
Currently video franchising is done through local municipalities, except in the few states that have recently passed state-wide video franchises (Texas was the first, but there have been others). That means that in most places, a company like Verizon has to go to each county or town to get a franchise, an expensive and time-consuming process. Ultimately that means that fiber to the home is still many months (if not years) away from getting to a lot of people. And meanwhile cable companies are enjoying their nice virtual monopolies on paid TV services.
Here comes the internet license. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Flag Burning (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
REALITY: The Net Will Reroute (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Only One Kind of Regulation/Enforcement Is Needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, look. Online fraud is the only thing they're not planning on strangling in the crib. Shock, surprise...
Schwab
Slashdot focuses too much on national poltiics. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Un huh (Score:2, Insightful)
First (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hate to break it to you... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Here comes the internet license. (Score:5, Insightful)
The richer, more powerful libertarians get to decide policy. Big companies have more resources than almost any human will ever have and they protect their interests.
I was a libertarian until I realized the philosophy breaks down in the face of concentrated wealth and power. If we had lots of people with ten million dollars it would probably work. When we have a few hundred "people" (some human, some corporate) with billions of dollars, it doesn't work.
You can't even have a fair court system when the power/money becomes too unequal. One person gets the public defender who is falling asleep in court while the other side gets a team of top-notch, well connected lawyers backed up by a firm of bright assistants.
The rest of the world has no choice. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here comes the internet license. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, with respect to other things like unenforcable legislation utterly contrary to international law over internet gambling, etc., they need to get a damn clue, or they will screw things up.
I know that I personally have left the Republican party over the idiotic crap they've been pulling for the last eight years or so. They've made it abundantly clear that the law doesn't apply to them, that they're more than willing to rush blindly ahead when sensible people have doubts, and that they're willing to help screw up things like the internet that they have absolutely no understanding of.
Smell this coming for years now (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Mod parent up. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Consumers only have a right to consume. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:First (Score:2, Insightful)
Copper really can't stand up to fiber optics, especially in the long term. Even the cable companies are starting to use fiber optics to a certain extent in their network architecture, but none of them are bringing fiber straight to the home.
Video franchising is by no means revolutionary. The kinds of interactive services you'll get from fiber optic TV could be. And you won't get those any time soon the way things currently are. And you're probably not going to get 30/5Mbps in your home either.
Do the telcos want legislation from the bench? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here comes the internet license. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just silly. There is a reason it happened with roads! The government did not build the internet infastructure, and taxes did not fund it. At least not wholly. The road infastructure, however, is funded by taxes and built by the local, state, and federal governments and/or they contract a company to do so using the aforementioned funds. That is why it is required to be licensed to drive on public roads and also why you pay such a high tax on your petrol.
The internet, however, is financed by private entities and built by private entities. Therefore, requring an access license and/or taxing internet accesss just wouldn't fly.
Re:Here comes the internet license. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just a conservative government, it's compassionately conservative. Let me point out charitably that Karl Rove has got your number if you think Bush II's government is conservative. You were snookered.
The truth is that this "conservative" government is crowing today about enormous budget deficits coming down a fraction (when we were balanced under Clinton), while ignoring long-term structural deficits caused by tax cuts for the richest Americans that have only increased the wage gap over the last several years. Throwing cash around like water, paying off Halliburton and Big Pharma and scumbags like Abramoff and on and on... how much evidence do you need of the mendacity involved in labeling the profligate Bush government "fiscally conservative"?
I will point out, however, that the conservative movement has had free rein to choose its policies. If the ship has run aground, we know who has been at the wheel. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-perlstein/i-di
If you want a fiscally conservative government, kick out the neocons and vote for some Democrats. Or you could vote for the Greens, it worked in 2000.
Re:Here comes the internet license. (Score:5, Insightful)
The republican party hasn't been fiscally conservative since Nixon. Look at the debt Reagan and Bush 1 drove up. Look at Bush 2. Fiscal conservative is now democratic property- you know, the guys who balanced the budget in the 90s. It hasn't been anything approaching Libertarian since Hoover in the 20s and 30s. It got co-opted by the religious right in the 80s, the cumulation of a slide starting in the 60s (when the formerly democratic southern US switched republican once democrats started supporting civil rights).
Wake up and face reality- the republican party has *never* been what it claimed it was. For most of this century its been living a lie. You really have two options:
1)A party run by corrupt rich buisnessmen who use passionate bigoted fringe groups to get into office, then run the country for their own benefit. You can tell this party by its election year tactics- rather than debating real issues it tries to raise emotional issues with those fringe groups- gay marriage, flag burning, "under god" in the pledge of alliegence. This is the republicans.
2)A coalition of every other group. Some who are just flat out bought by other interests than the republicans, some who are very passioate about specific issues (environment, anti-war, even a few free speachers). THe portion that aren't owned by the big corps do try and look out for their constituents. They typically try to bring out actual issues, rather than rely on flag waving. What you actually get depends on your luck, but you're pretty much garunteed to do no worse than the first party, and perhaps quite a bit better. This is the democrats.
Until we have some real third parties (which will require changes in how voting is done), these are our choices. Not much to choose from, but option 2 gives you at least a chance.
Re:Here comes the internet license. (Score:4, Insightful)
You should have continue following the money as it were. How did htese people get the money? By government. Government provided them with special protections no normal person has. Hiding behind the wall of a corproation is a protection/benefit system designed to produce exactly what you correctly identify as a problem. With these "protections" in place both people and companies who become "corporate entities" become an arm of the government (that is what a Charter effectively does - and it is a Corporate Charter) and gain all manner of advantages an otherwise free market system does not provide.
Whether that be the ability to pollute w/o risk of penalty, or deploy anti-competition tactics that would otherwise be illegal, or to use the corporation as a source of money and legal defense funding, it is done so by threat of force (death) by the government. As much as many people like to believe otherwise, libertarian principles did not provide for the wealth of Bill Gates or Larry Ellison. To the contrary it was anti-libertarian (i.e. statist) principles that did so.
Re:Question... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does this innaccurate assumption keep coming up? What SBC wanted to do was start charging third parties for routing their traffic. Right now, only direct peers contract with each other. SBC would have changed that to the "long distance" model of Internet service, where you have to buy passage for your packets through some third party after they leave your local ISP. A horrible, horrible fate for the Internet. All contracts and charges should be at the connecting edges of networks, not from one random network to another. Look at it this way: If neither the source nor destination address of a packet belongs to a network (think RFC network number + mask), then the owner of that network shouldn't be able to charge anyone but its peers for routing that packet.
The reason ISPs are not raising rates to their direct customers is that they would be undersold by their competitors. The market is at saturation, and they can't make more money without improving service. They oversubscribed most of their customers, so they can't grow without spending money or degrading service. The long shot option was to try to increase revenue while doing *absolutely nothing* and charging Google (a third party) for routing the same packets it has for years.
You all do realize.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here comes the internet license. (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies fit this bill by their very nature. People, in groups.. not so well. That's why we have government. It's the organization of the people without regard for money, where your power comes from your existence as a human being.
Or, more accurately, it should be.
Unless, of course, you advocate for plutocracy, which is where libertarianism leads
Re:Here comes the internet license. (Score:3, Insightful)
You really havn't read much Ayn Rand and then looked at how she led her private life.
Libertarian is about the strong doing what they want while the weak try to get by.
It is a *wonderful* philosophy if you are strong, healthy, well off, powerful, wealthy, etc.
Otherwise... not so good.