Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government The Internet Politics

Internet Firms Raise Profile on Capitol Hill 124

Posted by Zonk from the on-the-up-and-up dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Firms Raise Profile on Capitol Hill More

Internet Firms Raise Profile on Capitol Hill

Comments Filter:

  • Lobbyists are just bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rooked_One ( 591287 ) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @11:58PM (#14591649) Journal
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kickboy12 ( 913888 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @12:00AM (#14591659) Homepage
      Because legally a corperation is a person, as defined by the surpreme court. So... tecnically they do make the descisions. Which is bullshit.
      • But, of course, if you tried to psychoanalyze such a person, from not caring about other people, to not caring for the environment in which they live, to distancing themselves from their families (outsourcing, anyone?), this "person" matches closest to a psychopath. Interesting, ne?

      • Re:Lobbyists are just bad (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        To remit the power that corporations currently hold, one of two things need to happen:

        1.) A constitutional amendment needs to be passed that states something along the lines of "corporations are not people, do not rights as people, the rights of people outweigh the PRIVILEGES of corporations, and so on".

        2.) The current judiciary needs to be replaced with judges that do not interpret case law to mean "corporations are people".

        The first is far more likely. America need a leader to unite its people, break thei
    • if we want to ever have a decent form of government, we can't have the big corps making all the rules.

      I agree, but... electing someone is really expensive. Big Corps have the kind of money it takes to elect a goverment. Well, of course corps will make sure to elect someone who represent 'em... this way, we have the big corps making all the rules... sad.
      • We can change all that by eliminating career politicians. We could have a term limit of 1, and require that X years pass before they can hold office again. And then we pay every congressperson some large amount of money, like $1-10M/year, to attract successful people who can make 6+ figures in the private sector.

        I'm tired of politicians spending our money to get themselves re-elected. We need high-quality people from normal life to enter politics. If they haven't made it in the real world with a respectable
        • I've a better idea: trash the legal fiction that corporations are persons. Which is actually based on a misreading of a Supreme Court decision [thomhartmann.com].

          A nice followup to this might be banning political contributions from anyone other than private individuals, and limiting them to something easily affordable by the majority of citizens - say, $50.

          Discuss.
          • I've a better idea: trash the legal fiction that corporations are persons. Which is actually based on a misreading of a Supreme Court decision.

            I'd agree to that. The way I look at it, corporations limit the legal liability of the owners, and are double-taxed. So, basically, the government allows them to be irresponsible in exchange for extra tax revenue. Sounds more like a bribe to me.

            A nice followup to this might be banning political contributions from anyone other than private individuals, and limiting th
            • Dollars talk, and if you limit the dollars spent, you limit the speech.

              So we're supposed to give the guy with the greatest number of dollars the greatest opportunity to speak?

              How is this any different than what we've got now?
              • Well who should speak then, and how do we decide? If we allow anyone to speak freely, at least then there is a chance for the underdog to get their message out. They can use initial support to raise funds to get more support. That initial money is crucial, and it's often a lot more than $50 dollars.

                If we put financial limits, then only the incumbants and established parties get to speak.

                "Fair Speech" is the enemy of free speech. It can be used by powermongers easily because it's vague and arbitrary.
        • We can change all that by eliminating career politicians. We could have a term limit of 1, and require that X years pass before they can hold office again. And then we pay every congressperson some large amount of money, like $1-10M/year, to attract successful people who can make 6+ figures in the private sector.

          Good luck getting the career politicians to vote on that ammendment.

          I do like the idea of term limits, but the huge paycheck is a horrible idea. People would start to look at a term in the House
          • I think it would be better to pay them nothing.

            You get what you pay for. If you pay them nothing, then you will only get the type of people who seek power above all else, exactly what we don't want. The only way they could make money is by selling what they've got (the power) to the highest bidder. And we'd get all the people who couldn't make it with normal careers. And that's exactly what we have now.

            The best and the brightest are generally too tied up in a career to enter politics. It would be a major ri

    • the old-fashioned way (Score:5, Funny)

      by shmlco ( 594907 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @12:20AM (#14591714) Homepage
      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.

    • Re:Lobbyists are just bad (Score:5, Interesting)

      by c0dedude ( 587568 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @12:38AM (#14591761)
      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.
      • We have several problems:

        a) lack of money for lobbying (e.g. no US anti-swpat campaign)

        b) lack of experience

        c) IT generation gap

        More involvement is needed, sure. And don't pay the US congress Internet Caucus or Europarl's European Internet Foundation but sound people.
    • Agreed, but it might be a good way to respond to the Telecoms with their clamoring to be allowed to do this.

      I hate class action lawsuits - though I think the prosecutors against Sony gave up too easily with a lame settlement - really more Sony downloads free? YAY!, but I think it's time for a couple of telecoms to face class action lawsuits other than lobbyists.

      When I pay for the internet, I pay for the internet. I don't pay for verizon's net (verizonet), SBCnet, or any other net. It's called fraudulent

    • Re:Lobbyists are just bad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Neoprofin ( 871029 ) <neoprofin AT hotmail DOT com> on Sunday January 29, 2006 @12:52AM (#14591803)
      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.
      • It's impossible to stop corruption once you give someone the power. And make no mistake, the Congress should take most of the blame. Often, congressmen will solicit "expected contributions" and punish those who do not bribe.

        Right now Congress has a huge amount of power to make and break individual companies or groups of companies.

        If you take away as much of that power as you can, by restricting government to only its necessary functions, you eleiminate the possibility of most of the corruption that takes pl
        • Define necessary functions though.
          • Define necessary functions though.
            Why should we need to define that, when the U.S. Constitution already does?

            Necessary functions consist of only those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including a strict interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause and respect for the 10th Amendment.

            • Dude the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, the world's changed just a little bit since then. Does the Constitution cover corporate indifference to the well-being of their customers? Shouldn't our elected representatives step in to prevent the sale of dangerous goods for example?
              • Shouldn't our elected representatives step in to prevent the sale of dangerous goods for example?

                If it crosses a state line, then the federal government is a possible solution (if the problem doesn't solve itself through other channels). If not, the federal government should have no authority.

                Why is your first response to a problem to give the federal government the power to solve it? There are all kinds of alternatives to federal power. Certification and brand names go a long way to ensuring product qualit
              • If indeed the Federal government should [do some thing the Constitution currently doesn't give it the power to do], then the proper thing to do would be to propose an Amendment to allow it. That's what amendments are for, you know!

    • Re:Lobbyists are just bad (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Nugget ( 7382 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @01:01AM (#14591830) Homepage
      The only solution I've heard that makes any sense is very well-stated by Ron Paul [house.gov]:
      "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.
      • The only thing you get by making government less powerful is less need for lobbying because the corporations will then have ALL the power.

        We need government to be

        a) independent of corporate interests of any kind
        b) zealous in guarding individual freedoms against corporate power
        c) zealous in guarding individual freedoms against government power

        Lobbying, by the way, isn't wrong. In its true form it consists of standing in the lobbies of Congress waiting to tell the legislators something you want him to hear.

        • Re:Lobbyists are just bad (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Nugget ( 7382 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @01:46AM (#14591980) Homepage
          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.
          • That's rather naive.

            Government has the power to govern, i.e., regulate every aspect of individual or corporate life.

            But individuals have certain rights, and in the United States of America, those have actually been protected.

            Until now.

            Taxation is a necessary part of governance of economic systems. It provides a negative-feedback loop that prevents massive oscillations.

            Corporations want to have more rights than people, and as the people and the government, it's your job and mine to make sure they don't get

          • Re:Lobbyists are just bad (Score:4, Insightful)

            by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @03:36AM (#14592250)
            "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.
            • Joe, I'm currently working on controlling the air, so don't worry about that. Very soon it will be like living on Mars in the movie "Total Recall" starring Governor Arnold.
            • 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.

              The corporations rely on the consumer. If they were to withdraw the above, they go broke. If some consumers are left out, other business will provide it. If you dislike something, you withdraw your choice to trade with them.
              • "The corporations rely on the consumer. If they were to withdraw the above, they go broke."

                Only if they sell nothing else. Even a company like GM will not go out of business if they stopped selling cars.

                "If some consumers are left out, other business will provide it. I"

                Only if there is not a monoply, there is not a high barrier to entry, one corporations does not own all the natural materials or infrastructure, only if one company does not get executives of the other company thrown in jail or killed.

                All tho
            • Without strong govt you will be ruled by monopolies.

              Without governmnet you would not have corporations.

              Their very existence is a creation of government - the birthing of a pseudo-person, with a subset of the rights and privileges of a human, and the rasising of a wall between the actions of that pseudo-person and drains on the pocketbooks of those who invest in it and control its actions from liability suits by those its actions harm.

              Unlike actual human beings, corporations themselves do not have first ame
              • "Without governmnet you would not have corporations."

                That's not true. Maybe it's technically true in every country (including the weak ones) corporations exist because they are an efficient means of trade with the rest of the world.

                "Unlike actual human beings, corporations themselves do not have first amendment rights."

                Not according to the Supreme court. Makes one think, if corporations have first amendment rights, don't they have second amendment rights?

                "If congress wishes to ban corporations from hiring l
            • What bullshit! By that logic, we've got a weak government now, because we are ruled by corporate interests already. Of course, it's not really that the government is weak, it's that the government has allied itself with the corporations, by declaring them to be "persons" and by allowing corporate lobbying. The key is to break the alliance, and if we reduce the power of the government we reduce the power of the alliance too.

              Of course, that's not the entire solution: we need to also somehow give the governm
              • "What bullshit! By that logic, we've got a weak government now, because we are ruled by corporate interests already."

                Obviously our govt is not strong enough to avoid a rule by corporations. I suspect this is due to legalized bribery scheme we have going.

                SO in effect we are saying the same thing. The govt has been bought.
                • SO in effect we are saying the same thing. The govt has been bought.
                  Yes, but we have differing opinions about the solution -- I say power should be taken away from the government; you don't.
                  • That's right. If you weaken the govt (in reality the legislature branch of the govt) two things will happen.

                    1) The overloaded courts will be even more backed up and people appointed for life will have full power over our lives.

                    2) Corporations will have a hayday. Imagine walmart with 100 times more power!.
        • Actually, the problem now is that most elected officials aren't smart enough to understand technology. We have people who couldn't even start a computer without help out there making laws about computers*. Why not just let the blind make traffic laws while we're at it?

          * I have no actual evidence about any individual elected official. I'm just assuming they're as stupid as they act.

          • Re:Lobbyists are just bad (Score:4, Interesting)

            by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @02:31AM (#14592098) Journal
            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.

      • Re:Lobbyists are just bad (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Lobbying is a >$2E11 industry (some think it is >$5E11). Lobbyists aren't going to give it up without a fight. And since the lobbyists effectively control Congress, the only way we can change it is by a massive public backlash or a Constitutional amendment.

        Being able to do something simple like requiring purpose and authorship statements for pork and FOIA requests on closed door sessions would go a long way to holding Congress accountable. But those rules do not exist solely for the reason of allow
      • He is an example of what used to be known as a "small government" Republican. Those are actually real Republicans, like the kind that founded the country. God, do I miss those guys.

        His argument, that the country evolved into the state its in today when it started pursuing Democratic ends, holds weight historically. The government used to be something of a laissez faire entity. When it started to reach out, with the New Deal and welfare and the various human interest administrations, it developed a new

    • 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. ;(

      Cuz "THE PEOPLE" don't care. If you have 50% voter turnout, that means that it only takes 25% of the people to actually make law. Out of those probably half actually have any insight into the issues (the rest just vote incumbant or party lines). So you end up with a small vocal minority that the politicians have to listen to who end up making policy.
    • We do have a decent form of governement, and judging by immigration, people prefer to live under our government over most others.

      But it's probably more accurate to say that it's less bad than the others. I'm continually amazed that simple Constitutional constructs enable us to live under a permanent standoff between two horrible but basically ineffective political parties. Yes, I disagee with most everything that Washington does, but that's not the point... the point is, compared to the damage that COULD
      • well, living towards the US/Mexico boarder, I do feel the need to add one point. Although your arguement is very well founded, I feel it to be flawed in one aspect. The "immigrants" (lets assume mexicans in this scenario) from mexico for the mostpart come to the US for low paying construction jobs. We all know that. But what happens to most of them in the winter time? They take their money that they have horded away while living in a one bedroom apartment with 10 other mexicans and go back to mexico wi

  • Ironic (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 ) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Sunday January 29, 2006 @12:03AM (#14591671)
    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.

    • Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China (Score:4, Insightful)

      by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @12:07AM (#14591683) Homepage Journal
      " 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?
      • So let me get this straight:

        Company shitting all over US law = BAD COMPANY! NO! STAY!
        Company shitting all over China law = GO DEMOCRACY!

        You, sir, are the hypocrit.

        • Re:Ironic? The real hypocrisy - China (Score:5, Insightful)

          by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @12:42AM (#14591773) Homepage Journal
          "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?
          • "How exactly is my view of this hypocritical"

            Because you are posting anti-Google things on Slashdot. ;)
          • You totally miss the point here. You take a far to idealism way, way to far, and in the process, you are abandoning realism.

            You say that Google is essentially the monopoly carrier for information. That is simply not true, especially not in China. There are tons of search engines which produce results that, while perhaps not as brilliant as Google, are certainly good enough for 99% of all searches. In China, this is even more true. Do you know what the 4th most visited site on the internet is? A hint: It's [alexa.com]

          • There's a difference between shitting over laws and working lawfully to change those laws. The latter includes, in democratic countries, a whole lot of activities, including lobbying. In China, there being a distinct lack of democratic process, the opportunities for lawfully working within the system to change laws is fairly limited. Not that they are non-existant - even the tyranny isn't perfect. So you can choose to either leave their country completely and give up the tiny bit of bargaining power you DO
      • The issue at hand is the use of a multi-tiered network model that charges a premium for superior service.

        So, the telephone company might have a "consumer" tier, where consumers pay for Internet access, and then a "commercial" and a "really expensive." On top of that, you might split the network... high speed media lines with fast downstream, but slow upstream.

        It's completely different from censoring out certain websites because they have "freedom" written on them.
        • It's not completely different, actually it's just an economic barrier to service instead of a technological or political one like Google is implementing with China's government.

          Do you think the average poor sap on AOL is going to invest or even know to invest in premium Internet tiers? A tiered Internet will be as good as a censored one.
          • No man, it's completely different.

            The dude on AOL will get whatever service plan AOL bought from the telphone company.

            He'll receive all of the same content, it just might come a bit slower.

            It's a completely different issue. One is censorship, where content actually isn't available, the other has to do with the ability of the providers of the network infastructure to charge rate plans based on priorities placed on packets going over the network. You still get all of the content.
            • "You still get all of the content."

              So you're telling me that someone on dialup can still get good service like downloading the new Ubuntu Linux, as well as their broadband cousin? Some things will just be out of reach for all but the extremely crafty or determined, and it will be an economic barrier where a technological barrier no longer should exist.
              • Someone on dial-up can't get Ubuntu as well as their broadband cousin now. This bit of action on the part of the telephone companies wouldn't change that.

                The guy with dialup can't download Ubuntu as well as their broadband cousin because the dialup line can't carry that bandwidth.

                I really don't see what you're driving at now. Are you arguing that subscribing to a dialup provider is to voluntarily submit to a form of Internet censorship?
                • " partly in an effort to push legislation that would prevent telephone companies from charging Internet companies for guaranteed fast delivery of Internet content."

                  Bandwidth or QoS, I really don't see the difference as a consumer. Both will make certain Internet connections undesirable and other ones desirable. The companies who can control who gets which type of connection will be able to control the message since the "media is the message". Censorship in other words can be accomplished by withholding s

  • Google + Lawyers (Score:4, Funny)

    by bloggins02 ( 468782 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @12:15AM (#14591698)
    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...
    • Well, at least they have the brains to hire industry insiders. That can make all the difference, and if nothing else Google's pockets are deep enough to have an effect in Washington. Hopefully Microsoft (which massively increased its lobbying presence after the antitrust suit) will see things the right way and realize that the telecoms' designs on the network don't bode well for them either, and lend a lobbyist or two to the cause.
  • Am I the only one who read that as "Internet Firms Raise Capital" at first, then were confused when the summary said things about Washington? VC. DC. It's all too confusing for a geek drinking alone on a Saturday night!
    • It really isn't as simple as that. Having spent 20 years in the industry (until I burned out, not just with a spark, but with a spectacular flame), one must really take into account the entire industry. Not just that of the dot.coms, but the whole telecommunications industry. There is no room, in the governments' minds (Sorry, Bill - your administration, too) for those who would change the status quo. Whether it's Google or SBC or whomever, the administrations all seem to back the big names. Safer? Ma
    • I thought they meant that the capital building was at a higher elevation that previously.

  • Carriers are paranoid, and rightly so (Score:5, Interesting)

    by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @12:18AM (#14591705)
    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?
    • Yeah, this kind of thing could pretty well kill off online gaming if it gets popular among ISPs. Oh, well, of course there will be a "gamer package" that will give you low latency to specific servers for a nominal charge. Great if you're a Sony or a Blizzard, although I'm sure they also will have to pay protec^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ "guaranteed delivery" charges as well. All those folks like me that run a public game server for the fun of it will likely be out of luck.

    • Re:Carriers are paranoid, and rightly so (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.

      Hehehe, I have 20Mbps fiber [surewest.net] which I am sure SBC and Comcast are not too happy about, but they can kiss my big black ass! As hard as it might be, we can only wish more small companies such as Surewest will be able to steal away customers [cisco.com] from the behemoths.
      • Yeah, but for how long? Assuming the telcos can really blackmail content providers into paying them for delivery, your local company will be facing even a bigger struggle than it does today: its competitors will be earning a lot more for the same task...

  • The machine changes hands... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheNoxx ( 412624 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @12:22AM (#14591719) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • A legislator's duty to represent his people has been replaced with the goal of being reelected. There is little incentive to follow the constituents' views on most issues because the constituents won't vote based on them. Unless it looks likely that anyone in Congress is likely to lose their seat because of their actions regarding granting monopolistic power to telecoms, they'll keep doing it because that's where they can get money (to fund their election campaigns, thus helping them achieve their real goal
  • I still hope they prevent this from happening. I'd be rather pissed off if I have a personal site from my own server for my resume, pictures, or whatever anyone would use an internet server for (maybe even a site....), and no one can get to it because large companies are hogging bandwidth. And then calling the company that hosts me, and hearing "Do you have $2000 a year to give us? That's what company x gave us, so they get more bandwidth". All I see this as is a way to shift the equal ground on the int
    • It's also double dipping and fraudulent advertising - customers of ISPs pay for the internet - not VersizonNet(TM), SBCNet(TM), etcetear.
      • ... customers of ISPs pay for the internet - not VersizonNet(TM), SBCNet(TM), etcetear.

        And it's perhaps worthwhile to point out once again that the Internet wasn't built by big telecom corporations. It was developed almost entirely with US government funding, mostly from the Defense Department. Their funding went mostly to academia and a lot of small startup companies, because they understod very well that the big corporations were unwilling to develop the sort of network they wanted.

        It's really another c

  • Guaranteed Fast Delivery? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drooling-dog ( 189103 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @01:15AM (#14591879)
    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?
    • They're framing the argument well to be sure. But the fact of the matter is, that technology marches on, and these telcos will do exactly what they've always done, charge more for the high end due to "equipment costs" and allow the low end and it's equipment to get older, and comparatively slower & slower.

      They want their pound of flesh from the consumer and they're not about to give that gravy train up.

  • So, youse internet guys (Score:3, Funny)

    by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @01:37AM (#14591957)
    If you want "protection" from those telecom boys, you going to need to pony up some cash to us in the Congress gang.

  • lobbying will only become more prolific (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dr Kool, PhD ( 173800 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @01:44AM (#14591978) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • With Congress demanding private information from these companies I suppose someone has to tell them why it is or isn't a good idea to do certain things. Having Google just hand over log data probably looks like a perfectly harmless thing to some of these 50+ year old Senators who know jack about the Internet.

  • 4 more years? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29, 2006 @03:24AM (#14592225)
    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.

    • Re:4 more years? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jc42 ( 318812 )
      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.

      Sorry; it doesn't work that way. Religious people have a long history of being rather dangerous to their neighbors. If we split the US into a Christian half and a secular half, the religous folks' main project would be "converting" the immoral secular state. They wouldn

  • I'm starting to think.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Statecraftsman ( 718862 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @03:43AM (#14592265)
    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.

    • 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.

      Pfft, education doesn't work. You're living in a fantasy world. The only way to i

  • Nine more months (Score:3)

    by quokkapox ( 847798 ) <quokkapox@gmail.com> on Sunday January 29, 2006 @03:45AM (#14592272)
    All this nonsense from our current leaders is really coming to a head, like a boil. Nine more months until we get to lance it on the first Tuesday after the first Monday this coming November.

    Homework assignment: by November, find out who's currently in office, if you don't already know. So you can vote for the other candidate.

    I think a lot of senators and representatives are going to find out just what blowback [wikipedia.org] means.

    But of course, a terrorist attack or another bin Laden tape might come at just in time to alter the outcome of the elections.

  • It might seem Google is fighting for sanity, but really all they care about is their bottom line. Tomorrow they might be lobbying on behalf of stuff that is negative for users. When competing commercial interests fight, what happens to the little guy?

    You might say it's great if Godzilla and Kong fight it out, but remember, either of them might squash you without even noticing!

  • How Aggressive will they be? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @07:59AM (#14592693) Homepage Journal
    How aggressive will Ebay, Amazon and Google be?

    Will they just want to keep the current favorable sales tax treatment, unregulated selling (of tchochke) between individuals and keep network neutrality of internet connections?

    Or do they want more stuff -- which might in the end be bad for consumers.

    Normally you get your office in DC due to a threat. After you deal with the threat, you've got an "organ" set up that can try to get more stuff from DC -- so that's what you do.

    Even the telecoms, in the beginning, had no lobbyists. They were small and scrappy -- high growth businesses. At some point they perceived entrenched powers as the threat to their services. Perhaps the post office, or messenger services.

    Now the telecoms spend more on lobbying than any of us can imagine. A truly disgusting state of affairs -- for consumers. It is good for expensive DC restaurants though.

  • WE ARE THE COMPANIES (Score:3, Insightful)

    by a_greer2005 ( 863926 ) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @10:17AM (#14592959)
    I see some here saying that "the companies" shouldnt lobby, but cho owns the companies? I would say that a great majority here have a stake in Goog, MSFT, Walmart, Bell South, Verizon and other "evil big companies" via investment vehicals like retierment plans, and mutual funds. If these xompanies didnt make money, a lot of people would be worse off.

    I dont support some actions of major companies, but they are owned by a LOT of people, not just the C*O.

  • "A telecom lawyer hired by Google last summer to build the company's Washington office"

    Multi-talented individual: attorney by day, carpenter by night.

  • From a blog series written a while ago in disgust to this whole situation:

    This posting is part of a series from a speech made in 1961 by then-president Eisenhower. It accurately warns the citizens of the Untied States of the times to come, the time when the military and sociological agenda of the Untied States would be dictated by military industry. At the time, this was corporate America. In modern times, this speech rings painfully true as an unheeded warning to the level of control corporate America now

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close