A US Senate panel narrowly rejected strict Net neutrality rules on Wednesday, dealing a grave setback to companies like eBay, Google and Amazon that had made enacting them a top political priority this year. By an 11-11 tie, the Senate Commerce Committee failed to approve a Democrat-backed amendment that would have ensured all Internet traffic is treated the same no matter what its source or destination might be. A majority was needed for the amendment to succeed.
That sucks.
Seems as though those with the power are most afraid of loosing it. On both sides.
Not quite. Everyone on one of the sides stands to profit and everyone on the other side stands to incur greater expenses or suffer the effects of stifled innovation and degraded service.
In fact, Google and other dominant web properties are in the best position to shoulder the financial burden of a tiered Internet. It is the garage startup that suffers the most. A tiered Internet raises barriers to entry to the level of brick-and-mortar businesses and beyond. Neutrality is the only force keeping the Internet from becoming like most traditional business channels, where it’s often unprofitable to be anything but the dominant supplier in a given market.
‘Seems as though those with the power are most afraid of loosing it. On both sides.’
I’ve know this for decades. Republicans are shredding the so-called `Contract with (more like on) America` and the Democrats never had one. My hope for the `so-called` future is dim at best.
I served in the Marine Corps (88-94) and am very patriotic. These morons in D.C. would shred the liberty enshrined in the Constitution just to prove how big their political wicks are.
I say it’s time to fire all of them and limit terms to one in all branches of government.
I do not understand this issue. It seems simple enough–we want an level playing field. But the polititians supporting it usually favor lots of arcane class distinction rules and those fighting it are usually in favor of level playing fields. There must be a lot that is not being said.
…list of high-profile backers, from actress Alyssa Milano to Vint Cerf…
I would expect Vint Cerf’s opinion to carry a lot of weight with everyone. But what on earth does actress Alyssa Milano know about the internet?
She’s been an active and vocal critic (and supporter at times) of various Internet technologies in the past. She’s a philanthropist and a liberal political activist. Her involvement with the Internet started when she discovered that many screencaps of her various nude scenes were being distributed against her wishes. She has been fighting against online copyright infringement since then. She seems to be on the side of net neutrality in this case.
If she has a website or owns a business that has a website should would have very good reason to support Net Neutrality.
We already have net neutrality. Have for years.
I suppose someone out there thinks that (some unknown force) deemed google to be the google of all googles.
It doesn’t work that way. google became the google that they are because they offer the best product around. They weren’t always a big company you know. No really, it’s the truth.
Google will eventually be beaten. It’s how markets work.
The reason people are worried is because there is no regulation in place to ensure that net neutrality will continue to exist. If we want it to continue to have net neutrality, we have to fight for it now, before too much money is being made off breaching it to be able to stop the practice.
As for Google, you’re absolutely right. Google is a winner in a free market. They’ve won because they’ve got the best product. When somebody surpasses them, they’ll lose marketshare to the new competitor.
But the telcom industry isn’t like the search engine industry. Verizon isn’t a winner because it has great products, great service, or even great marketing. It’s a winner because its the heir of AT&T’s telco monopoly, and continues to hold monopoly priveleges over the infrastructure in the areas in which it operates.
I’ll say it again, because it bears repeating. Telcom is not a free market. Never was, never will be. To this day, they are supported by government, getting priveleges that other companies do not get. If your telco dicks you over, you’re stuck. Since it doesn’t compete in a free market, you cannot depend on the free market punishing them for the abuse. Therefore, as long as telcos continue to get priveleges above and beyond those provided to free market companies, they should be forced to accept responsibilities above and beyond those expected of free market companies.
The maintainence of net neutrality should be one of those responsibilities.
Edited 2006-06-29 00:25
Telcom is not a free market. Never was, never will be.
I fear the basis of your point is correct. However there is some free market pressure. Just today Comcast offered me, and an hour ago I signed up to get 16MB down, 900kB up, plus digital TV, plus phone, in a special package deal for a year. Why are they offering it? Because Verizon has been very busy tearing up Maryland’s streets laying fiber to the house, and Comcast is scared that everyone will dump them.
We’ve also recently seen competition in other former government-maintained monopolies. Many places you can choose who to buy gas and electric from.
That’s not free market pressure, though. Verizon is only able to tear up the streets of Maryland because they have special permission from the government to do so. At best, its legislated competition.
You’re wrong. There is regulation in place. It’s called the market.
————If we want it to continue to have net neutrality————-
That’s a strawman argument, blatantly.
What do you mean continue? We’re being told that if we don’t have this bill, we won’t have net neutrality. Yet you’re talking about continuing something which supposedly doesn’t exist.
Like I said, net neutrality already exists. It will be further protected by the lack of this bill.
————But the telcom industry isn’t like the search engine industry. Verizon isn’t a winner because it has great products, great service, or even great marketing. It’s a winner because its the heir of AT&T’s telco monopoly, and continues to hold monopoly priveleges over the infrastructure in the areas in which it operates. ————
The telecom industry hasn’t had a monopoly in years. It’s even worse now that the local cable company can offer telephone service.(VOIP)
That’s why Verizon is starting to offer TV. To compete. In the market.
———–If your telco dicks you over, you’re stuck.———-
False. They’ve been losing subscribers left and right because of all the options available. Get a cellphone, get VOIP. Call your local cable company and inquire. Contact local smaller businesses offering connectivity(most medium/large markets have these) and inquire. There’s an abundance of options. This is america. Not communist china.
Edited 2006-06-29 03:06
You’re wrong. There is regulation in place. It’s called the market.
There is no market, not in the sense of “the free market” as it is defined in economics texts. Companies cannot compete in the local telcom industry without approval and support from the government. That makes the industry one of government-sponsored monopolies, not freely competing firms.
If you don’t believe me, start your own telco. The minute you get jailed for digging up someone’s lawn, while Verizon can do so freely, you’ll get a painful lesson in why the telcom industry is anything but free.
What do you mean continue?
As in, traffic flows largely without QoS now, and telcom firms have already threatened to change that.
Like I said, net neutrality already exists. It will be further protected by the lack of this bill.
I really want to hear the reasoning behind this statement.
The telecom industry hasn’t had a monopoly in years. It’s even worse now that the local cable company can offer telephone service.(VOIP)
All the telcos are still government-sanctioned monopolies. So are the cable companies. Specifically, they’re granted monopoly rights to lay cable in ways regular firms in the free market cannot. As for cable companies offering telephone service — that largely just covers the part of the connection to the end user. The packets ultimately flow through the pipes of one of the big telcom companies.
False. They’ve been losing subscribers left and right because of all the options available. Get a cellphone, get VOIP.
It’s entertaining that you use these examples to support the idea of a free telcom market. What the hell do you think the cellphone industry is, if not a bunch of monopolies sanctioned by the FCC? If you don’t believe me, start transmitting at 1.9 GHz, then after you’re done paying fines out the ass, tell me all about how cell phones are a “free” market. The only reason cell phones exist is because of the massive regulatory body that is the FCC.
As for VOIP — VOIP traffic is going to be one of the first things to be throttled when net neutrality is breached.
Edited 2006-06-29 03:10
———-There is no market, not in the sense of “the free market” as it is defined in economics texts. Companies cannot compete in the local telcom industry without approval and support from the government. That makes the industry one of government-sponsored monopolies, not freely competing firms.————-
I’m aware of the roadblocks that exist here. There’s still plenty of competition.
———-The packets ultimately flow through the pipes of one of the big telcom companies.————-
The money doesn’t.
————-It’s entertaining that you use these examples to support the idea of a free telcom market. What the hell do you think the cellphone industry is, if not a bunch of monopolies sanctioned by the FCC?————
What I find entertaining is that you simply can’t see how these markets all overlap and compete with each other.
———–VOIP traffic is going to be one of the first things to be throttled when net neutrality is breached.———-
You’re ignoring how big VOIP(and the associated firms) are becoming and have become. Vonage isn’t going anywhere, neither are the non-telco-cable companies who offer it.
You mean if the other 3 bills which are setup to openly allow charges for quality of service don’t go through, right?
Both sides are playing this in Washington, and the market is not regulation. The reason being: There’s no market on telecom lines, there’s a single owner in each region. The currently eroding “market” is enforced by the government and it falls at a level above this, it won’t stop fines being imposed.
A market is happening, a new market for phones, is one of the things telecoms fear: Voip. Sure, Vonage is pathetic, and hopefully they’ll be out of business in six months; but the technology is promising. However, it depends on telecom lines, and if telecoms can impose whatever restrictions they choose on these monopolies (the lines) then companies which exist depending on them are at the mercy of the phone company: How long do you think they’ll last?
Cell phones need the lines too
. You have to remember, this issue is at the most base level and until wireless and satelite communication networks are as latency free and reliable as land lines it will be that way: The telecoms have geographic line monopolies, it’s intentional, the Government has given them that.
Cell phones need the lines too
. You have to remember, this issue is at the most base level and until wireless and satelite communication networks are as latency free and reliable as land lines it will be that way: The telecoms have geographic line monopolies, it’s intentional, the Government has given them that.
Wireless won’t solve a damn thing. Wireless is as heavily regulated and subject to government-sold monopolies (on parts of the spectrum) as the land-based telcom industry.
The simple fact is that as long as communications is dependent on a shared medium (and it is almost by definition dependent on such a medium), we will be unable to deal with it in free market terms. The free market is just not suitable for dealing with such resources. The sooner we learn to accept that, the sooner we can make sane, pragmatic communications policy.
No it’s not. Each cell company maintains some redundant wireless stations, so it’s therefore less regulated than telco lines.
But I definitely agree with the last paragraph.
———-Both sides are playing this in Washington————
I know. I always get worried when both sides do this. It’s severly off topic and won’t respond….
But look at immigration. Both sides are screwing america. That’s why I haven’t mentioned party affiliation. I rarely do anyways. It’s not about partisan politics, it’s about common sense.
————There’s no market on telecom lines, there’s a single owner in each region.————
The market is between cable/telecom lines and wireless.
Telcos are starting to offer TV because the cable companies are offering phone. And then there’s still wireless. And that *still* ignores smaller businesses in the area which offer connectivity.
———Voip. Sure, Vonage is pathetic, and hopefully they’ll be out of business in six months; but the technology is promising.———-
Heh, Vonage isn’t the only place you can get VOIP. The huge cable companies do it as well. Hell, Verizon offers VOIP. It’s called Voicewing. Even they see the writing on the wall.
———-The telecoms have geographic line monopolies, it’s intentional, the Government has given them that.————
Not for the reasons being given(more like being eluded to) in this discussion by a few.
I have a neighbor who I don’t really discuss politics and the like with, but I ask mad questions to get an untainted view of things.
I’ll have to ask him what he would think of the idea of having about 6 companies being able to come and dig up his yard at any given time.
This is the primary reason they have a monopoly. People complain. I would too.
Like I said, net neutrality already exists. It will be further protected by the lack of this bill.
Yes we have net neutrality, but without this bill there is no guarantee that we will continue having it. This bill wasn’t designed to grant net neutrality to prevent it from being taken away
Incorrect, the telecommunications market could be easily opened, for example, the quickest, most efficient way to roll out a network is to do it via wireless technology – the obstacles, the slow resource conscent proceedure; solution, speed it up.
Another one would be to offer tax consessions to new telecoms startups and government backed loans to allow businesses to roll out a nationwide wireless network off the back of ultra low interest loans.
To ensure that there is adequate network interconnection agreements, legislation can be passed to force that calls between rival networks to be neutral/free, rather than the crap right now of one phone company charging another rival company, access to the network at 7cents per minute (like the do down under).
The problem is, politicians are technically moronic, they know nothing about the technology, they do very little to promote competition, and remove barriers to new companies to start up.
I fail to see your point. First of all, we have net neutrality today primarily because the telecoms were traditionally classified as “communications services” in the eyes of the FCC, which prohibited such services from prioritizing service based on the source or destination of a call. There were very justifiable exceptions made for emergency 911 services, and nobody could complain about that.
The FCC now classifies the packet networks owned by the telcos as “information services,” where fewer regulations apply. Net neutrality isn’t onerous new regulation, it’s a restatement of previous communications regulations.
I concede that net neutrality regulations are not the best way to protect the Internet from commercial ambitions that might stifle innovation and otherwise conflict with the interests of the average user. The only way to make the telcos truly accountable to you and me is to create competition amongst carriers, but this might not be a realizable goal.
The conservatives are being too idealistic if they believe their own rhetoric. Regulation is necessary in noncompetitive markets to protect the interests of the consumer. Sadly, there are too many ultra-conservatives that have drank too much free-market Kool-Aid to believe in anti-trust policy in any form. They base their arguments on the premise that an unregulated market is necessarily a free market, when this is obviously not the case. Even more onerous is the application of classical free market theory to a market that is one of the most heavily regulated in the US.
Given the very public statements from telco execs concerning a tiered Internet, the regulatory vacuum left by the FCC, the noncompetitive nature of the telco market, the barriers to fostering competition in the telco market, and the pivotal role the Internet plays in our public discourse and services, there can be only one respectable reason to reject net neutrality: the specifics of the language and implementation of the policy.
If the conservatives want to convince average Americans that they are not selling out our interests in favor of the telco giants, they need to point to specific problems with the net neutrality legislation being considered. Rejecting the merits of enforcing a neutral Internet is plain unjustifiable. Just ask the cable companies what they think about net neutrality. They want a neutral Internet as well, but they aren’t sure the legislation is the right approach.
This has nothing to do with Google and its competitors, who all support net neutrality almost as much as Google does. The point is that a big part of the reason you and I use the Internet is to use the services provided by companies such as Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, eBay, Amazon, Flickr, and countless others. We hurt if these companies hurt; they will have no choice to pass the cost of a premium-tier subscription on the consumer in the form of subscription fees, advertising, cross-promotion, and, if they choose not to pay, degraded service.
It’s the software that matters to us, not the hardware of the Internet. If the telcos all went extinct for some reason, companies would spring up flush with venture capital to build a new network so we could continue to use the services on which we rely. If the services all went extinct, no one would care about the network infrastructure. This is the same truth that Toshiba and Sony are struggling to come to terms with right now.
So who’s side are you on now, the one consisting of the services that make the Internet useful and the consumers that fund its operation, or the one consisting of the telcos that already charge twice for every bit that passes across their networks and still want more before they’ll invest in the most valuable and fastest growing asset the world has ever known?
WE had net neutrality when we all had dial up modems. The whole “broadband” fiasco from start to finish has been about the Telcos using legal means to make up the control they lost. The logical extension of “Ma Bell” is the Cell Phone industry. It’s a CEO’s wet dream.. control over the hardware, network, what people can do with the phones, and getting a “dime” for Every transaction. Ma Bell pioneered that strategy but was broken up before they could reap the benefits. What we consider “Net Neutrality” only every legally applied to dial-up because the telcos had end user control of the lines taken away, There’s a lot of grandmas out there that still RENT phones because they were all owned by the phone company and you couldn’t legally plug in anything else.
The big telcos are making a organized, tactical effort to stall on broadband implementation until all the legal hurtles are removed.. until every network transaction from the network port on your PC is covered under THEIR TOS… and billing plan. Just like Hollywood with HDTV, the tax credits are running out for these big companies and they haven’t delivered their promise. So they want more “benifits” to offset the cost they’ve already been granted considerable tax credits for… This is organized corruption combine with inept bureaucracy. Things are going to get really scary soon.
We already have net neutrality. Have for years.
This whole issue is not about having it, it’s about assuring that we won’t loose it.
———–it’s about assuring that we won’t loose it.————-
So you willingly fall for fearmongering? That doesn’t make any sense. Not on something like this.
Yes, I like the internet, and there’s massive commerce here.(it is rather important is what I’m saying) But it isn’t life and death.
What they fail to understand is that the internet is global, it is not constrained within the borders of the US.
Won’t discriminatory network practices on the US parts of the Internet have a significant impact on the performance of the global Internet? Even if most “foreign” traffic is routed locally, a tiered Internet will certainly affect foreign web services’ ability to gain marketshare in the US. Americans would prefer to use domestic services available via the fast tier.
It would be very much like a protective tariff on web services!! I hadn’t thought of this implication until just now…
…and thus the US will empower the telcos to effectively put pressure on foreign governments to allow their telcos to follow suit. The superior last-mile capacity offered by providers in many nations, especially in Europe, is quickly outstripping their comparatively modest backbone capacity. So the pressure to copy the US and help fund backbone upgrades may be intense.
Sorry for the double-post, I haven’t been able to edit my posts for several months for some reason…
For now.
Everyone thought that the DMCA would be confined to the USA. Then it gets attached as a condition to free trade agreements – so now THE WHOLE WOLD LOSES.
Everyone sees HDTV in the USA, the hooplah around the Broadcast Flag and thanks their stars (bad pun) that Hollywood is in the USA and only controls the USA government. BUT we already see it getting attched to things like http://www.eff.org/IP/DVB/ , CPCM and other “international standards bodies” bankrolled by Holywood. THE WHOLE WORLD LOSES
Everyone hopes for eradication of DRM (or at the least compulsory interoperability of DRM systems), they think that being in a different country means that its your government in control. WRONG. Cases like http://www.drmwatch.com/legal/article.php/3603486 show us that the USA corporate arm stretches far. THE WHOLE WORLD LOSES
I despise the USA as much as the next guy but apathy, and smugness towards them only lets terrible decisions like this sneak up on you. THE WHOLE WORLD LOSES.
I despise the USA as much as the next guy, …
Hey, watch it. I join you in despising the bad laws you reference, and agree that they have an adverse affect on the rest of the world. But there is still no other country that I, for one, would consider living in, and I don’t appreciate you defining the whole country by this one issue.
That’s probably not true. You’d likely be quite happy in Paris or London, if you’re the urban type, or in the French or Dutch countryside, if you are the rural type. Americans tend to have a more overstated view of what makes the country unique than do people who are a little more well-traveled. In reality, the United States is a wealthy, western liberal democracy, ad life in the US is considerably similar to life in many other such countries around the world.
I am sorry. I take that back.
I made the remark in jest and the last thing I want to do is get this thread off topic into a USA hate/love flame war.
Exactly!!!
If people do not understand that the superpower in the day always determine things for the shrimps in the sea, they should not be given any power.
And that is the pure reason why democracy can fail — information and wisdom isn’t free after so many years! Civilisation will always be stuck in some place, and only revolutions will change that. No amount of reforms will do anything to it.
Look, small countries like my own cannot use monetary policies because we don’t have the luxury of power to use it. We are too small to yield it. On the other hand, there was a time the USA extensively uses monetary policies.
I’m actually quite okay with Americans (most of my people also couldn’t care less and only wish for peace), but I think that is also another reason for other countries to not like USA. You have privileges, and power, and you allow yourselves/your fellow countrymen to manipulate the world. Esp for causes not altruistic/pragmatically altruistic/simply welcome.
Edited 2006-06-29 15:24
They have spend more than $300 billion on the war in iraq.They could have spend it for the people back home.For better education for everyone,medical research,poverty,etc..Unfortunately a great deal of the economy is based on the arms industry.So the more wars the more profit,simple as that.
Per Wikipedia:
Network neutrality is a term that references a debate over acceptable forms of service and price discrimination on the Internet based on packet-oriented protocols. Neutrality requires network providers (ISP’s) to accept, transport and handoff data packets on more or less a first come, first serve basis. In contrast, non-neutrality would permit network providers to prioritize or otherwise favor certain packets over others based on the packet’s origination or destination IP addresses, ports, domain names, or other identifying features.
So, it sounds my ISP could slow down content from places that don’t pay them extra and speed up content from places that do pay them extra.
Do I now understand net neutrality?
In all seriousness… Not enforcing net neutrality effectively gives ISPs arbitrary censorship rights. What’s the first thing they’ll filter? Other ISPs’ adverts and pages. Next? The pages and advertisements of those whose political ideas are percieved as unfriendly. Next? Whatever anyone with enough money wants them to. And that’s not counting whatever the government happens to want them to censor at the moment.
Paranoid? Sure. Better a little paranoia than a heaping dose of gratuitous censorship.
THe US is still the hub for Internet stuff, but long term this won’t be the case.
EU and China will become more important, and thus, Net Neutrality will only affect US destinations.
Sounds like those company’s didn’t pony up enough cash to bribe the Senate.
Democracy – its a beautiful thing, for those with the money.
————EU and China will become more important, and thus, Net Neutrality will only affect US destinations.————
Thank you for thinking and applying a little logic.
I’d give you a little gold star if we were standing face to face.
Yes, indeed.
The truth does hurt when you’re no longer considered important.
That’s the beauty of free societies. One person can make a difference.
All big companies start out small.
“Won’t discriminatory network practices on the US parts of the Internet have a significant impact on the performance of the global Internet?”
Not significantly.
“Even if most “foreign” traffic is routed locally, a tiered Internet will certainly affect foreign web services’ ability to gain marketshare in the US. Americans would prefer to use domestic services available via the fast tier.”
And the big losers here are indeed american content providers and american consumers. It does however not really affect consumers in other countries.
You think some content provider in, say, China is going to pay SBC or some other broadband provider money so american users get “faster access” to the chinese services? Ain’t happening.
This is an idea that *can not* work in practice.
You could argue that this could cause other countries to implement the same system but thankfully not all retarded american ideas gain traction worldwide and I’m willing to bet that this one doesnt. Mainly because it doesn’t work and, no offense, most other countries are aware that the internet is *global*.
“Do I now understand net neutrality?”
Yes.
Why the rush to regulate the Internet? No matter how you spin it, this is what almost every goddamn poster on OSNews, Slashdot, and ArsTechnica are asking for: US Government regulation of the Internet. “Oh, wise Senators, please protect us from our ISPs!”
Are you all nuts? We’re talking about the group of busybodies that wants to ban video games, censor pornography, collect taxes on email, restrict use of cryptography, criminalize software that breaks content restriction, require the broadcast flag, and spy on your every move. By every right, this group represents one of the worst enemies of the Internet.
But suddenly a few CEOs start mouthing off about charging Google for priority service, and the forums light up with pleas that Congress save us from the big bad corporations.
I just don’t understand why everyone was willing to let the market work for over 10 blissful, unregulated years of Internet access, and now everyone is demanding that something be done. Relax! The number of ISPs is increasing. Congress is trying to pass law to make it easier to open telecom franchises. Wireless is becoming more ubiquitous everyday. Competition is increasing.
Leave the Internet alone.
Why the rush to regulate the Internet? No matter how you spin it, this is what almost every goddamn poster on OSNews, Slashdot, and ArsTechnica are asking for: US Government regulation of the Internet. “Oh, wise Senators, please protect us from our ISPs!”
You don’t get it. What everybody is asking for is not [more] US government regulation of the internet. What they are asking for is a law that prohibits that companies regulate the internet. That’s all basically.
What Net Neutrality can prevent is this: say John wants to download and buy online music. John happens to be a user of ISP Xyz. Without Net Neutrality, Apple can sign a deal with Xyz in which Xyz promises to give all its customers faster access to the iTMS than to any other online music store. John sees that the iTMS is faster, and bingo, he’ll use it.
THAT is why Net Neutrality is important.
No, I get it, Thom. You do not.
My home ISP cannot regulate the Internet. It can try to piss of its customer base by slowing down traffic to popular websites, but it won’t, because then its customers would switch ISPs.
On the other hand, I cannot easily switch countries, nor do I want to. If the US government starts making laws about how the Internet is to be run, neither I nor any customer nor any innovator can change that.
Let me restate: the Internet has been run for over a decade as a federation of mostly commercial networks. It has been extremely successful during that time. You are giving the consumer ISPs both too little and too much credit by claiming that we need laws dictating their behavior in order to save the Internet.
Actually, the issue is not at the ISP level, but rather at the telco level… Unless you live in a major urban area, your region might be served by only one or two telcos, most likely one. If a telco starts throttling traffic, your ISP won’t be able to do anything about it since they are relying on them. Well, there are workarounds (like setting up cache proxies), but who is going to pay for that? Not them, that’s for sure…
You can vote for government representatives fitting your views. Can you vote for corporate executives or decisions? Not unless you are a shareholder (your voice won’t matter unless you have lots of share) or a member of the EC… This is the issue, especially since these telcos are wielding an incredibly amount of power and influence.
The issue would be moot if there were many telcos around. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Furthermore, the barrier of entry is incredibly high, even for brillant entrepreneurs. Some people claim that wireless will save us all, but they are not aware of the shortcomings of the technology…
Given their enormous power on telecommuncations, they can pratically shape our lives. In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need such regulations, but power often lead to abuses. That’s without saying that it wouldn’t be wise to apply free market rules in a market that is anything but free…
I bet 98 out of the 100 senators didn’t even understand what exactly it was they were voting on.
/woozle/ Markum, MARKUM!!! Woom! /woozle/
…admittedly… but whenever the gov’t enacts legislation to “protect” something, it invariably has some sort of “back door” to do just the opposite.
Certainly Senate must have more important things to contend with rather than the whims of a few greedy coprorate f**ks.
I fail to see the benefit to the general public. Unless one sees the internet as on Giant Strip mall where the biggest sign and parkling lot gets the most buisiness.
Grrr..
-nX
It seems obvious that in the distant future, the most powerful entities will be those who govern the communication channels. Think of the Internet on the scale of the entire solar system, or even between suns.
> It seems obvious that in the distant future, the most powerful entities
> will be those who govern the communication channels.
In the distant future? You may be aware that the success of politicians (and thus the policies of a country) today is determined by newspapers, mostly those of lesser quality. Telcos already have enormous powers since they can break a country into pieces no larger than a small town just by shutting down their networks. Even the police relies on their network.
In the past, the loyalty of people towards their king (or other ruling person) was determined by herolds and bards, who were the only far-reaching communication channels. People’s loyalty in turn determined ther actions (which, summed up, was a lot of power).
At least things are better today than in the past because we determine ourselves what to say and how to say it. Phones don’t twist our words like a human messenger can do.