Posted on 05/17/2006 10:31:42 PM PDT by Cacique
Technobarons of the 21st century
BY FIONA MORGAN
SNIP
John D. Rockefeller realized that the way to control the oil market was to control the transport of oil. So in 1871, he colluded with the railroad industry to form a cartel called the South Improvement Company. The rate to ship oil doubled, but Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company would get rebates for every gallon of oil shipped, even those shipped by his competitors. South would also collect information on the destinations, costs and dates of competitors' oil shipments.
Once word leaked, independent oil producers revolted and managed to stop South before it shipped a single gallon. But to a great extent, the damage had been done. Rockefeller offered to buy out his competitors, showing them his books so they'd know what they were up against. They had a choice: Sell out now, or be run into the ground. Standard Oil went on to control the production of oil throughout the United States until the Supreme Court broke it up in 1911.
SNIP....... It's more than a stale metaphor for talking about the abstract technicalities of the Internet. The way valuable goods are delivered--be they gallons of oil or binary packets--hasn't changed much. When the invention of radio and telephones spurred Congress to regulate communications, legislators used transportation law as a model. Now, as Congress is working on its first major telecommunications bill since 1996, telecom and cable companies are floating the idea of a preferred status for content providers who are willing to pay for fast downloads, with slower service for everyone else--an Information Super-Tollway.
(Excerpt) Read more at indyweek.com ...
Any investors here interested in funding an Internet company that -- well, won't do this? A classic one that is just providing delivery of IP traffic to all comers as fast as possible.
ping
bttt
Threw it at my techie son for comment.
To be honest, I don't understand this bill. But I am wary of the author, as he talks against 'monopolies' like they are a bad thing. There is no such thing as 'price gouging' or 'monopolies' and legislation to deal with each has historically caused massive economic problems.
Standard oil drastically reduced prices for consumer and was a boom to the entire US economy.
The breaking up of monopolies was one of Roosevelt's greatest follies and led to the anti-business sentiment that resulted in his Nephew's (or was it cousin?) socialism.
Imagine you're a voter searching the Internet for information about an upcoming election. You go to the candidates' websites, but the videos of their speeches and debates won't load. You log on to an advocacy site that had an interesting blog and other interactive tools to help you learn about the candidates and issues last year -- but now it doesn't work properly either. You search for the day's campaign news, but your Internet service provider seems to be steering you to download episodes of Commander in Chief and buy a DVD of The American President.
Far-fetched? Maybe a little. But make no mistake: The telephone and cable companies would like to transform our Internet from a medium that allows people to connect to one another, engage in debate and learn about the world into little more than a portal to sell goods and transmit television programs, films and games.
There's a dangerous bill called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE) making its way through the House that could be voted on as early as Wednesday. COPE would make it impossible for certain protections governing Internet freedom to be written into rule or law, leaving all of us vulnerable to companies that would like to 'own' the Internet and mine it for profit. The only communications likely to be 'promoted' and 'enhanced' will be those of the country's largest phone and cable companies.
The telecom giants are going before Congress right now and asking for the right to violate what's known in the tech community as 'net neutrality.' Net neutrality is the principle that you should be able to access whatever web content or services you choose, without any interference from your Internet service provider. Companies such as Verizon and Comcast have already announced plans to create a two-tiered Internet, where some websites and services would travel in the 'fast lane' -- for a fee, of course -- and the rest of the Web would be relegated to the ``slow lane.'
A two-tiered Internet would put small businesses, nonprofits, entrepreneurs, political candidates and local governments at a significant disadvantage and stifle the innovation that has brought us Google, eBay, the blogosphere, instant messaging and so much more. Failure to preserve net neutrality now would open the door to allowing Internet service providers to discriminate against websites and services that can't or won't pay for access to the 'fast lane.' If network providers are allowed to control the flow of information, the open and freewheeling nature of the Internet could be lost.
Why is Common Cause so concerned about a telecommunications bill? COPE threatens the potential of the Internet to spur citizen engagement in their democracy. We know how democratic discourse has benefited from this technological marvel. In 2004, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 63 million Americans went online for political news. An estimated seven million individuals asked for e-mail updates from candidates, and four million donated money online to parties and campaigns. That involvement is only growing.
Millions of citizens access information from advocacy websites ranging from Amnesty International to the National Rifle Association. And e-activists are transforming the way citizens communicate with their elected officials and have their opinions heard on the most pressing issues of the day.
But this renaissance will be cut short if access to the Internet is determined by corporations more interested in selling goods and entertainment than in encouraging democratic discourse. So far, this is a message that our elected officials have not heard. Indeed, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., one of the bill's sponsors, predicted that COPE would win next week in the House by a majority of 280 or 290 votes.
If that prediction comes true, our democracy will be the poorer for it.
btt
Thanks for alerting me to this situation. I was unaware of the effort that is being made by these greedy SOB's to control the internet. There must be a way to stop them.
bttt
Bump for later reading.
btt
"Any investors here interested in funding an Internet company that -- well, won't do this? A classic one that is just providing delivery of IP traffic to all comers as fast as possible."
Weak point in that theory is that at some point you will almost certainly traverse the networks of the established telecom companies. Unless of course you can afford to build your own internet.
Found this at http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/1882
" The lawmakers admit their goal is not to pass definitive legislation in public in the coming weeks. Instead, they want the House and Senate to pass separate bills, regardless of how different they may be. The final version would be negotiated, largely in private, by about a dozen senators and representatives on a conference committee. The Senate just needs to pass "anything to get us into conference," where the real decisions will be made, House telecommunications subcommittee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said Tuesday at a telecom forum hosted by National Journal's Technology Daily."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.