[sllug-members]: Government and the Internet.

[Chad]

> > 1. Evil CEOs bent on world domination?
> >     No, this is just silly.  They are just trying to make more money.
> >     They are responsible to the shareholders who want more money.
> >     This is exactly what Capitalism is meant to promote.
>
> Rant mode = on
>
> Yeah, they're just trying to make money.  Screw the environment, their
> employees, pension obligations, safety regulations, etc.  Those things
> cost money.
>
> Rant mode = off
>
> Yes, I know they're driven by their shareholders who are just after the
> bottom line, and I know I'm just crying in the wilderness about this,
> but I for one am sick of the sole pursuit of money.  When all they're
> doing is chasing the quarterly numbers, they don't do the sustainable or
> responsible things if those are difficult at all.
>

I somewhat agree, but just like with anything else, there has to be a
happy medium.  We need Company A to make those numbers that encourage
more shareholders, to give them more money, to buy faster equipment.
We just need them to also reduce their profit margin to make this all
work.  I don't think they need to all be billionaires, greed is where
the breakdown is, not the system itself.

> > 2. Capitalism?
> >     No, Capitalism will work fine as long as corporations responsibly
> >     compete.  There are laws to insure responsibility.  It is also up
> >     to the consumers to keep the competition around.
>
> So long as they are responsible.  That's a pretty big and important
> condition.  Especially when marketing companies are now using
> psychological profiling and other techniques to manipulate what the
> customers want in favor of what they have.

Marketing is only, at most, half to blame.  It takes an act from the
consumer to make the item marketed a reality.  At least for now ;)
Marketing I think is out of control by way of cost, which again boils
down to greed.  It costs so much money to advertise that only the
companies that are making huge profits can afford to do it.  Which in
turn furthers the consumers knowledge of Company A while poor company
B with only a fraction of the income that Company A has sits and hopes
their 'weak' advertising strategies pay off at some point.

> > 3. Government?
> >     Maybe, but unlikely.  Many Congress members take loads of money
> >     from corporate lobbyists, and make laws to help them out.  In the
> >     end, I think our checks and balances should prevail.
>
> Problem is, Congress doesn't realize how this will affect the future.
> What seems like a good idea today can end up hurting entire segments of
> the economy.  I remember a story about one Senator/Representative who
> was given an iPod and that opened his eyes to some of the limitations
> and pitfalls of DRM, which Congress passed with a voice vote back in
> 1998.

I think government mandates are by far the worst choice we have.  I
cannot even think of a good example where a government mandate was
actually "all good".

> > 4. The average Consumer?
> >     Yes!  In any Free Market it is up to the consumer to keep the
> >     competition around.  They need to make informed decisions.
> >     The average consumer is more and more following blindly what
> >     these corporations want.  Like a moth to a flame.  It is the
> >     consumer who has the ultimate responsibility to maintain a
> >     Free Market.
>
> In any Free Market (As any Free environment) it's up to the concerned
> parties to keep a check on the power of other concerned parties and
> safeguard their goals and liberties.  It is true that most consumers are
> becoming mindless drones (See above about marketing), which makes things
> for those of us on the fringe or outside the mainstream harder.
>
> > rog made the argument that the Internet's ubiquity is a reason why
> > government should probably step in.  He mentions SPAM as one thing the
> > government can control better.  I agree there are compelling reasons
> > that government involvement in the Internet could help.  However, there
> > are also compelling reasons for the opposite.
>
> Congress has been trying to step in at least regards to spam: the CAN
> SPAM act.  Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have done anything at all to
> reduce spam.

As I noted above, I think it's something we shouldn't consider, the
government should be the last people we look towards to solve problems
regarding the internet.  I don't have an answer for SPAM, but that
doesn't mean I think that my congressman does, or even if he/she does,
I don't think it's anything better than an ISP can dream up.

> > The Internet is a *global* network, not a national one.  Without
> > isolating our country's network from the world using something like the
> > "Great FireWall of China", these laws won't have much effect.  I don't
> > think anyone wants that.
>
> No one except the US intelligence agencies and law enforcement, which
> have gotten laws passed requiring that networks be tapable, or ignored
> laws that hindered their activities.  While this isn't the same thing as
> a firewall, I think it's more dangerous, since a firewall simply blocks
> access, rather than silently following along and tracking.  While it may
> not be desirable to firewall off the country, they can, and seem to be
> hell-bent on tracking things they don't like.

I'm on the fence here.  I don't really care whether or not I am being
"spied on" by my government, mainly just because I don't do anything
illegal.  However, I would rather I wasn't spied on simply because I
don't enjoy thinking someone is watching my every move, it's just kind
of spooky.  But I do see the importance, if, for example, my neighbor
was planning on bombing my car, I'd sure like someone to stop him/her
before I was hurt.  I just have a hard time seeing where this line is
crossed.  I guess with the openness of the internet, to some degree,
we must all accept the possibility of someone 'listening' to our
'conversations'.

> > On a side note about SPAM:  There are 2 major reasons SPAM is so bad.
> > 1. There are still millions of people who read, respond, and buy from
> > spammers.  2. Our current system of mail (SMTP) is ancient and horribly
> > broken for modern times.  We can't do anything about #1.  There will
> > always be gullible people.  Replacing SMTP will be very difficult, but
> > it *is* possible.
>
> Which leads me to my point about waiting too long to do something about
> a problem.  At this point, there is no practical way to replace SMTP
> with something better.  It's simply too entrenched.
>
> ...And I'm spent.
>
> -KW
>
> _____________________________________________________________________

I think that as big or "entrenched" any old technology is, there is
always a way to institute better things in it's place.  I realize SMTP
is enormous, but I still believe that if something actually worthwhile
started working it's way in place, people would 'come around'.  I
think something like "internet 2.0" would actually have to happen.
People with old clients and old servers would have to either live in
the past (that would assumingly shrink smaller and smaller everyday)
or upgrade.  If Sendmail and Postfix were to implement this 'better
something' as their default, my guess is that the majority of people
would make the change much better and faster.

Either way though, regarding the point of this topic, I think that
government control over the internet (read on for some clarification)
is bad.  Laws (as someone pointed out) will be obsolete by the time
they are passed.  Standards committees (too many t's?) such as IANA
and ICANN I believe are the best way to move forward, non-government
controlled entities empowered by thousands of ISPs and possibly even
passed onto the consumer in some situations.

I think that some government control is good.  For example, regulating
the **cost** of connectivity.  Things like UTOPIA, to me, are a Good
Thing.  I think ISPs that actually look to give the consumer a good
offer at a fair price will always be valuable, while ISPs that take a
crap on their customers necks (such as Comcast) will eventually be
phased out (or forced to give in somewhat) as new technologies make it
so new ISPs who actually want to take care of their existing customers
can step up to the plate. An excellent example is from the small
cities where Utopia is being offered to Comcast customers.  **Rumor
alert** I heard that Comcast dropped their prices in one small town to
$12 a month for *everything* for 12 months when Utopia moved in.
//**Rumor Alert**  Even if it's exagerrated I think it's a good
example of how Comcast will eventually have to start playing fair, or
else they are simply going to lose considerably.

-Chad

-- 
Prebuilt HDTV capable systems at reasonable prices:
http://www.pauselivetv.com