In the days before instant messaging, Twitter, Google and a host of other Web-based communication tools, the Internet basically served only three groups: scientists, educators and the government.
Thankfully, government “leaders” could not imagine how the development of the Internet and the Web would change the world. Most saw no large-scale social signature to it and more important, they did not think it offered commercial value. So, the government let the free market deal with what government believed represented a one-dimensional, inter-office memo generator.
I think most of us recognize how something grows and prospers amidst government’s heavy hand:
- No taxes.
- No regulation.
Less than two decades after the government abandoned the Internet business, the Web drives the economy, education and social interaction. The greatest compilation of information ever known now sits a keystroke away for billions of people.
History shows when government goofs it does not take long for it to try to get back in the game with the two things it does best: tax and regulate. So far and amazingly with the help of Congress and the courts, Americans have been spared both.
But if anything, government remains vigilant and persistent.
Proposals to tax the Internet and Web have failed several times, as have ill-conceived plans to charge users for usage such as e-mail. Efforts to regulate its content also have failed, most notably through the courts striking down federal regulations on First Amendment grounds.
But I doubt the tax-and-regulate game is over, yet.
So the question becomes what role should government play when it comes to the ever-expanding and more powerful Internet and Web?
Does government deserve a chunk of the revenue pie?
Should government efforts continue in the area of regulation?
These key questions will be answered in the years ahead, and the citizenry would be wise to think about them now and offer input to lawmakers— sooner rather than later.
Resources:
- http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/...
- http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hIQjrMHTv4
- http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=212808
I disagree with Mac McKerral that internet is contributing to only three types of people. It is for every one and due to the internet and IT india is now becoming a powerful country all IT related job are taken by Indians or by Philippines .
The U.S. State Department made a demarche to the Chinese protesting the censorship. That's an encouraging and important step. But we need to go further. Not only do governments need to ratchet up their emphasis on the centrality of a free press to any democracy -- and take a stronger stand against those who pretend at representative government -- they also need to find a better way to collaborate with and if necessary regulate or impede those companies who provide Internet and other media censors with the technologies and tools they need to do their jobs. It is absolutely appalling that supposedly "enlightened" companies like Google trumpet their saintly behavior on the environment and other PC issues and then work behind the scenes to enable censorship and thus the evisceration of the fundamental human right to access to the truth about their lives.
Thanks for the great post. You make an excellent point about service providers such as Google, who reached their Zenith financially and otherwise by utilizing the freedoms guaranteed them corporately and in cyberspace, while at the same time putting shareholders and profits ahead of that freedom when it comes to applying a the kink in the freedom hose in other countries. I have heard the phrase "too big to fail" in terms of the banking and finance industry as a justification for stimulus packages. I wonder if Google and others are "too big to be free."
The FCC has a place to regulate and tax. After all, the infrastructure of broadcast is the spectrum of radio waves, that must be regulated for interferance with sensitive equipment. Moralisticly, the FCC should not be allowed to make content decisions, but that's my opinion.
Taxing the internet would be much like taxing parking spaces. Sure the government helps build some infrastructure, but much of the actual investment in the internet is from the private domain. There's already state sales tax on this equipment, and on things sold via the web in the US. Now, the government could say "We built the roads that brought you to this parking space!" but we already paid for the roads. There's no bounds to gain revenue from the servers owned by companies and corporations.
Speaking of which, some corporations want preferential treatment with regards to bandwidth and subsidies. I say, in the most serious way possible, hold on. The pace of information sharing is still growing exponentially. Yes this puts more strain on these large corporations, but they also will benefit from people using their hubs and the new developments to reduce network strain.
The Internet is a democratic relm, with some companies having a larger, louder voice. But the brilliant thing is, the internet is flexible, can be rebuilt anew, and can circumvent any efforts to tie it to a government. (Except in China's case where the government is willing to kill over media control)
Post new comment