Vonage and Verizon: Crisis in Communications (infrastructure)

In the beginning, there was AT&T. And they were granted a govt. approved monopoly because laying the infrastructure for a national network for telephony was extremely expensive. They retained their basic monopoly until late into the 20th century. What does this have to do with Vonage and Verizon? Despite the fact that Vonage may have "infringed" on patent rights, I think that it's important to recognize that the foundation of Vonage's service depends upon the use of the technologies that Verizon has developed and Vonage (may) be using.

I had a discussion with my father about the morality or the legality about Vonage's use of their land lines to conduct business. That may be a separate matter, but it may be just as inextricably connected with the patent offense as any telecommunication issue at law. Becaaause, what we have is an international network of in-ground wired, wireless, satellite and cross-ocean cables that are expensive to lay and maintain. YES, this is certainly the truth. And it is indispensable.

However, should we expect Vonage to begin laying its own ground wire, or its own fiber optics?? That is an unreasonable, and really inefficient expectation. The laying of infrastructure should be treated as a public utility .. more so! It should be a subsidized by federal govt.! The necessity of that infrastructure has been explicated by the UN. The importance of a global communication network is a social good that cannot be overstated. The creation of cheap and competetive services that can utilize the infrastructure already laid should be the aim of legislation and arbitration. This is a concert objective.

Vonage, or whoever, should be allowed to use these networks, and not have to pay much of a service fee for using patents, or using networks already laid. Like highways, like waterways, the telecommunication networks should be a subsidized property; their obvious necessity doesn't require further explanation. The law, in this respect, needs to understand the economic and social ramifications of allowing Vonage to use these networks and the technology to create competetive networks.

R.I.P.: Citizen-Broadcast Radio

The panel of judges presiding over the case of webradio broadcast royalties has blocked attempts to initiate any further review. Royalties will be charged starting May 15. This is a decisive defeat for cultural reinterpretation and citizen-level broadcasting. The royalties will deter many from listening to broadcasts (because they will either need to pay subscription fees, or else listen to commercials surrounding their music).

Where we can, we would prefer not to have our own culture packaged, repurposed and sold back to us.

I forcefully sound of cry of "Democracy, NOW!" whenever I talk about the potential of the internet. The potential for long-distance communication of just about any media so far conceived. The movement of goods and ideas throughout the globe, without resorting to an intermediary. It is a shame to think that private citizens cannot engage in private discussions with other individuals without being assaulted by the commercial messages of others. It seems an invasion of space, peace and privacy.

Mostly, I'm disappointed at the rallying power of the medium. The fact that web radio has suffered this blow suggests to me that the internet does not have the power I thought it had. Or, if I'm too pesimistic, I can at least say that people didn't organize quickly or strongly around this - in which case we have resolved to be invaded by commercial messages. Either way, I see culture and history as being assaulted, as being distorted; being wrapped up in a lie of commercialism. When I can't stop thinking about Cadillac when I also think about Led Zeppelin, a shiver runs through my spine. At least "Oh Lord, would you buy me a Mercedes-Benz" was a cultural and social critique using popular imagery - it was commercialism focused through cultural production. With Cadillac/Led Zeppelin, the commercial edifice is hijacking (STEALING!) our collective cultural history and forcing us to PAY for it.

Apple & EMI remove DRM

"What do consumers think their freedom is worth?" I think that it is most important question to keep at the fore of our minds as we engage with the changes that Apple and EMI are instituted. I was very impressed with the decision to relax DRM on songs, but the kicker is that additional 30 cents - it's a matter of principal, tied to the greater implications of what 30 cents can come to symbolize. I suppose we're supposed to feel elated by the grace of Apple & EMI to provide us access to our culture ( or our neighbors') in a widely tradable format, and for only an additional 30 cents per song!!!
Does 30 cents represent the output of some complex formula predicting losses resulting from illegally traded files? To me it just seems to be the arbitrary economic moniker given to free[ly tradable] culture. Then again, what it may come to represent may be something wholly different, or even negligible. But, I think that the most interest outcome from this agreement - aside from the impending results of Jobs' "market experiment", is the commidifcation of "trading" culture.
Maybe it's not wholly unique, but this is certainly an iteration of it. Not only has Apple priced cultural artifacts (in this case music) at 99 cents, but now they and EMI have provided consumers with a price for the "free" trade of cultural artifacts. I'm not satisfied with this sort of determination of what I thought was a free activity. Certainly, information storage and distribution of it have influenced the commodification of those technologies and the particular information being traded ... but I always thought that direct peer-to-peer exchanges couldn't be commodified.
I keep conjuring up an image of having to pay to share a bite of pizza with my girlfriend. I know that's a stretch of an analogy, but I think enough can be milked to create the foundation for the consternation I feel toward this new 30 cent-scheme. It's very simple, and I agree that it is a shaky experiment, but it's practicing commodifying direct peer-to-peer sharing - no medium, no third parties involved. 30 cents, to me, is an invasion of my rights of property and liberty - I dissent from the proposal that commodifies the activity of personal exchanges (as separated from the commodities exchanged). I refuse to acknowledge that freedom of exchange can be commodified.