For the record, the commercialization of radio happened
in the 1920's, and was the only way that the technology
could be deployed on a mass scale. As for the Forties'
commercialization of television, this was the dream by
both inventor Farnsworth and his fierce rivals at NBC,
for sans a profit motive, no one would have bothered.
The issue is not whether people can make money
from the Internet, but whether commercialization is
going to be done in a socially responsible manner.
As it stands now, ICANN disenfranchises billions
of people worldwide with no say in key decisions.
And since there has never been a public vote on
the privitazation of our public internet, ICANN is,
defacto, an illegitimate regime usupring power
with the collusion of government and industry.
We need governance by laws, not committees,
and I renew the call for an Internet Consitution,
as explained in my analysis of ICANN politics.
http://www.media-visions.com/icann.htm
-- ken
Ken Freed, Publisher
Media Visions Webzine
(a journal of global sense)
http://www.media-visions.com
>Jay Fenello wrote:
>
>>Before the Internet, we could not tell that big business
>>had been using exactly same techniques with ICANN, that
>>it had with the WTO, NAFTA, etc. We could not tell that
>>a knowledgeable minority existed in each of these battles,
>>and despite their protests and well reasoned arguments,
>>they were ignored and marginalized by our government and
>>by our press.
>
>What I have read of the history of the establishment of radio
>and TV broadcasting in the US indicated that a knowledgable
>minority existed who were opposed to the mass commercialization
>of the medium. They were unable to have more impact for a variety
>of reasons, including:
>
>* They were divided amongst themselves, and the large commercial
> interests were more unified.
>* The large commercial interests were able to put together a plan for
> broadcasting that the US Congress thought was sound.
>* Economic conditions at the time (1930s) favored the large
> commercial broadcasters, as it was thought they would stimulate
> the economy.
>* Radio and TV were not something the public at large in general felt
> they needed to involve themselves in on a political level.
>
>--gregbo
