Closing the Information Highway
        © 1997 Richard K. Moore

        As published in Toward Freedom, December 1997.

        Domination of cyberspace is mission-critical  
        for the masters of globalization
        

As Noam Chomsky documents in Manufacturing Consent,
propaganda has always been an essential mechanism in the
machinery of democracy, the primary means by which the elite
insure that their own interests aren't overwhelmed by what
Samuel P. Huntington refers to as the "excesses of
democracy" and what James Madison referred to as "mob rule."

In the ongoing see-saw struggle for power, ownership of
media -- to influence opinion and ultimately government
policies -- has always been used to advantage by economic
elites in democracies. Popular movements also have made
effective use of the media, from time to time, but in
today's concentrated media industry, elite control over
public opinion is, for all intents and purposes, total.  So
total, in fact, that just as a fish isn't aware of water,
one sometimes forgets how constrained the scope of public
debate has become.

Even opposition to the status quo is channeled and deflected
by media emphasis, as with the US militia movements, the
Perot and Buchanan candidacies, and nationalist  movements
in Europe. All these have been used to "define"
anti-globalist sentiment as reactionary, isolationist,
luddite, and racist.

Demonization of government and politicians -- in fact,
blaming government for problems caused by globalism and
excessive corporate influence -- is perhaps the single most
potent coup of the mind-control media in undermining
democratic institutions and promoting globalism.

Revision by Omission

Globalization itself exemplifies the potency of media
propaganda. The rhetoric of neoliberalism, with its
"reforms" and "market forces" and "smaller government,"
isn't just a "position" within the scope of public debate.
It frames debate. Politicians and government leaders rarely
question whether to embrace globalization, but compete
instead to espouse national policies accommodating it.

As media itself is globalized and concentrated, it's no
surprise that globalization propaganda is one of its primary
products. Whether the vehicle is a feature film, network
news, advertisement, panel discussion, or sit-com, the
presumed inevitability of the market- forces system and the
bankruptcy of existing political arrangements comes through
loud and clear -- even when the future's dark side is being
portrayed.

The success of this barrage is especially amazing in light
of the utter bankruptcy of the neoliberal philosophy itself.
The whole experience of the robber-baron era has simply
vanished from public memory. In true Orwellian fashion, we
are told that market forces and deregulation are "modern"
efficiencies, the brilliant result of state-of-the-art
economic genius.

As a consequence of this historical revision by omission, we
rarely hear that these policies have been tried before and
found sorely wanting -- that they led to economic
instability, monopolized markets, cyclical depressions,
political corruption, worker exploitation, and social
depravity. Generations of reform were required to
re-introduce competition into markets, stabilize the
financial system, and institute more equitable
employer/employee relations.

In fact, regulatory regimes created a generally reasonable
accommodation between the interests of the elite and the
people. But, with the help of today's media propaganda,
everyone now "knows" that regulations are nothing more than
the counter- productive ego-trips of well or ill-meaning
politico-bureaucrats with nothing better to do than
interfere in other people's business.

Today's "reforms" are actually the dismantlement of reforms
which moderated decades of market abuse.  Yet, old wine can
be presented in new vessels, as long as the message is
repeated often enough and facts that don't fit are never
given airtime.

Image Control

The mass media is the front line of corporate globalist
control. This fact, in addition to market forces, adds extra
urgency to the pace of global media concentration. The
central importance of corporate- dominated mass media to the
globalization process, and to elite control generally, must
be kept in mind in attempting to predict the fate of
Internet culture once commercial cyberspace begins to come
online.

In this regard, the treatment of cyberspace and the Internet
in the mass media over the past few years lends some
portending insights. Two quite different images are
typically presented, one commercially-oriented and the other
not. The first, frequently seen in fiction or futuristic
documentaries, focuses on the excitement of cyber
adventures, the thrill of virtual reality, and the promise
of myriad online enterprises. This commercially-oriented
image is given a positive spin. Suddenly every product and
organization on the block includes a www.My.Logo.com on its
packaging and advertising, in many cases with only symbolic
utility. Madison avenue is selling cyberspace,
pre-establishing a mass-market demand for its future
commercial version. The other image has to do with sinister
hackers, wacko bomb conspirators, and luring pedophiles. 
Those who use the net daily find such stories ludicrous and
unrepresentative, but because we dismiss them we may not
realize that's all much of the general population hears
about today's Internet.

The infamous Time article on Cyberporn, for example, was
pure demonization propaganda, and standard  publication
procedures were surreptitiously violated in order to get it
printed. And the effect wasn't undone by the mild apologies
offered later. A recent US regulatory initiative (actually
an attempt at censorship), whose passage was assisted by
that well- timed article, was fortunately rejected by the US
Supreme Court. But the defamation campaign continues.

The relationship between cyberspace and democracy is complex
indeed. Internet culture has enabled a renaissance of open
public discussion -- a peek at a more open democratic
process. But this phenomenon has been experienced by a
relatively tiny minority of the world's population, and may
in fact not survive the commercial onslaught.

On the contrary, as universal transport for mass media
products, cyberspace may in fact become the delivery vehicle
for even more sophisticated manipulation of public opinion.
Rather than the realization of the democratic dream,
cyberspace may turn out instead to be the ultimate
Big-Brother nightmare.

In a world where most significant events will involve online
transactions, and where backdoors are built into encryption
algorithms and communications switches, everyone's every
move is an open book to those who have the keys to the net's
nervous system. From the accounting records alone, there
would be a complete trail of almost everything one does, and
the privacy of this information (from government, police,
credit bureaus, advertisers, direct mailers, political
strategists, etc.) is far from guaranteed. Systematic
massive surveillance by government agencies would be
extremely easy. There's even the possibility of
surreptitious gathering of audio and video signals from home
sets which are thought to be "off,"  and the remote
overriding of home security systems or automobile functions.
Mandatory chip-based ID cards or implants may sound
fanciful, but the number of initiatives in those directions
worldwide is cause for serious alarm. In short, cyberspace
could turn out to be the ideal instrument of power for the
elite under globalism, giving precise scientific control
over what gets distributed to whom on a global basis, and
full monitoring of everything everyone does. Some readers
may may react with "It can't happen here."  I would ask,
"What is there to stop it?"  The corporate domination of
information flows is an inherent part of the seemingly
unstoppable globalization process.

Utopia for the Few

One can think of digital cyberspace as a kind of utopian
realm, where all communication wishes can be granted. But
who will run this utopia?  Net users tend to assume we'll
waltz in and use it for our creative purposes, just as we
have the Internet. But others have designs on it as well.
We're willing to pay a few cents per hour, while complaining
about any usage charges, and our need for really high
per-user bandwidth is yet to be demonstrated. The media
industry, in contrast, can bring a huge existing traffic
onto cyberspace, a traffic with much higher
value-per-transaction than email and web that can gobble up
lots of bandwidth. We want to pay commodity prices for
transport, while the media industry is willing to pay
whatever it needs to --  passing on its costs to consumers.

From a purely economic perspective, the interests of the
media industry could be expected to dominate the rules of
the road. But economic considerations may not be most
decisive in setting the rules of cyberspace. Continued mass
media domination of information distribution systems is
necessary if the media is to play its accustomed role as
shepherd of public opinion.  This is mission- critical to
the continuance of the globalization process and to elite
societal control in general.

The mechanisms of domination include concentrated ownership
of infrastructure, licensing bureaucracies, information
property rights, libel laws, pricing structures, creation of
artificial distribution scarcity, and "public interest"
censorship rules. These tactics have all been used and
refined throughout the life of electronic media technology,
starting with radio, and their use can be expected as part
of the cyberspace commercialization process.

Indeed, signs of each of these tactics are already evident. 
The US Internet backbone has been privatized; consolidation
of ownership is beginning in Telecom and in ISP services;
WIPO (World Information Property Organization) is setting
down over-restrictive global copyright rules, which the US
is embellishing with draconian criminal penalties; content
restrictions are cropping up all over the world, boosted by
ongoing anti-Internet propaganda; pricing is being turned
over increasingly to "market forces" (where traditional
predatory practices can operate); chilling libel precedents
are being set; and moves are afoot to centralize domain-name
registration, beginning what appears to be a slippery slide
toward ISP licensing. And these are still very early days in
the commercialization process.

Consider the U.S. Telecom Reform Bill of 1996. 
Theoretically, it's supposed to lead to "increased
competition."  But consolidation is permitted both
horizontally and vertically" a telco can expand its
territory, and can be sold/merged with content (media)
companies. Prices and the definition of services are to be
determined by "the market." There's also a transition
period, during which a determination must be reached that
"competition is occurring."  After that it becomes a more or
less laissez-faire ball game, especially given the ongoing
climate of deregulation and lack of anti-trust enforcement.
There's no going back, no guarantee that if competition
fades regulation will be restored.

Just as the media industry is already vertically integrated
(owning its own distribution infrastructure -- satellites,
cables, and the like), so it will seek mergers and
acquisitions in the telecom industry as the digital network
gets closer to implementation.

Following awesome merger wars among huge conglomerates, a
single media-communications mega-industry, dominated by a
clique of vertically-integrated majors, is likely to emerge.
Regulation will indeed govern cyberspace but -- in
accordance with the globalist paradigm -- it will be
regulation by and for the cartel of majors.

Control of Distribution

The whole point of monopolization is to create an
all-the-traffic-will- bear marketplace. This is the market
paradigm that operates today, for example, in cinemas and
video rentals.  Films compete on the basis of consumer
interest, not price. So, cyberspace majors will compete with
one another, but in content acquisition -- seeking to have
the most successful product offerings and coverage -- and in
extending their market territories.  This competition may
bring consumers ever more titillating entertainments, but
the scope and "message" of their entertainments (and
information) will be limited and molded by corporate
interests.

International regulations being laid down for libel,
copyright, and pornography combine to make Internet culture
ultimately untenable. A bulletin board, for example, would
not be run in open mode; in essence, a bonded professional
staff would have to filter out submissions to avoid
liability to prosecution. List owners would be forced to
become censors, verifying contributor's statements as do
newspaper editors. The open universe of today's Internet
seems destined to be marginalized, just like America's
CB-radio or public- interest broadcasting, thus completing
the commercial domination of cyberspace and the corporate
domination of society.

The ability to distribute media products at reasonable rates
to large (but not quite mass) audiences translates into the
ability to start up a competing media company, with
production costs as the only major capitalization required. 
This is exactly what the media cartels wish to avoid;
discouraging start-ups is what "control over distribution"
is all about. In the case of TV, scarce bandwidth translated
into expensive licenses, and the cartel was easy to
maintain.

In cyberspace, the cartel can maintain its traditional
distribution control by defining services, and setting
prices, in such a way that media-distribution is
artificially expensive, and becomes cost- effective only on
a massive scale, requiring massive capitalization.

What do you think it will cost you to send a message to one
person in commercial cyberspace?  My guess is that the
"traffic will bear" about as much for a one-page message as
a first-class letter.  This may seem over- priced to you,
but so what?  I consider my voice phone service (and CDs)
over-priced - c'est la vie in the world of monopoly market
forces.  The advertising brochure will boast, "Get your
message instantly to anyone in the world -- all for one flat
rate less than a domestic postage stamp."

At 25 cents/recipient, you can see what happens to the
Internet mailing-list phenomenon: a 500-person list carries
a $125 posting fee direct from the poster to the telco.  You
can play with the numbers, talk about receiver-pays, and
point out that corporate users will insist on affordable
networking, but monopoly-controlled pricing has the power to
totally wrench the foundations out from under Internet usage
patterns. The media-com industry will make plenty of money
out of 1-1 email messaging, and plenty more out of their own
commercial products. Whether or not they want to encourage
widespread citizen networking is entirely up to them,
according to their own sovereign cost/benefit analysis. If
they don't favor it, it won't happen -- except in the same
marginalized way that HAM radio operates.

There likely will be some kind of commercial
chat-room/discussion- group industry, but monopolized by
online versions of talk radio shows, and presided over by an
Oprah Winfrey Larry King -- with inset screens for "randomly
selected" guests.  "Online discussion" can thus be turned
into a new kind of media product, and its distribution
economics can be structured to favor the cartel.

The prospects surely seem dim for both democracy and
cyberspace, and cyberspace itself may be more a part of the
problem than a part of the solution.