For those who want a bit of political mimicry, "The State of the Net is the Strongest It's Ever Been!" But that's a misleading statement, much like Clinton's last couple of January speeches to Congress. The reason it's the strongest is because more people than ever are using the Net than ever. The sheer numbers are overwhelming proof that the Internet isn't just another version of the CB radio. But it isn't all that it could be, and the amount of resistance to certain issues by traditional companies raises many of the same kinds of questions the current presidential campaign does. Mainly, who owns what and how much should all of us regular folk pay for it?

While phone, cable and wireless companies expand their Internet products (a turnaround for the baby bells who, only a year or so ago, were trying to put a per-minute cost on Internet use over phone lines) to give faster, more reliable and overall better service, everyone else is arguing about the content that comes streaming into our homes. How do we protect our children? How do we protect our "intellectual property?" But mostly, how do we make money?

At the heart of this is Napster. I know I've talked about this issue a bit too much, but the Napster fight and decision will affect the way file sharing is done in the future--much in the same way the Roe vs. Wade decision has been the legal division in the fight between pro-choice and pro-lifers.

This is about business and making money. Let's think about music marketing for a second, though. Companies send free music to reviewers, promoters and radio stations in hopes of some kind of coverage, play on the radio and maybe good reviews (although this last point isn't always necessary). Almost everyone listens to the radio--and the only costs to us are 1) having to listen to commercials, 2) having to listen to idiotic DJs telling bad lowest common denominator jokes and 3) the cost of the radio.

For the most part, I only listen to the radio when I'm in my car. But as a teenager, the radio was a window to a larger world. And then MTV became a larger window to an even more diversified world. Today, I rarely can get even half way to work before I have to shut the radio off and put in a mix tape of my own choosing.

I've seen articles about the amazing amount of Internet radio stations available, but these stations are even more selective in content than the over-the-air versions, mostly because they can only support a limited number of listeners, so they can't try to reach EVERYONE, just a very selective and single-minded few. And most of the time, the stations are rotated lists of songs run by computer--not necessarily by human touch.

I like Napster because it gives me the choice of almost everything I want to hear. I pull down sound files and then throw a couple hours of MP3s on my jukebox at work. My own mix, songs I want to hear, no commentary and no constant reminder that I could buy this CD with a click of a button if I want. I only listen to these songs at work and most of them, well, the sound quality is like listening to bootlegs--even through the neato new Mac Cube speakers I conned my company into giving me.

Should I pay for these songs? Maybe. A small, set monthly fee (the suggested $5 a pop sounded okay to me). But per download? No way. I throw out songs I don't like, or ones where the sound is so horrible I don't even want to listen. The big music companies don't get this. They want accountability and profits. But what is the difference between my programming my own radio station at work and just listening to the radio? I still buy CDs of music that I like, just like I buy CDs from bands whose songs I hear on the radio.

32 million people have signed up to the Napster service, which is more than the 25 million people who have signed up for AOL. The music companies should weigh their decisions with a bit of levity. That's a lot of people who like a personal choice in their music--and more than any one radio station (or music channel) in the world. If they can't see that Napster is one of the greatest music promotional tools ever created, then someone still has their blinders on.

On the flip side, the right to vote in this country is given to every citizen over the age of 18 who hasn't been convicted of a felony. This is a free thing and is apparently encouraged by those who are running for public service jobs. It is illegal to sell your vote. And if you get caught, you'll not only lose your right to vote, but you could get fined and/or put in jail.

There is a site called vote-auction.com where a block of presidential votes is being auctioned to the highest bidder. Around 5000 people have signed up to sell their votes, and the highest bid so far comes to around $20 a vote.

As regular citizens, our votes are treated as a sacred trust between us and the government. But those who have been voted into public service sell their votes (through lobbyists) to the highest bidder. There is supposed to be a sacred trust between us regular people and the public servants (as they like to be called) who create and enact our laws.

If these people can sell their principles to whichever company or public interest group who comes up with the most campaign money, then why can't we sell our votes? Cut out the middle man and make a direct connection between the actual citizen and the so-called public servant.

Obviously this isn't going to happen, but this vote auction site does bring up an interesting point: we are selling ourselves (for free, mind you) to whoever we vote for. And there is not necessarily a reciprocal action going on.

If we, as a people, could see our votes as an investment of ourselves in the running of our government, maybe we could get more people to exercise this (free) right.

The Internet has brought up many questions about our culture and the value of products and services we use on a regular basis. It is how we define and, in the end, enact laws about these uses that will shape the Internet in the near future. The freeness and relative anonymity of the Internet is what attracts most of us to use it in the first place. And like the Roe vs. Wade decision back in the 70s, we are at a crossroads. Which road will we take now?

Matt Worley likes to think there are more than two choices here, but he understands that people get confused when they can't just flip a coin.