The Global Information Web As A Threat to State Authority

Monroe E. Price begins the excerpt by the bold statement that, "Every new medium, every new technology for transmitting information, causes responses by those who feel threatened." This statement is reiterated throughout Price's excerpt and remains his main opinion on the state's attempts to keep up with the global exchange of information. Price first shows this trend in the world by the example of the radio. After its introduction, the radio was soon seen to be a threat to national sovereignty so in the 1920s and 1930s measures were made to try and maintain a control over the flow of information through boundaries. Internet now serves as the present day nuisance to the state and Price dares to question how one could control it.
These technologies such as the radio or internet are put forth as "technologies of freedom" in the sense that they have the capacity to overwhelm boundaries and as a result they become key to the spread of democracy. The idea that in these technologies not only information is being exhibited is a problem for those states who wish to be separate in the case of natural sovereignty. If democracy is being shown by the mere use of the technology then the nation wanting to avoid democracy must try to avoid the use of said technology. How becomes the new question.
There are many good things that come as a result of the transmission of information through new technologies such as the enlargement of the marketplace of ideas which helps reduce the intense separatist identities that could lead to war and genocide. But along with the pros of using such a medium of transnational transmission comes the contrast through the interest of a state. States concern themselves with the sustenance of their language, enrichment of their history, and strengthening of their internal political and creative processes. Theses interests along with the ideas of national security limit a states want for involvement in such technologies. So what you end up getting from the state is the function of law making in order to limit use of the transmission technologies.
Price describes the attempt of law-making in the field of media regulation, is like building castles in the sand where complex structures will be forcefully erased by an overwhelming cascade of waves. Still there is a need and desire for moral controls, regulation for indecency, and a restoration of a sense of order and security. This paradox describes many of the states reactions to the situation at hand.
Price then tackles the idea of legislation put forth to limit the technologies justified by a means of preserving national identity, when really national identity can be reframed as the set of political views and cultural attitudes that help maintain the existing power structure. He also mentions that the main incentive to change media law or reregulate occurs, within a state, when the cartel of political allegiances can no longer maintain its position of civil dominance. Price is focusing on the fact that deep down the need for legislation from the states remains in their attempt to re-grasp power over the ever-changing technology.
Price gives an example of a state trying to resist such "technologies of freedom" by India's monopoly on terrestrial broadcasting, justified by the satellite tv channel programs' "adverse impact... on Indian values and culture." In presenting more bans and regulations on the "freedom technologies" India is said to be trying to promote the values of national integration, religious harmony, scientific temper and Indian culture", but ultimately the question is whether the technologies of freedom can be stopped. A question that Price compares to the situation of trying to stop the sun from shining by holding an umbrella. The more you try, the more you encourage people to watch.