While we're discussing the future of the Internet, I'd like to put forward a proposal that's radical in its simplicity: Let's ask the public what they think. I don't mean a poll on Mac vs. PC, Google vs. Yahoo, or Coke vs. Pepsi. I'm talking about a fundamental and truly public conversation about how the future of the Internet should look.
For decades, the crucial decisions that shape the Internet have been made behind closed doors by high-priced lobbyists and ill-informed politicians with little or no public involvement. Surely Congress could agree to hold public forums -- online and off -- in every state, if not every district, before making the monumental decisions that will shape the future of the Internet for a generation.
You can pretend the government doesn't matter, that technology alone will magically set us free. But if you want the most revolutionary forum for free speech, democratic participation, and economic innovation to prosper, you'd better have a seat at the table when those rules are being written.
Currently, the U.S. is 15th in the world in broadband penetration and slipping: The Japanese are rolling out high-speed Internet that's 30 times faster than what you can get here; and compared to the Scandinavians, our cellphones look as if they were made by Fisher-Price.
Why are we falling so far behind? Bad policies.
In 2006, Congress came within a hair's-breadth of passing a sweeping and dangerous overhaul of the nation's telecommunications laws that was largely written by AT&T. Among other things, that legislation would have permanently eliminated Network Neutrality -- the "First Amendment of the Internet" that prevents ISPs from discriminating against Web content or services based on their source, ownership, or destination.
This massive boondoggle was stopped by an unprecedented public outcry, spurred by an unlikely coalition that brought together MoveOn.org and the Christian Coalition, Google's Vint Cerf and the Gun Owners of America, the ACLU and the American Library Association. (It didn't hurt when U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the architect of the legislation, was caught on tape ranting that the Internet was "not a truck but a series of tubes.")
But even at the height of the Net Neutrality fight, most of our leaders in Washington had no idea what they were voting on. Given the magnitude of these decisions, you'd expect our leaders to actually go out and ask their constituents what they think. But most didn't even take a public position before the vote.
The lobbyists for the big phone and cable companies benefit from keeping us in the dark. They claim this stuff is too complex for us simpletons to comprehend. Leave it to the experts, they say. And here's what we get in return: censorship, throttling, blocking, walled gardens, slow speeds, and high prices.
I know what you're thinking: He wants moreregulation. (Cue the ominous music and visions of the Gulag.) But the fact is that we're gonna have rules. The question is: who they will benefit? We know Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) and AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) will get their wish-lists in front of the decision-makers. What about the rest of us?
As a first step, how about actually forcing elected officials and federal regulators to leave the Beltway, go out across the country, and ask the people what they want? I suspect their answers will look a lot different than the ones you'll hear in the corporate suites and at D.C. cocktail parties.
Here are a few questions to get things started: How do we protect free speech and open access on all networks? Why don't we have more choices and real competition? Why are we falling behind Denmark and South Korea? What will it take to bring the benefits of broadband to everyone?
Not everyone will agree, of course. Maybe your list of concerns is different. But let's at least have the debate in the light of day.
I've got my own priorities (starting with Net Neutrality), but I'll settle for opening up the conversation to genuine public involvement -- you know, democracy -- and letting the chips fall where they may.
— Craig Aaron, Communications Director at Free Press
Well, your distrust in promises by politicians in election time may have an element of truth in it, but in this case the candidates involved definitely not all promise the same thing. Hillary Clinton is very much on the side of the creative industry, which might have won California for her yesterday. The republicans in general are pro-industry and would abolish net neutrality immediately if they could to let the market go its own way. Barack Obama has gone on record defending net neutrality, as the only candidate still in the race.
Now it's not my intent to hail Obama here, far from it, but what I want to underscore is that voters at least have a choice. It matters which candidate you vote for in you are for or against net neutrality. This is one of the few ways to make oneself heard in this debate, and influence the power of these media conglomerates in some way. It's the least you can do if you care about these things, whatever your stance on net neutrality is.
Then by all means .. given that this is indeed an election year .. start your work on educating the public. Your Congressional representative is up for re-election (they all run every 2 years) so start there. Go talk to their staffers about getting time at an election forum to address the issue. Get a neighborhood/city blog or message board created so you can build support. Maybe get some time reserved with the local Chamber of Commerce to talk to business leaders about these issues. If you want public involvement to address the problem, these are good ways to get started making it happen. Check back and let us know how it's working!
I don't agree that the public can't understand these issues. They may not know about throttling -- but they understand censorship. And they know what they want: faster speeds, lower prices, more choices. The question is why our public policies aren't achieving those goals?
I believe that's partly because we've treated media and Internet policy as too complex, too specialized, and better left to the "experts." That plays right into the hands of folks -- namely high-priced lawyers and lobbyists from AT&T and Comcast -- who don't have our best interests at heart and would prefer to do things behind closed doors.
All I'm saying is let's bring the debate into the light of day. Let's educate people about what's at stake. And let's organize so that our policies bring the benefits of broadband to everyone. The only way to get the politicians on board is if they understand
that being on the wrong side of these issues will cost them votes.
Of course, any good outside strategy must be paired with a good inside one. The
staffers will come around if they hear from the public, backed by advocates, scholars and programmers who do understand how the Internet works. But it's not one or the other. You've got to have both.
I think the idea you are talking about sounds very nice, but then again, I look at the responses to messages on other sites and then I'm not so sure that "the public" is where you want decisions made about technology.
Most people use Internet and computers, and have no clue how they work. To them, they are both utilities that are interesting or useful. But make a decision about bandwith? Throttling? They won't even know what you are referring to.
The countries you cite as having better access and policies did not conduct referenda to develop them; those decisions came "top down". The issue here is how to get the Washington staffers sufficiently educated about these issues so that they are willing to get their bosses on board. It really would help if some candidate for Senate or the House would make this a central issue in their race.
I find it ridiculous at times when people make endorsements based on
the declaration of politicos. Politicos can say anything when it comes
to getting votes and most of the time they fail in fulfiling their
promises. The issues raised in your post are really in place but i
doubt if we can ever get close to the ideal picture you painted. The
big corporations have get so much influnce in the corridors of power
that i believe they will continue to make and take decisions on our behalf. It's a very sad situation and i really don't see in the forseable future this trend changing. Both present and future governements would continue to work 'hand-in-gloves' with these corporations whilst making us to erroneously believe that whatever decisions they take is for our good. So for now at least we could only hope things change along the line.
I understand, Craig! It wasn't so much about your explicit endorsement to me. On the eve of super tuesday and after having read Garrett Graff's post, I was only interested to see how you would relate your argument to the current political developments. But I admire your efforts not to label your organization as partisan.
I very much agree with the ideas put forward in this post. It is a general and widespread myth that the internet is free, unregulated and open society––whereas instead the web is to a large extent owned and controlled by ISPs on a primary level and overarching international media conglomerates. Given this situation, it's almost a miracle that net neutrality is still in tact, even though the DMCA has had significantly negative influence on free speech online.
Your argument reminds me of the work of Lawrence Lessig, with whose work I suppose you're quite familiar. In short: we (the people) need to make a joint effort to influence and regulate the code/law of online practices, because otherwise private enterprises will do this for us. Pessimists might say it's already too late. Lessig by the way has put his money on Barack Obama to safeguard net neutrality, privacy and freedom of speech online. Would you agree with Lessig's endorsement––Obama being the most likely candidate to work on the concerns you mentioned?
First off, Thank You Craig for this proposal - a truly bottom-up populist participation in probably the most significant development of our lifetime. Since, by precedent we espouse the Public to be the owners of our 'Airwaves' it's only fitting to assume a leadership position on the development of the latest incarnation of Mass Media & leapfrog the old sponsor based model of Advertising supported content delivery. The political implications of public participation & oversight can't be understated or even completely cotemplated given the potential ramifications. It may very well be the last best chance for the re-mocratizion of America, & potentially the planet...
Next, the comments (not sure about this one) following Craig's contemplative are absolutely on-track & well founded in their initial observation of the challenges this process must face. Universal access, equitable distribution, low cost - high efficiency to insure maximum opportunity for participation of this model.
A United TelecommuniNations organization that is non-politically affiliated & has no economic interest or advantage for oversight & watchdog responsibility to make sure everyone plays by the same rules & connectivity is consistently maintained. I like the Web 3.0 Interstate route over the common carriers & ISP infrastructure that is currently employed.
The social developmental conceptualization as an intrinsic operational principle that this technological innovation is a transglobal watershed event in the evolution of the human race & will fundamentally alter us as a species in our social, structural & spiritual constructs, influence our political conventions, enrich our technical prowress & scientific knowledge on a global basis & impact each of us at our most private & personal level. Cha Change...
This idea of a new Tellmecommications is truly 'awesome' & a little scary, but what an exciting time to be alive & experience this remarkable event unfold - I mean OMG...
Yes, Craig - We need a seat at the table & while we're at it, let's invite the Best & Brightest among us to share their thoughts & concerns about it, & share the conversation with everyone who might be affected... which is everyone. Power to the Pinky(s) & the Brain!
Here are a few questions to get things started: How do we protect
free speech and open access on all networks? Why don't we have more
choices and real competition? Why are we falling behind Denmark and
South Korea? What will it take to bring the benefits of broadband to
everyone?
"
The most boisterous members of the Internet are carriers and ISPs. But they are only limited members of the whole network, controlling partially or completely their segment of the whole network. Their segment is useless without the rest of the internet.
At present here is no central body which can override any company which uses its monopoly to control any segment, whether it be prioritised routing, throttling, evesdropping, filtering, substandard service, etc, etc, etc.
I propose a set of devices and protocols which provide end to end routing above ISPs, carriers and transport mediums.
Control over the whole internet has to be by an international, not for profit, publically audited and accountable body.
This will create a level playing field for all, from the largest corporations to individual users everywhere.
My proposal answers all the questions you have posed in the article.
I am in Australia and these problems exist in many countries. It is not about my country or yours, it transends countries.
The main points are public accountability and modernising/replacing TCP/IP.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
By all accounts, the Obama transition team is moving faster than its predecessors in filling the top cabinet and White House positions, from the State Department to the economic team to the USDA.
Last week, a bipartisan majority at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to punish Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK), the nation’s largest cable company, for secretly blocking legal file-sharing on the Internet.
Here in Minneapolis, it's hard to avoid the presidential race. Last Tuesday, Barack Obama claimed the Democratic nomination before an immense crowd here. In a few months, John McCain will take to the same stage to accept the Republican nod.
Internet policy is too complicated for everyday people -- or so the phone and cable lobbyists and their hired apologists keep telling me. And with all their ominous warnings about bandwidth congestion, gigalapses, and exafloods, the Web's future can seem scary and confusing to elected officials and average citizens alike. But you don't have to know your DNS from your TCP to be part of the debate over what the future of the Internet should look like. In the end, it all comes down to a very basic question: Should the Internet be open or closed?
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
Techies are going crazy over the possibility that Google might design and sell its own Android phone. Some writers say it's a very big deal. Reiter questions whether it will happen and, if it does, whether it even matters.
Ever since the iPhone debuted, cellular manufacturers are rushing to incorporate touch screens into their phones. Alas, cellphone touch screens have significant problems that can actually harm business productivity. And doing business isn’t about getting the high score on Super Monkey Ball!
Companies used to be confident they'd know exactly what a cellular OS would look like out of the box. Today, that confidence should be fading. Reiter discusses how a cellphone OS's looks could be deceiving, and why businesses need to understand it.
Google Chrome isn't pretty like other OS GUIs, but it's the first OS ever designed from the Internet inward to the desktop instead of the other way around. Crochet a nice border for a Chrome OS window if you like, as long as you realize the world of the cloud will change our conception of desktop computing forever.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
The release of Microsoft's newest OS raises the question of the company's relevance in an era when Google dominates applications and search, and Apple runs circles around Redmond with its gadgets and user interfaces.
More companies are trolling social networks to find and vet potential job candidates. Beware the pitfalls of blurring the line between personal and professional lives.
Some thoughts on new tools that use the cloud for synchronization rather than storage, and how they might signal a shift in strategy for at least one software giant.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Ray Kurzweil's Blio and Apple's iPad tablet will make it easier than ever to have books "read" to us, says Dr. Kim, who believes that talking tablets will become interwoven into our consciousness as we "merge" with the increasingly elegant machines we hold in our hands.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
