Of all the lines that Dr. Pangloss pesters me with (and you know who you are), the one that gets me the most goes something like this: “But there’s an internet now. Why do you worry about media concentration when there’s an internet?”
So there’s a million reasons why this is silly — despite the importance of blogs, etc. But the one that’s most relevant is this:
At the same time that media concentration restrictions are being removed, such that 3 companies will own everything, so too are neutrality restrictions for the network being eliminated, so that those same three companies — who will also control broadband access — are totally free to architect broadband however they wish. “The Internet” that is to be the savior is a dying breed. The end-to-end architecture that gave us its power will. in effect, be inverted. And so the games networks play to benefit their own will bleed to this space too.
And then Dr. Pangloss says, “but what about spectrum. Won’t unlicensed spectrum guarantee our freedom?” And it is true: Here at least there was some hope from this FCC. But the latest from DC is that a tiny chunk of new unlicensed spectrum will be released. And then after that, no more. Spectrum too will be sold — to the same companies, no doubt.
So then, Dr. Pangloss: When the content layer, the logical layer, and the physical layer are all effectively owned by a handful of companies, free of any requirements of neutrality or openness, what will you ask then?
Could one way, to avoid the control of the Internet by corporate oligarchy, be to avoid using their bandwidth?
By growing a cooperative commons of cables, wi-fi, caching and bandwidth-pooling technology, the geographically close can shrink their dependency on corporate bandwidth. Have you seen considered the legal, financial and technical aspects of this idea?
Could a second way to avoid the control of the Internet by corporate oligarchy, to organise a public buy-out of those corporations? Would it be sufficient to create an Internet Commons Cooperative (or charity) with well-defined inviolable public interests; raise the necessary funds from around the world; then buy the necessary shares?
I can see where the Wi-Fi idea would work, but that would also require, the servers be connect to such, not to mention the malicious nature of people. who would try to take down systems, servers, and possibly the whole network…
As for answer number 2, well, I could see that working, but there is a flaw in that, to be able to by the shares they have to be for-sale, and most CEOs, CFOs, and presidents wont want to give up their majority shares, thus they still control the company….
sorry to poke holes, but everything needs to be looked at from all angles before you can make a clear judgment, and a clear judgment, is the basis for a good solution…
I have to agree with you about the Internet being imperiled. I believe, however, it is being attacked from from more than just one direction. It may not be enough to position a handful of media giants who control broadband access to also gain hegemony over all Web content.
There are legislative initiatives underway in a number of states (my state Ohio included) that would prohibit state government agencies from competing with private concerns in providing information (produced with taxpayer money) electronically that was created by the agency.
Then,there is the more generalized expansion of copyright law, a subject about which I am blissfully and totally ignorant.
The push to legislate filtering by libraries (I guess now in limbo) and schools (smack dab in the lowest circle of Hell) is probably the most insidious electronic censorship device yet created–multi-purpose chastity belt that serves both nether region and the higher functions simultaneously
I don’t think the battle is over quite yet, however. And the pollyanna in me maintains what I admit to be a somewhat irrational belief that you wrong.
This “corporate” ownership of the world is here and will get stronger, so I would ask you the reader; “what can we do to keep our freedoms?” “Is there anything that can be done to stop the control of information by a handfull of people?”
Let us look at solutions as the problem has been obvious for sometime now.
Isn’t it the reverse? Wasn’t it Candide that was asking the questions to Dr. Pangloss? Wherein Pangloss would reply that it all is as good as can be given the circumstances?
As if Larry Lessig was channeling my thoughts (and ugly thought right there!) I am sitting here writing a paper on the politcal economy of broadband and critiquing Lessig’s theories when, poof!, on to nettime and I am whisked away like I am in the Matrix, with thousands of Lessig and Powell clones chasing me across the network….
Phew, I’m back now and I have to say, that one of the most depressing aspects of Lessig’s broadband criticism is an almost religious adherence to market solution is a market that has clearly failed and calls for serious government intervention. Rather than trying to tweak the market around the edges to ‘unleash’ it, we need to go into the Telecom Act and conduct major bypass surgery, with an organ transplant or two thrown in.
Larry, there is no failure or shame in saying that this needs to be fixed with a new Telecom Act. We are the ONLY country that hasn’t updated its telecom laws (and constitution for that matter) since the end of WWII. I don’t consider 1996 a reform act, or if it was, it was a failure. I’d like to see Larry, David, and the others start lining out what our new Telecom Act will have in it.
We will have an opportunity to discuss it in Madison November 7-9, 2003. Let’s make the new Information Society Policy Act the centerpiece of our constructive efforts to finally fix this thing. The Internet is Dead! Long live the Internet!!!!
Mike Weisman
now back to my paper…..
No, a way forward is not to avoid using “their” bandwidth, because non-market bandwidth will never constitute a full solution to international networking — unless markets die as our primary economic system, of course. But that seems unlikely.
Rather, the way forward is to acknowledge the market’s role in bandwidth provision, and to ensure that such provision takes place in the way we need it to, ie end-to-end. Right now, that’s pretty much happening; there’s no market failure. If it comes about that there is, then that’s where we need to begin looking to common carrier regimes and the like.