Saving the Net: A Call to Arms

By Doc Searls, 11/17/2005 - 2:24pm

Editor's note: There's been a lot of talk lately about two threats to Internet freedom, one that may come from the Federal Election Commission or Congress as they weigh the idea of regulating bloggers, and the other that was supposedly going to happen if ICANN was taken over by the United Nations. While these issues are certainly worth watching, the real threat to the Free Net may well be coming from an entirely different direction, not Big Government or World Government, but the Big Businesses known as the telecom and cable industries, with their allies in the copyright cartel and their paid vassals in Congress. Doc Searls has just published a long essay on this topic called "Saving the Net: How to Keep the Carriers from Flushing the Net Down the Tubes," in Linux Journal, and we are pleased to publish a condensed version of the first part of his essay here.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. --Kevin Werbach.

Are you ready to see the Net privatized from the bottom to the top? Are you ready to see the Net's free and open marketplace sucked into a pit of pipes built and fitted by the phone and cable companies and run according to rules lobbied by the carrier and content industries?

Do you believe a free and open market should be "Your choice of walled garden" or "Your choice of silo"? That's what the big carrier and content companies believe. That's why they're getting ready to fence off the frontiers.

And we're not stopping it.

With the purchase and re-animation of AT&T's remains, the collection of former Baby Bells called SBC will become the largest communications company in the US--the new Ma Bell. Verizon, comprised of the old GTE plus MCI and the Baby Bells SBC didn't grab, is the new Pa Bell. That's one side of the battlefield, called The Regulatory Environment. Across the battlefield from Ma and Pa Bell are the cable and entertainment giants: Comcast, Cox, TimeWarner and so on. Covering the battle are the business and tech media, which love a good fight.

The problem is that all of these battling companies--plus the regulators--hate the Net.

Maybe hate is too strong of a word. The thing is, they're hostile to it, because they don't get it. Worse, they only get it in one very literal way. See, to the carriers and their regulators, the Net isn't a world, a frontier, a marketplace or a commons. To them, the Net is a collection of pipes. Their goal is to beat the other pipe-owners. To do that, they want to sell access and charge for traffic.

There's nothing wrong with being in the bandwidth business, of course. But some of these big boys want to go farther with it. They don't see themselves as a public utility selling a pure base-level service, such as water or electricity (which is what they are, by the way, in respect to the Net). They see themselves as a source of many additional value-adds, inside the pipes. They see opportunities to sell solutions to industries that rely on the Net--especially their natural partner, the content industry.

They see a problem with freeloaders. On the tall end of the power curve, those 'loaders are AOL, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and other large sources of the container cargo we call "content". Out on the long tail, the freeloaders are you and me. The big 'loaders have been getting a free ride for too long and are going to need to pay. The Information Highway isn't the freaking interstate. It's a system of private roads that needs to start charging tolls. As for the small 'loaders, it hardly matters that they're a boundless source of invention, innovation, vitality and new business. To the carriers, we're all still just "consumers". And we always will be.

"Piracy" is a bigger issue to the cargo sources than to the carriers. To the carriers, "fighting piracy" is a service offering as well as a lever on regulators to give carriers more control of the pipes. "You want us to help you fight piracy?", the transport companies say to the content companies. "Okay, let's deal." And everybody else's freedoms--to invent, to innovate, to do business, to take advantage of free markets and to make free culture--get dealt away.

The carriers have been lobbying Congress for control of the Net since Bush the Elder was in office. Once they get what they want, they'll put up the toll booths, the truck scales, the customs checkpoints--all in a fresh new regulatory environment that formalizes the container cargo business we call packet transport. This new environment will be built to benefit the carriers and nobody else. The "consumers"? Oh ya, sure: they'll benefit too, by having "access" to all the good things that carriers ship them from content providers. Is there anything else? No.

Crocodile grins began to grow on the faces of carriers as soon as it became clear that everything we call "media" eventually would flow through their pipes. All that stuff we used to call TV, radio, newspapers and magazines will just be "content" moving through the transport layer of the pipe system they own and control. Think it's a cool thing that TV channels are going away? So do the carriers. The future a la carte business of media will depend on one medium alone: the Net. And the Net is going to be theirs.

The Net's genie, which granted all those e-commerce wishes over the past ten years, won't just get shoved back in the bottle. No, that genie will be piped and priced by the packet. The owners of those pipes have a duty to their stockholders to make the most of the privileged position they've been waiting to claim ever since they got blind-sided, back in the 80s and 90s. They have assets to leverage, dammit, and now they can.

Thus, the Era of Net Facilitation will end. The choke points are in the pipes, the permission is coming from the lawmakers and regulators, and the choking will be done. No more free rides, folks. Time to pay. It's called creating scarcity and charging for it. The Information Age may be here, but the Industrial Age is hardly over. In fact, there is no sign it will ever end.

The carriers are going to lobby for the laws and regulations they need, and they're going to do the deals they need to do. The new system will be theirs, not ours. The NEA principle--Nobody owns it, Everybody can use it, Anybody can improve it--so familiar to the Free Software and Open Source communities will prove to be a temporary ideal, a geek conceit. Code is not Law. Culture is not Free. From the Big Boys' perspective, code and culture are stuff nobody cares about.

That's us: Nobody.

The new carrier-based Net will work in the same asymmetrical few-to-many, top-down pyramidal way made familiar by TV, radio, newspapers, books, magazines and other Industrial Age media now being sucked into Information Age pipes. Movement still will go from producers to consumers, just like it always did. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Literally.

The deals that matter will be done between tops of pyramids. Hey, it's easier to do business with the concentrated few than the dispersed many. The Long Tail can whip itself into a frenzy, but all the tech magazines and blogs in the world are no match for the tails and teeth of these old sharks. (Hey, Long Tailer, when's the last time you treated your elected representatives to private movie screenings, drafted their legislation, ghosted their committee reports, made a blockbuster movie or rolled fiber across oceans?)

We all know the content business got clobbered by this peer-to-peer crap. But the carriers took a bath by building out the Net's piped infrastructure. They sank $billions by the dozen into fiber and copper and routers and trunks, waiting for the day when they'd be in a position to control the new beast fleshed on the skeleton that they built.

That Day Has Come.

It came earlier this month, when the November 7, 2005, issue of BusinessWeek hit the Web's streets, and Edward Whiteacre, CEO of SBC, was asked "How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google, MSN, Vonage and others?" and he replied:

How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

What matters most is Saving the Net--keeping it a free and open marketplace for everybody--while also making sure that carriers of all kinds can compete and succeed while providing much of the infrastructure on which that marketplace resides. That means we need to understand the Net as more than a bunch of pipes and business on the Net as more than transporting and selling "content".

This isn't a trivial issue. It's a matter of life and death for the Net itself. How are we going to fight?

Doc Searls is senior editor of Linux Journal, and a member of the Personal Democracy Forum advisory board. In the remainder of his essay, he examines how community internet solutions like municipal wi-fi might be a "public workaround" the threat posed by the carriers, and argues that we need to fundamentally reframe how we talk about the Net and the Web to win this fight.

What's at stake here

Doc's post comes in at 5,000 words, and you've condensed it to 1,400. But you cut off the, umm, proverbial long tail of the article. Or maybe you posted the long tail and left out the meat. Let me try trimming the fat here.

In or about word 3,200, the 68th paragraph, Doc gets to an actual issue for policy-minded, rant-tired people to care about. The House committee on Energy and Commerce is considering legislation that one could call the Squeeze Skype/Vonage Act, or the Recover Broadband Investments Act. The idea is that the telecoms want to set aside bandwidth for their own content (for VoIP, Video, etc.)

Doc passes along the Business 2.0 speculation that Google wants to build its own access network. So, we are to wonder, whether Google is a good witch or a bad witch. Submitting testimony to the hearings is Vint Cerf, inventor of TCP/IP, and now Chief Internet Evangelist for Google. Here's the key part of Cerf's
letter to the committee
: "Allowing broadband providers to segment their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need."

So that's the policy issue. I understand that there's a populist slant here that Doc is pushing, and that a thousand letters or a million emails may sway (or swarm) the policy discussion. Unfortunately, I take the separate tack and just suppose that in our society we sometimes have to put up with making the capitalists (that is, us) happy, and making sure that free culture still reigns. And one might have to frame an argument like that to appeal to centrist or dispassionate policymakers.

More is at stake

Jon--Doc's essay is actually something like 8000 words; I just condensed the first third. As for cutting off the "long tail," I thought was I was doing was pointing people to it!

Sorry if the piece wasn't to your taste. I posted it because I think defending the open network from pipeline monopolists is pretty important, and the issue needs more attention in political circles, not just among net-heads.

Since I have this fantasy that PDF readers span both worlds (tech and politics) it seemed well worth pointing them to Doc's rant, since it's pretty well written and accessible. And the policy implications are broader than just one bill currently in congress--this connects everything from FCC policy on cable, recent Supreme Court rulings, and municipal wi-fi.

In my humble opinion, that is...

fair enough, but give us the steak, not the sizzle.

Micah-- forgive me, I stopped counting at 5,000. And yes, I did start getting into the rest. But I'm just not as alarmist as Searls. Sometimes I'd just like to scan the source issues before the editorializing.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Technology and the Internet are changing democracy in America. Personal Democracy Forum is a hub for the exciting conversation underway between political professionals, technologists, and anyone else invigorated by the remarkable potential of technology to engage citizens in the democratic process.



Navigation

© 2008 Personal Democracy Forum | All Rights Reserved |
The layout, use of images, color, and other qualities.
How well is does the site carry the message of the candidate?
How the site discusses the issues and how it uses language.
How easy is it to get involved in the campaign?
How well does the site utitlize blogs, video, podcasts, discussion boards, and other technologies?
The ease of navigation and the quality of interactivtity.