To
my peers in the industry, I ask you to carefully think
through your positions on the new set of “open internet” rules the FCC
is proposing. The rules would prevent Internet
companies from selectively blocking or slowing certain Web content and
would require providers to disclose how they manage their networks in
an effort to promote transparency and true "openness."
The
FCC has said the rules will allow ISPs to manage their networks to
ensure smooth performance during peak traffic times. Internet service
providers are concerned that the rules would apply only to them and not
other Web companies. Manufacturers are worried that the rules would
hamper their ability to find new ways to manage Internet traffic.
Certainly, I have a visceral reaction to most attempts to impose policies on markets, especially around the internet which has seemed to prosper well on its own set of organic rules, and with blessedly little regulation. The capital cycles and innovation rates are enormous; and they are, of course, related to the prospect of making money through market differentiation.
But
I don’t see the proposed rules as a set of regulations,
any more than a constitution is.
They are, in my view, a codification of a set of fundamental principles around openness. A central question is, given we have done this well and gone this far, why do we need them now? I have a few answers to this, but mostly it’s because along with our technology advances in delivering networking and network services, we’ve also improved the ability to unilaterally, and thus dangerously, control it.
In many cases, nearly perfect unilateral control. Cryptography, in particular, lets us get really good at controlling content and devices. We can, if we choose, dictate the applications that can and can’t run on a device (a phone, say). We can also, instantly and en masse, revoke the content residing in the network (on an ebook, say). And we will certainly get better and better at extending these controls on a packet-by-packet basis, deciding which packet gets to go where, and perhaps re-written in the process. Perfect interlock is possible between devices, networks and services.
This certainly has not been the principles on how so much collective innovation has taken place on, and under, the internet. The vibrancy of where we are today is because we have been free from unilateral control points. With the web, in particular, anyone can challenge an incumbent with their idea of a new service by simply creating and publishing it, without getting any prior permission --- apps review, network service connections, or otherwise. Cloud computing lowers the barriers even further. But it is very easy to imagine that any of new control points by an single company or entity could be become a land mine to innovation.
Why new rules? We should actively and collectively set our principles around openness. It’s in our mutual self-interest to codify them. I say “mutual self-interest” for a bunch of reasons. At an abstract level, the internet is one big value-add network effect. Wherever you are along the food chain, you benefit from the value of the internet to society always increasing. Certainly for new web services, keeping the barriers as low as possible maximizes their creation. Similarly, getting more bandwidth, reliably and cheaply, to customers will increase the ability to consume these new services. And new devices benefit from more ubiquitous broadband and tons of services. We all have to keep this open cycle open.
At
a purely pragmatic level, the shoe can very quickly go
onto another foot. You might see open principles as somehow restrictive
to your
particular business decisions today, but I assure you that tomorrow a
new perfect
control point somewhere else will have you wanting to have some rules
by which we all play.
And
finally, there is enormous mutual self-interest in
getting out in front on these principles. The FCC has promised that the analysis will
be data-driven and fact-based. Let’s have the conversation,
figure them out collectively, and work to get
the right policies in place. Maybe what are being proposed aren’t
exactly right,
but to me a blanket response of don’t need any rules will come back and
haunt
us all. Unilateral control is getting really good, and quickly.
So
to my peers, let’s hang together on this. Let's be
progressive and write down the principles we should continue to shape
the
network around.
Or we shall most assuredly hang separately.
Greg,
This is an interesting perspective, and I absolutely agree on the need for better cooperation around such regulatory issues. However, I do not agree with the premise that the Internet is free of what you call unilateral control points. I would instead argue that the root problem giving rise to the network neutrality debate is exactly the existence of such a unilateral control point: the last mile. As there is, in practice, no competition on last mile access because telcos (or cablecos) hold a monopoly on the access to our homes and offices, there exists no market for services. The main beneficiary of network neutrality regulation that allows this monopoly to persist is not the users of the networks, but the telcos and cablecos.
If the last mile monopoly is broken, then I can respond to my ISP filtering or rate limiting a site of interest by changing providers simply and quickly. This quite effectively motivates providers not to filter. So, yes, let's cooperate, let's eliminate those unilateral control points, and let's start with the granddaddy of them all: the last mile.
b
Posted by Benjamin Black on October 20, 2009 at 08:28 PM PDT #
Greg - I fear if this is not regulated it will become another playground/opportunity for the folks in Goldman Sachs.
Posted by Robert Holt on October 20, 2009 at 09:52 PM PDT #
The last mile monopoly is precisely why we need some flavor of regulation for network neutrality. Without effective competition between bandwidth providers, those providers have implicit monopolistic control of the content that is delivered to your house or business. They can favor content that is financially or politically advantageous to them at the expense of alternative content merely by slowing the performance of alternative content to a speed that is unusable.
The internet is one of the last and most powerful tools for unfettered free speech. The content of newspapers and radio is largely controlled by sponsors and owners. For example, the radio talk show content available to my signal (with an exception of weak very local stations) has a philosophical viewpoint contrasting vividly with the opinions espoused by the majority of the citizens of the state. Ratings don't matter. In fact, highly rated programs have been canceled at the whim of the station ownership. The same is not true of the internet at the present.
End users can and do pay for the bandwidth they use (for instance a high-performance optical connection costs more per month than a dial-up connection), but bandwidth providers should not have the power to censor content by selectively restricting bandwidth. In the present regulatory environment, they are able to do exactly that. We can take them at their word that they won't do that, or we can put regulations in place that prevent them from doing that.
Posted by Lisa Curhan on October 23, 2009 at 06:56 AM PDT #
I see a fundamental point missing from all this discussion. Given the way this technology is advancing, it seems almost certain that "the web" will become the primary delivery medium for functionality that was previously provided by telephone companies, and by radio and TV stations. This has already happened in the background; it is just the "last mile" where it is not apparent. There is no good reason why your web connection cannot function seamlessly as your telephone, your radio, and your TV. The only real differentiation is in the "last mile" where your telephone appears to be connected to a different device from your television or radio, even though it all runs on essentially the same backbone.
As such, the infrastructure needs to be regulated as a public utility, with equal access for providers and consumers guaranteed by law. There is already precedent for this; the FCC created the cable TV industry by a simple ruling that said that if you share an antenna with X number of terminals, you must provide Y hours of original content. The result was the first public medium where content was not limited by bandwidth.
With guaranteed equal access to the infrastructure, ISPs would be judged by the market and dropped when they get caught interfering with the consumers' selection of content.
Posted by Michael Bechler on October 26, 2009 at 08:51 AM PDT #