The Internet Didn't Have to Be This Awesome

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 16:21


photo by Duncan Davidson

Back in April, I wrote a post on MyDD titled 'Why You Can't Get Your iPhone', basically laying out the dynamic that's at work in the spectrum fight I've been blogging about since then.  My interest in telecom policy comes from 2000, when I first read Larry Lessig and his work on free culture.  I started blogging on net neutrality in 2005, and working against the COPE Act in the House led to a much richer understanding of how the right exercises power.  It also led to the primary campaign against Al Wynn by progressive challenger Donna Edwards. 

Matt Stoller :: The Internet Didn't Have to Be This Awesome

If you're thinking about how to understand power in our political system, recognize that governance is not about winning elections, but about leverage points.  And what's happening in Congress, at the FCC, in Silicon Valley, on Wall Street, and among grassroots progressives is an extraordinarily powerful event.  This is the first sustained attack on right-wing corporate power in the form of telecom and cable monopolists, and we're making real progress.  This was basically not going to happen as early as April, but I laid out the basic model for making it happen.

Silicon Valley is buzzing about the potential here, as are media reform groups (and smaller wireless companies).  This is all part of the move to take back public airwaves from the people that give Imus-types privileged positions in public discourse.  This is genuinely revolutionary stuff, and the FCC is going to rule on it soon.  Hopefully we can get Ed Markey and John Dingell to hold hearings and force Chairman Martin to open up the spectrum.

That hearing happened, and something extraordinary resulted.  Chip Pickering, a Republican from Mississippi and former Trent Lott staffer, came out with a progressive position on the public airwaves that is more aggressive than anything outlined by anyone except perhaps John Kerry and Ed Markey.  The decision-makers at the FCC are Republicans and Democrats, so having a Republican leading on this is remarkable.  This is not to suggest Ed Markey didn't make waves; he came out great today, and he scheduled the hearing.  Right-wing FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is moving towards part of the solution here, which is amazing when you think of it.  We have essentially convinced parts of the Bush administration to enact progressive principles.  That is real power.

What we're really talking about here, from a movement perspective, is that ideas matter, and that ideas themselves have power.  There is no better expression of progressive principles than the internet, a decentralized public sphere with consistent rules but no gatekeepers.  But this internet could have been killed in its crib, and telecom companies tried to kill it, constantly.  There were many walled garden approaches - AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy - that embedded control in the management of the network.  The struggle to keep the internet gatekeeper-free was successful, which is why we exist at all.  And the struggle is ongoing, not just to protect what we have as we did last cycle with the net neutrality battle.  We're now trying to define the terms of the mobile future, with the iPhone showing a glimpse of the beauty and locked in control we may be subject to. We do not have to leave a better world to our children, and if the telecom lobbyists have their say, we won't.  But what is going on

These are the kinds of fights we're going to have to have about global warming and health care.  These are complicated and cross-cutting issues with swarms of lobbyists operating in secret, and massive multi-billion dollar companies on different sides of the issue. 


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Killed in its crib? (0.00 / 0)
Would you elaborate on the telco efforts to kill the Internet in its crib? Not having been very politically aware at the time, I just have vague recollections of arguments about carrying data (especially voice) across LATA and state lines. And some talk of taxes on ISPs.

My own take on it was that Compuserve et al were competing on a more or less fair basis with the open ISPs. They started very proprietary and closed then came around slowly, first with Internet email, then newsgroups, then web access and finally became much like the ISPs. I think the competition was fair because anyone could buy the underlying circuits (T1s, POTS) and equipment (modems, terminal servers, UNIX servers) and either build a closed system or connect to the Internet. The result was abundantly clear - the open model was immensely more innovative and dynamic and no mere company could keep up with the breadth and depth of content.

McCain down. Rudy Giuliani is next.


CLECs (0.00 / 0)
For the most part, Telcos were caught off guard by how quickly we went from NCSA Mosaic to the dot-com boom (about 5 years).

However, the second that growth started to impact the actualy infrastructural growth, they stomped on it. In the late 90s, there were supposed to be 100s of local data providers, not just mom and pop ISPs, these Competative Local Exchange Carriers, who could do real last-mile data services of the sort that Verizon and the Cable giants are just now getting around to. That was stonewalled.

Likewise, the "walled garden" services actively resisted providing internet access for as long as possible.

Telcos have generally been more sensitive to infrastructure than to content, but their monopolistic mindset has been consistent.

Me | My Work | Future Majority


[ Parent ]
CLECs a separate issue? (0.00 / 0)
I see competition between ILECs and CLECs as a separate (lower layer) issue. The ILECs were required to sell to anyone, at government approved rates. I'm not sure if the CLECs had the same obligation, but business needs would naturally drive them to sell to anyone and beat the ILEC's prices. In any case, having access to this infrastructure was necessary for the Internet's evolution, and I think it worked at this layer.

I had no problem with the walled garden services actively resisting providing Internet access for so long. It drove their customers to me. Since the underlying infrastructure was available to anyone, the walled gardens had no chance against the Internet. If there is open access to the lower layers (e.g. wireless spectrum), I don't expect the walled gardens to flourish in the future.

McCain down. Rudy Giuliani is next.


[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
I agree, was just giving them as an example of how Telco's systematically resist openness. CLECs got p0wned, but the internet made it anyway thanks to popular demand.

The fact that we got stuck with ADSL and radically asynchronous cable as standards is another example: Telco's don't want you running things at home because they don't believe in the end-to-end principle, still think they're going to be the content mothership...

Me | My Work | Future Majority


[ Parent ]
Telecom Companies... (0.00 / 0)
are "old money," not necessarily in the sense that they're filled with Rockefellers and CFR-types, but that they're emblematic of the old American approach to business--monopolistic, risk-averse, conservative in the political and management style, and more likely to crush an opponent through political means than open competition.

It amazes me that a company like Apple, long heralded for its innovation in design and usability, would partner with such a legendarily unfriendly company as AT&T, and you can see the end result of that bargain in the iPhone reviews. People love the smooth design and easy-to-use features, but are at best mildly impressed with AT&T's crap network. Cynthia Brumfield's review is an example of this: http://www.ipdemocra...

If the iPhone was unlocked and fully usable with any company, Apple would most likely crush all competitors--and I say this as a frequent critic of Apple's own "walled garden" practices. But by linking their phone to AT&T, which promptly gouged the consumer with high prices and punitive fees, they shot themselves in the foot.


GSM and CDMA (0.00 / 0)
I think part of the decision came from the U.S. being split between GSM (AT&T, T-Mobile) and CDMA (Verizon, Sprint) operators. If they were all GSM, Apple may have released it on their own, to be used on any operator. But they seemingly weighed the extra market for their phones (T-Mobile, the 4th largest customer base) versus having an established partner help out with their first entry into the market. I don't think they needed any help in marketing it or with retail capacity. But the monthly kickbacks per subscriber from AT&T surely would be attractive.

McCain down. Rudy Giuliani is next.

[ Parent ]
Nice title (0.00 / 0)
I think that phrase, "The Internet Didn't Have To Be This Awesome" is a great one.

It makes me think of the TV experience they showcase in Idiocracy, which is all shows like "Ow, My Balls!" presented with glaring blinking distractions all around.

If they had their way, that's what it would be. We need to communicate that to the Public, because the Internet is overwhelmingly popular, and if it weren't for massive Public Investments and the fact that Corporations were kept out of the loop until certain rules were laid down, it wouldn't exist as we know it.

Me | My Work | Future Majority


Nice reference (0.00 / 0)
I like the Idiocracy reference, though I thought the movie came up well short of expectations. :(

McCain down. Rudy Giuliani is next.

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox