Expectation vectors
In the digital copyright/broadcast flag/analog hole world, there's a lot of talk about “consumer expectations.” Hollywood suggests that no consumer expects to have a “digital open living room,” with open-platform devices that can morph and upload and copy whatever content they get. They fight hard to make sure that consumer expectations are frozen in time — somewhere around the time of the Sony Betamax case. Expectations are dampened, intentionally, and then the scope of “fair use” is tied to their limitations:
“You can't possibly expect that X or Y use is fair, because you've never been able to do X or Y amazing digital feat. All our content works only on our licensed devices (with no analog outputs). You're happy, aren't you?”
In the digital privacy/4th Amendment world, there's a lot of talk about “reasonable expectations of privacy.” Law enforcement would likely suggest that no consumer who's been paying attention would possibly expect that their online communications were private. In a world of digital/magical surveillance of all kinds, the idea is that no one can claim that they thought they had a right to be left alone. Expectations are dampened, and then the scope of “privacy” is tied to their limitations:
“You can't possibly expect that X or Y electronic thing you just did was private, because you've seen the news stories and the ads — we can see everything! You're safe, aren't you?”
This is overstatement, but it's alarming how useful “expectations” are in both of these contexts, and how easily squelched they can be.
Have the Right Tools
Yesterday morning three events convinced me of the importance of having the right tools for the right job.
I was supposed to be at someone's apartment very far away from mine (175 blocks north) by 10am to play the Grosse Fuge. (Pause for moment of reflection re just how bizarre and disturbing that movement is.) When I got to the right neighborhood, I discovered that I was forty minutes early. So I killed a lot of time and then arrived punctually.
But I was half an hour late. My watch had slowed. The others glared politely at me.
Then, at the end of our time, we found we could not leave the room where we were playing. Nope — no way out. The door was firmly jammed shut. My host took out an Exacto knife and tried to move the lock, but no luck. Then he reached for a triangular cardboard container next to a crowded bookshelf and withdrew…a saw. Yes, a saw. I will never forget the sight of this mild-mannered cellist working away at the door with his saw. That worked, fortunately (I was not looking forward to whatever escalation ideas he had), and we were very relieved. He put the saw back in the cardboard container together with the bow he uses to play the saw. It was not just any saw — it was a musical saw.
Then we trooped towards the door for the long ride south. And, once again, we could not leave. The outer door to the apartment was completely stuck. My host chuckled, and began working with the lock — this time, all it took was a key.
This is not a consequential story. But it was one strange morning.
Evolution and a prioritized internet
The network providers say that a vibrant market will evolve if we just let them prioritize their networks.
But evolution requires feedback. The problem with the AT&T (say) model is that it controls an essential feedback mechanism of the network, and makes real feedback impossible.
Here's why I think this is true. As things stand now, if a video provider's servers are getting overloaded, or if site visitors are dropping off midstream, they'll know - and they'll be able to go to middlemen (like Akamai) to become closer to their users. Akamai, in turn, can react on a dime to what's going on with the video provider's servers. Similarly, if a site gets no traffic, it will disappear (effectively) — dying for lack of attention.
With a prioritized internet, the Akamai role will be played by the network provider itself. The network provider will be selling, in advance, prioritization services. Its customers for these services might be popular or might die absent prioritized packets, but they'll never know. Services that might die will just be able to pay for priority, even though on a level playing field (the cruel fields of evolution) they wouldn't be able to attract attention. And services that might be popular won't be able to obtain for themselves better service than the network provider decides to provide. Most importantly, the network provider will be jury, judge, and parole officer for all prioritization, and will never be a perfect conduit for the feedback that user attention would otherwise provide.
You might say, But people pay for attention all the time! What's the big deal? People make deals and hire publicists so they'll be found! Why is is so different to pay a network provider?
The difference here is that there is no chance that the network providers' responses to user feedback/reactions will be as nuanced as those of individual autonomous reactions to feedback. We'll have a system that reaches whatever equilibrium the network provider decides is appropriate. That's not evolution. That system will amplify, distort, and punish in ways that a truly competitive, decentralized market for attention wouldn't.
Framing
The debates over the future of the internet should begin (although they hardly ever do) by answering the question What Is The Internet?
It turns out that how you answer that question correlates strongly with your view of the future. And it also turns out that using the “layers analysis” may play into a telco/cableco view of the future.
If you talk to a carrier (or a former carrier — now calling himself a “network provider”), he'll probably say that “the Internet” is made up of three chunks: the backbone, the last mile between a carrier and an enduser, and the connection between content providers and the backbone.
If you talk to one of the founding fathers of the internet, he'll probably say that “the Internet” is a collection of standards that allow the networking of computers.
If you talk to a current user/producer of internet “content,” he or she will probably say that “the Internet” is the collection of interactions and relationships that happen online. (I remember the first time I used the term “online content” in a lunchroom in 1993 and someone I was talking to laughed hugely – “Content?” he said. “What on earth are you talking about?”. Now we use “content” without shame, and maybe we shouldn't.)
Who's right, and what do these frames lead to? Well, it appears that if you're a carrier, and the internet is those three chunks of wires, and you invested in rolling out a lot of fiber, then — therefore — you have property rights in some part of “the Internet” and you need to be paid for their use. And if you're not paid for their use broadband penetration will remain low. For you, “transport” and “the Internet” are the same thing.
If you're a founding father, and the internet is the standards, and you're looking to be a founding father once again, you may suggest that “the Internet” is irretrievably broken and needs to be rearchitected. (Bob Kahn and David Clark may fit in this category.) For you, “protocols” and “the Internet” are the same thing.
If you're someone who goes online and is neither a carrier or a founding father, you may have expectations that “the Internet” will continue to be a free and ordered place whose value comes from interactions — not from the access valves used to get there. You're probably aware of internet “standards,” as well. So maybe you're worried about the effect on “the Internet” of the carriers' depredations. For you, “communication” and “the Internet” are the same thing.
It all depends what you think “the Internet” is. I think “the Internet” is a combination of standards and interactions/relationships. I'm with the founding fathers on this one, but I think their view can sometimes be a little narrow. These online interactions/relationships are persistent in a way no other network (and no mere “language”) has made possible. It's a new informational construct that can be separated from the substrate used to store/forward its elements. And so, because I'm neither a carrier nor a founding father, I'm worried about the future of “the Internet.” Our internet.
Thanks to Michael Froomkin for talking to me about a recent paper and suggesting that “standards and relationships” are what make up the internet.
OneWebDay meetup in SF
If you're in the Bay Area on Thurs., March 9, come to a OneWebDay party/brainstorming session — details here. Sign up on the wiki so we know you're coming.
Lots of other parties being scheduled.
The arguments on the other side — in favor of a prioritized internet
If you're going to argue for an open internet, you'd better be able to respond to the following:
1. It's strange to have as a default background assumption FCC regulation.
2. Your empirical assertions about collective activities online being of greater value than property rights of network builders etc. are untested and may be incorrect.
3. People always free-ride. There may be so much freeriding online (eg across P2P networks) that such collaboration isn't actually efficient.
4. Your view of the internet is profoundly static. What about the inventions that haven't arisen yet? What will provide the incentive structure for them to emerge? Where's the money going to come from? Network builders need to monetize their networks in order to continue to innovate.
5. We should rely on markets and wait for market failure before having government intervene.
6. Moving from two broadband providers to three won't provide substantial consumer benefits.
7. Generally speaking, if there's value to users in collaboration, then a market-driven provider should be able to meet users' needs. Notion that you need regulation in order to provide valuable services is a non sequitur.
Powell on Choice
On the walls next to the stage in the Glenn Miller Ballroom at the University of Colorado are two enormous black and white pictures. The one on the left is of Glenn Miller himself, horn-rimmed glasses, looking over his shoulder, trombone in his left hand, ready to play at any moment. The one on the right is the first page from the manuscript of a Glenn Miller tune — I think it must be Moonlight Serenade, the signature with which the Miller band famously signed on and signed off their radio broadcasts for many many years. When you knew the Glenn Miller Band was coming, you knew this tune was coming.
Today Michael Powell spoke from the stage in this room, and he seemed very anxious about the amount of choice in the world. (He said many interesting things, but I'm seizing on this theme for the moment.)
He said (paraphrasing here): “My argument is that the problem with media is not concentration, it's hypercompetition. We're fragmenting media, so we're getting 'me tv.' Do we really want this much diversity? This is a social problem. We are losing community. In the Walter Cronkite area, because the media market was so concentrated we had a communal media experience — we had no choice but to talk about the previous night's broadcast. Our minds were opened because we had to listen to stories we might not have chosen to hear.”
He went on: “Fox news is always on for my father in law. Now every one of us can reinforce our preconceived biases. I can tailor my internet news, go to places that only traffic in my biases. Ironically, this is splintering our country. We are making our own world, and we don't have a shared experience. Media regulation is premised on the idea of scarcity, but what do you do in an era of abundance? Does anyone really think there's scarcity any more?”
He broadened the theme, talking about how overwhelming the choices available are. “I have no idea what's in my iPod. You don't want 25K songs. You want the songs and pictures you care about. Maybe there is too much diversity, too little community, media is too influenced by the political environment.”
He finished by saying, “Until we get our metrics coherent, until we decide what we care about as a country, these media issues are explosive and unsolvable in a public policy sense.”
Now, you could read this in two different ways. Maybe his assumption is that regulation should help people deal with this diversity and insist on making different sources of information available. Maybe he's signaling that vertical integration of media platforms (eg, broadband) is absolutely fine because it may help people bump into different sources and deal with overload. Or maybe he'd like to see greater federal support for public television as an alternative source of news. Can't tell.
But former Chairman Powell is perplexed by the amount of choice in the world. He's worried (a later answer made this clear) that children are afraid of failure rather than hoping to succeed. He's worried that we can tailor our experience too much. He is worried about our collective future, and he's not necessarily saying that regulation of any kind is the answer.
He certainly misses Walter Cronkite, whose voice provided a Glenn Miller signature-tune like constancy to his childhood.
Big day at Silicon Flatirons
Today was a long day of panels, with no wireless. And so I paid full attention.
(I was lucky to be able to start my own presentation with a situational joke. Last night, when I tried to send my slides to the conference organizer using the hotel wireless connection, the message went through but prompted an immediate message: “Network intrusion detected. The service has noticed unusual traffic coming from this computer. Your connection to the internet will be slowed to 56K for the next ten minutes.” I am not making this up. It was 1998 here in the Boulderado Hotel for the next little while.)
I was most struck by what Dale Hatfield had to say today. He said he didn't see how we gave up on common carriage so easily. It's a concept that goes back to the 1600s, and we dropped it in a matter of months. He said that he didn't think that content and carriage should be mixed together, and that structural separation might not be such a bad idea.
There was also a great moment when Judge Stephen Williams of the DC Circuit said that his perspective as a judge wasn't so useful. (Of course, many cases reviewing what the FCC does go through Judge Williams's hands.)
Former Chairman Powell said that calling Google and Yahoo! new entrants and worrying about protecting them may not make sense. He seeemed to be hinting that there were antitrust concerns looming for these companies.
Powell also talked about the institutional reality of the FCC. Paraphrasing: “The FCC is asked to make affirmative economic policy. So it's like a little independent legislature. A little Congress. This means that it has the dynamics of a legislature. So, like Congress, the political pressures are great. And the Senate confirmation process is aimed at getting politically reliable appointments to the Commission in place, who will advance particular points. The Act bakes in this politicization by dividing the seats by party.”
He went on: “Also, the nature of material the FCC regulates is more intimate for regular people than what the FTC does or the SEC does. So this invites enormous public reaction. They're on the front page all the time.”
Comparing the FCC to the FTC, Powell noted that the FCC is “unique in its really narrow focus. The FCC is 24/7 communications policy, all the time. So naturally there's a professional lobby, and a series of incestuous relationships. The first question about all of this should be: what should the FCC as an institution be in the future? Its current construction isn't capable of certain things. If we fail to ask that question, we're missing a really interesting and big piece of the story.” (Again — all of this is paraphrasing.)
I was surprised at the references to the FTC. It's true that it had seemed to me that the FTC was a good deal more professional and neutral than the FCC in the results it emerged with, but I didn't know that was a widely-held belief. It must be demoralizing for the staff to work hard and then have political results-ended work dictate what emerges. There seemed to be real questions as to whether the Commission would be able to do the backward-looking regulation that the PFF is calling for. They're not great at enforcement.
As with all the telecom conferences (still not many) I've attended, I was once again taken aback by the cavalier attitude the telecom guys and the cable guys have towards the internet. For them, it's a network like any other, and all the old rules should apply.
Except when, as with common carriage, it's inconvenient to apply the old rules.
Chairman Powell spoke again after dinner tonight, urging the students to consider public service and reminding them that it wouldn't be easy.
Blogging Silicon Flatirons
I'm in Boulder. It's very cold.
Maybe that's why no one from the FCC is coming to this conference.
Or maybe there's another reason. Former Chairman Michael Powell is speaking.
Anyway, it's odd–isn't it?–to have an entire conference devoted to the subject of telecommunications regulation and not be speaking to a single regulator. Yes, the lobbyists will be here.
We Need Oprah
I went home early from school today to do some serious research: Oprah. The show whizzed by. She's the authority–the person who knows all about Us and can look us straight in the eye and Change Our Ways.
Today's show was The Debt Diet. Several families wrecked by debt were described, several experts came on to tell them how they could fix their lives if they would only Act Now, pledges were signed (”I will follow the Debt Diet advice prescribed by Jean Chatzky”), and then one of the richest women in the world looked deeply into the camera and said that she wanted to start a movement in America. A movement to get out of debt.
I believe her. She can start this movement. She's right. I immediately went online and checked to make sure I wasn't carrying a balance on my Visa card. (The show was terrifying – couples spending out of control, helpless, everything in collection, even though they have good jobs and friends and seem otherwise sensible.)
If we're going to celebrate the net and get great collaborative things to happen online on OneWebDay, we need Oprah. We need to reach the people who might not think that the net is changing their lives, and might even just take it for granted. This movement can't be about netheads talking to one another.
So how does OneWebDay get on Oprah? Anyone know?
Recently there was a guy who desperately wanted to play a dead body on television or in a movie. Here's his site. He went on the Today show, the Paula Zahn show, appeared in the New York Times, all with the motto Help Me Live My Dream: Let Me Play Dead. And — guess what — he got a part.
If Dead Body Guy can become a star, OneWebDay can get on Oprah. I believe in Oprah, I believe in OneWebDay, and I believe in the net. Somehow these three things will come together.