The Zeitgeist

I am glad to see that Doc Searls was interested enough in my recent blog entry to revisit an old topic of Internet access and corporate control. At the end of his commentary he wonders if with all the depressing news he’s insane to be be optimistic. I don’t think so, at least in the long term; if anyone can articulate how and why there’s reason to believe that the Internet will survive as a cradle of free discourse, and innovation into the future it’s Doc.

I would like to be optimistic, but I am very pessimistic for the short term because media and telecom companies are so stubbornly stupid - they don’t understand that by strangling the net, they’re killing that goose and her ability to lay golden eggs. Not satisifed with outrageous profits for what in 90% of the world would be unacceptablely poor levels of “broadband” performance and criminally actionable levels of service, they now seek to extract more money from consumers at every possible inflection point of network activity. Of course, if they succeed in their machinations, they’ll make the Internet an unusable morass of toll booths, filters, and walled gardens with the net result being that people will just stop using it. There <em>are</em> other things to do in the world you know (remember, just like you did before you knew there even was an Internet?), and then all those nice profits will just disappear. *poof*. BUH-bye.

Such a deconstruction of the ‘net will take several years, but it’s a strong possibility unless we all send a strong economic reminder and, perhaps more importantly, an unqualified shaming to <b>all</b> the parties to remind them who works for whom. Note to Verizon, SBC/AT&T and other wanna-be digital hegemons, when you’re in business the customer is always “<em>something</em>.” Think hard… this is a “business 101″ idea. That “something” starts with “R” ends with “T” and has one vowel…

Perhpas Doc & the other Cluetrain authors could send a few copies to Ivan Siedenberg, Ed Whitacre and the others to give them a few thinking points.

On a more optimistic note, and also apropos of Doc & Co., If the markets of the 1990s were conversations, then the conversations that we currenly have on the Internet (I mean blogs not email) are in fact the markets of the early 2000’s. They are the community squares, the rooftops from which new ideas are shouted and broadcast to all who are interested enough to bend an ear. They are the breeding groud for the ideas that people turn into the actions of new network applicatons and services. The meme I think we have to propagate is that the Internet may be a network, but that it’s the at the edge of the network where individuals with ideas are the <strong>endopoints-as-beginning</strong> that are creating the new innovations. The innovations the people are paying for. The innovations that the telecoms themselves could be a part of, but are instead attempting to smother in their cadles.

If the telcos had any clue they’d be giving the bandwidth away and partnering with every promising startup they could find. At Citibank, the former chairman John Reed spent a large portion of the company’s budget on technology development. He called it the “let a thousand flowers bloom” strategy. They developed stuff in-house in the ’80s and into the ’90s, and when the Internet boom started they looked to every startup they could find in order to find new ways to deliver value to their customers. Did they do down blind alleys? yeah. So what.. life, and innovation in particular, is like that. They have been for over 30 years on of the most technologically innovative financial firms on the planet. There’s a lesson there…

There are other possible outcomes to the “Not On My Pipes” strataegy, some are even less favourable to the telcos: …never underestimate the creative power of Geeks. If the telcos want an arms race, they’re going to run head first into the buzzsaw of Geek creativity.

The telcos better be very careful… the world is changing. The may be unleashing a tide of opposition that they neither turn, nor outrun. I am surprised that the boards of SBC/AT&T and Verzon didn’t at the very least chastize their respective chairmen for such short-sightedness. …the right action would have been dismissal on the spot.

One of the things that makes this (IT) business so interesting its how mutli-disciplinary it truly is. Before doing my own startups, I have been a VP, a Sr. VP and a Managing Director at major banks and brokerages; I’ve also been systems programmer for a major university, and a consultant for Digital Equipment Corp, and other firms. All along the way I’ve had to become a mini-domain expert on each and every project I’ve worked on. CS (Computer Sceience) types are like that.. it’s just part of the job. In the last 20 years the “thousand flowers” that have bloomed in this profession are all sorts of speacialized hybrids: radio-engineer/programmers, lawyer/programmers, artist/programmers, embedded-system-engineer/programmers, doctor/programmers, and on and on and on.

We’re are an intersting inflection point in the history of the (online/connected) world, for all of the working life of 99% of the population, since the dawn of the modern age (lets say, for fun, since the 1880s) there has been a difference between “what you do” and “who you are”. For programmers like me and for artists whose work becomes something we do even when we’re not “working” this is nothing new. During the renaissance people were known for the totality of what they did (think “da Vinci”)… there was no “work-self” versus a “non-work” or “home-self.”

More and more, as people escape the traditional work roles (and as coporations demand loyalty but give none in return) we’re seeing the emergence of people on a mission. They want to apply themselves not for some great corporate parent who will give them a gold watch at the end of their careers, but rather to make their own mark by doing something that can change the world. And they’re not afraid to to create new technologies, nor are they afraid work and play well with other like minded souls to make it happen.

The power of computing technologies is best expressed as a strict creative meritocracy. The best code wins (well, except for Microsoft…again that’s a whole ‘nuther topic). The coolest new application or idea will (almost) never be derivative, rather it will be something new and unexpected out of left field, created by people who do what they do for the sheer joy of creation. It’s not just what they do, it’s who they are. And, the things they are creating have the ability to capture the imaginations of people because people never thought that the new thing could either a) exist or b) make something they wanted to do so easy/fun/rewarding that it changes the landscape in an instant. Some examples? Flickr, Skype, RSS Feeds, and Del.icio.us for starters. When’s the last time a telco did anything like that?

There some very talented people out there working not only on the next generation applications — and doing so withouth the advise or consent (ha!) of the telcos — but working on the next generation of infrastructure as well: Software Defined Radios, long-haul 802.11 networks and even terahertz radios and laser-based broadband are on the horizon. Most of these technologies will be out of reach of the telcos and several cannot be regulated (under the current communications act) by the FCC.; micro/metro and global scale networks that cannot be controlled, let alone turned off.   They’re going to be the ultimate in Open Source.

World of Ends.. World of EndPoints, World of Beginnings. If the telcos want to start a war, they can. It’ll be rough at first, but in time, Doc’s right, there’s going to be a lot of good happening. No wall stands forever. No dictatorship lasts forever. The telcos need to decide where they stand. The public is fast losing patience; and the geeks are refusing to wait.

In next week’s issue (available online now) of <a href=”http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester”> The Nation</a>, Jeff Chester has a peice on the upcoming Balkanization plans for the Internet, courtesy of the phone/media companies.

According to Chester, “<em>Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing “platinum,” “gold” and “silver” levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.</em>”

Oy-vey.     OK, now where’d I put those <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP”>UUCP</a> sources…

Back in the late June of 2003, I wrote the following piece in response to one of Doc Searls’ weblog entries on the robustness of the Internet called “World of Ends” …

I took a lot of heat back then for what some called “baiting” Doc and David (which I wasn’t doing, I was just pointing out the difference between the idea of the Internet, and its real-world implementation…)

Here it is again; now, over 2 years later, has anything changed (for the better)?

<center><strong>World of Ends? Or, End of the world? Who can tell… </strong></center>

As much as I respect and admire <a href=”http://doc.weblogs.com”>Doc Searls</a> and <a href=”http://www.evident.com”>David Weinberger</a>, their much blogged piece <a href=”http://worldofends.com/”>World of Ends</a> has now run headlong into the on-coming Mack Truck of so-called Media De-Regulation.

What exactly is “media de-regulation?”  It’s beltway babble for “we <em>bribed</em> our buddies in Washington <a href=”http://www.fcc.gov/”>FCC</a> to allow us to do anything we damned well please and there’s nothing you customers (notice I did <strong>not</strong> say ‘citizens’) can do about it. ”

The details of this so-called de-regulation are covered ad-nauseum elsewhere but in essence it means that there is now nothing stopping giant media companies from purchasing every communicaitons medium in a market.  <u>One company</u> owning every TV station, every newspaper, the cable system, and the phone network in your city. That’s pretty darned scary, but here’s why the “world of Ends” hypothesis is just so much pollyanna wishful thinking:  The Internet isn’t an <em>agreement</em>, it’s a <em>network</em>.  That network, originally built by DARPA contractors, is now a collection of networks controlled by a surprisingly small number of for-profit entities (despite Doc and David’s assertion that “no one owns it”).  In fact, fewer than 12 companies world-wide control 99% of the Internet infrastructure.  These media companies - and network companies with huge and sometimes controlling investments <em>from</em> media companies — have no reason ~~what-so-ever~~ to act in the interest of __democracy__ and evey interest to act in their own interests.  It’s called “<em>profit</em>.”

Profit.   We’ll pause here to let those dot-commmers among you ponder that word for a moment or two…

Profit is about you - Mr. and Ms. Customer - buying the stuff that someone is selling.  That something can be dishwashing detergent, or it can be bathroom tissue being pitched to you during American Idol or Survivor XXIII - Escape from the Mall  - and, it really doesn’t matter what is being pitched. To the companies that own these media outlets and distrbution mechanisms - of which the Internet is just another way to get ads/content from them to you - you are just a purse at the end of a pipe.  In fact, the more time you are spending doing stuff online that does not make them money (like protesting silly things like media de-regulation, exercising your so-called 1st Amendment rights in your silly so-called “blogs”) the less likely it is that you are generating “impressions” for which they get paid by advertisers or puying pay-per-view movies.

What is so sad about all of this is that when the Internet became a separate thing from the ARPAnet which preceeded it, there was a possibility that the Internet could indeed become the democratic nirvana that Doc and David describe.  Unfortunately the 3rd most common element in the universe (after hydrogen and stupidity)  - GREED - kicked in very quicky.  Once telephone companies and cable companies realized that the Internet was a great way to entertain cusotmers it stopped being a world of ends and started being just another content provisioning medium.

All of the usual folks will insist that because there are Blogs, and 802.11 hotspots and other access/networking mechanisms, these greedy and extremely antisocial companies will never be able to stifle debate, discourse and, ultimately,  the democratic use of the Inernnet.  Well, in the words of Agent Smith from <em>The Matrix</em> “how can you make a call if you cannot speak?”

The restrictions placed on users of broadband services by contract (in the AUP) and by law (via the new “super DMCA” laws popping up like mushrooms in many places) are very effective deterrents to free speech.  Many, many people have found themselves without Internet access when their broadband provider decided they didn’t like the content of their speech, or a web site they were running, even if it wasn’t being run on the broadband provider’s service.  And, you know what?  There’s nothing someone kicked off of a broadband network can do about it - these are private networks operated by companies that have no legal obligation to let you speak or to provide you with service.  The only exception is pure telephone service — if you can afford to pay, a phone company <em>must</em> provide you with phone service - not so with <strong>data services</strong> –  like the Internet. It doesn’t matter that the Supreme Court found that the Internet “deserved the highest level of 1st Amendment protection” when it overturned the Internet Decency Act of 1996.  That only applied to <em>Governement</em> censorship of Internet content - it has no legal force with regard to what corporations say you can do with or on their service(s) or restrictions they can place upon the customers using those services.

Don’t think your local wireless 802.11 network  is going to save the day, either.  At the end of the day if an 802.11 network isn’t connected to “the ‘big’ Internet” there is no place for the packets on that wireless 802.11 network to go. Oh, and by the way, more and more of the large network providers - like Verizon - are getting into the 802.11 ‘hotspot’ business. No salvation there.  And, if these media monsters find 802.11 too troublesome (because of competition from upstart ‘free wireless’ groups, or whatever) they’ll just tell the FCC to shut it down.  Don’t think it can happen?  Don’t kid yourself. 99% of the people in this country will obey laws they disagree with (and a clear majority of the FCC commissioners will side with big companies over the public) - and it the Feds tell the consumers, er..ah, I mean public that 802.11 is “illegal” it’ll be gone.  Satellite Internet?  News Corp.  bought Dish Networks - the largest provider of satellite-based Internet feeds.  New Corp is run by Rupert Murdoch.  So much for that idea…  (If you are not sure who he is then most of this discussion is lost on you - check <a href=”http://www.google.com/search?q=rupert+murdoch&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8″>Google</a> and come back when you’ve had enough.)

The more alternative Internet access methods you look at, the more you’ll find the “World of Ends” becomes a “World of Dead-Ends” if you want to find a way to have an Internet that allows people to have a living, vibrant democracy that doesn’t live and die at the mercy of a greedy corporation that will stop at nothing to control the flow of information, stifle all dissent and criticism.

The bottom line is an old saw:  <strong>Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one</strong> (A.J. Liebling)

By the way.. just so no one gets the wrong impression - this is <strong>not</strong>  about David and Doc’s peice <em>World of Ends</em> its about not its about all of us remembering that the Internet is a real thing - <em>a network</em> that is <em>controlled by big companies</em>.  The meta-associations we apply to it lke the World of Ends can only be made real if that network is, as Doc points out if there is a level playing field upon which we can all play.