The Zeitgeist

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.