NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: What about the right to be connected?
|
What do desktop and portable
computer have to do with the basic concept of connectivity? They are only a marginal
issue in terms of the large picture. Is education an entitlement? Is access to
courts and the legal system an entitlement? But before I respond further –
please respond to http://frankston.com/?n=DarnInternet
so I have a sense we are talking about the right thing. If think PC’s are
necessary it’s unlikely. From: George Ou
[mailto:george_ou@lanarchitect.net] Let’s be careful with the
use of words here Bob. You’re not talking about a “right”
to be connected; you’re talking about an “entitlement”
to universal wired and wireless broadband connectivity. Of course, the beneficiaries of
such a scheme are the relatively affluent owners of desktop and portable
computers. So I guess you’re also implying that we also have a
“right” (AKA entitlement) to a free notebook computer for every
man, woman, and child in the nation with a pulse. George Ou From:
nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Bob Frankston Genachowski makes some important points in his talk (http://openinternet.gov/read-speech.html).
It’s a very good take on neutrality but something is missing – the
fundamental right to participate in society, the right to communicate. We
recognized this right long ago by assuring that every American had the right to
postal service without having to “subscribe”. Today the Internet is serving the role the post office did.
Isn’t it time to extend that right to everyone? Why should you have to subscribe to a broadband service
provider? Especially when that service is still basically a repurposed
television service. This is no metaphor – it is a simple fact. DSL was
developed for Interactive TV and the broadband Coax was designed for TV. FiOS
contains a complete emulation of a traditional cable TV system. I can’t
help but think of the movie Idiocracy
in which water has been replaced a Brando (AKA Gatorade). The need to legislate neutrality is a strong indicator that
something is out of whack. We mustn’t settle for neutrality – we
must demand our right to be connected everywhere and all the time. As Carl
Malamud reminded us if you have to pay to participate (he used the example of
the fees to read case law) you don’t have a democracy. We tried a socialistic approach to connectivity in the
1930’s. We defined telecommunications as a service industry and created
to the FCC to charter (or license) private companies to provide the services
within a strong regulatory framework. It seemed to work but we’ve spent
decades wresting control back so we could connect our own devices. What has changed since the 1930’s is that we now have
bits. Digital signaling undermines the idea that we need a single company to
run the network. The Internet shows the power of framing connectivity in
terms of bits. We have a fundamental right to be connected. We can achieve
this by taking a market-based approach rather than trying to stretch a
1930’s socialist experiment into the 2000’s. We can do this by applying
straightforward antitrust principle to address the conflict of interest
inherent by making “television” just another application like
“web” or “email”. By shifting the model from
subscriptions to infrastructure we’d be working with the market forces rather
than against them. The desire for neutrality is really a recognition of this
right. So let’s demand our rights and opt for a direct market-based
approach. |