The New Third Rail

Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal today wrote a much-discussed article theorizing that Google has changed their position on net neutrality and is now approaching cable and Internet providers to get their content a faster lane on the Internet. They also quote a bunch of technology leaders in the article who they claim are edging away from the principles of a free and open Internet.

Most of the stakeholders are calling the article a load of crap. Lawrence Lessig says he was misquoted and that the WSJ mistakes "delivery" for "access." There is a lot of confusion there. Right now consumers can pay more for a faster connection to the Internet. That's not the issue. The issue is if content providers are made to pay to serve their content quicker. That's what would set up a two-tiered Internet and ghetto-ize any company who would be unwilling or unable to pay. I generally believe everyone should have quality and affordable access, but delivery is clearly more important for a network-neutral Internet.

Google's Public Policy blog says that what it's doing is "edge caching," basically setting up their content physically closer to end users so that less bandwidth is needed to access them, optimizing the experience for the user. Frequently the same content has to be loaded and reloaded several times to get from the provider to the user. Reducing that duplication is beneficial to virtually everyone. Atrios rightly brings up the concern that these arrangements, if done exclusively with particular content providers, would have the effect of privileging one set of content over another, but Google claims that the arrangement is non-exclusive:

All of Google's colocation agreements with ISPs -- which we've done through projects called OpenEdge and Google Global Cache -- are non-exclusive, meaning any other entity could employ similar arrangements. Also, none of them require (or encourage) that Google traffic be treated with higher priority than other traffic. In contrast, if broadband providers were to leverage their unilateral control over consumers' connections and offer colocation or caching services in an anti-competitive fashion, that would threaten the open Internet and the innovation it enables.

Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday's Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open.

The consensus seems to be that the WSJ story is bogus. David Isenberg, Tim Karr and Reuters are worth reading on this. Matt Stoller is still being somewhat cautious and trying to gather all the data. I think what's most notable is how everyone exploded at the very suggestion of whether or not the principle of net neutrality was being eroded. The differences on what regulation is needed among allies in the movement for a free and open Internet may indeed by real, but nobody wants to be on the side of restricting access or innovation. So that fear, the new third rail of American politics, if you will, is going to be something powerful to harness by advocates to make sure that the core principles are maintained.

Building A National Broadband Policy

I'm going to step aside from the Blagojevich chronicles for a minute to address a crucially needed investment for our future - a national broadband strategy. The United States is 15th in the world in broadband penetration, and offers download speeds at 10 times slower rates than in Japan, for example. This is despite the costliness of broadband usage in this country (we are 18th in cost per megabyte).

Over the weekend I was able to take part in a first-of-its-kind town hall meeting put together by Internet for Everyone and its parent company Free Press. The program featured speakers and short videos stressing the need for universal broadband access and a network-neutral Web, but the main thrust of the meeting was to start a conversation. Internet for Everyone introduced four topics:

Access: Every home, business and civic institution in America must have access to high-speed Internet.

Choice: Consumers must enjoy real competition among Internet providers to achieve lower prices and higher speeds.

Innovation: The Internet should continue to create good jobs, spread new ideas be an engine of economic growth.

Openness: Internet users should have the right to freedom of speech and commerce without gatekeepers or discrimination.

Attendees strategized around these topics, came up with possible solutions that could be taken by municipalities, federal government, business, and citizen groups, and worked toward consensus on a national broadband strategy. Free Press' Tim Karr described it to me as "an experiment in deliberative democracy." While the perspectives of those involved in the meeting were not quite as diverse as needed for the conversation, there were nonetheless a variety of good ideas discussed. One thing that is key is debunking the idea put forward by telecoms that bandwidth is finite and those who use more of it must be sanctioned through greater fees. In reality, the companies are creating scarcity where it doesn't have to exist, and perhaps with incentives to fatten the pipe and increase access, these so-called scarcity issues would melt away, exposed as just an attempt to create a new revenue stream. Not to mention the fact that this artificial scarcity has caused the United States to fall far behind the rest of the world, reduce competitiveness, and become marginalized on the Internet for the first time since its inception. This has major impacts on job creation and countless other issues. For instance, a wired country is a country that can handle expansions in telecommuting, can cut down greenhouse gas emissions through driving and the wasteful use of paper, reduce unproductive time spent waiting for downloads, etc., etc.

The digital divide (only 35% of households making under $50,000 a year have a high-speed Internet connection) is a large impediment to equal participation in society today. Lower-income communities have substantially lower access to the Internet, which impacts education, economic output and political engagement, among other things. As society increasingly ports a fair degree of the tools for civics online, in an effort to be more efficient and inclusive, they are simultaneously shutting out needed voices among communities of color and the poor. Mandating universal broadband would be an update of President Roosevelt's rural electrification policies in the 1930s. It is just as important to economic and social growth to provide access to a free and open Internet for everyone.

Fortunately, we now have a President-elect who understands the broadband issue as an infrastructure issue. In his most recent weekly address, Barack Obama highlighted the need to bring broadband access to every corner of the country.

"It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption," President-elect Obama said in the address. "Here, in the country that invented the internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they'll get that chance when I’m President -- because that’s how we'll strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world....[and] the economic recovery plan I’m proposing will help modernize our health care system -- and that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives."

Technology leaders have been cheered, not just by the commitment but by the understanding of the issue as one that effects jobs, upward mobility and economic growth. As Sara Robinson notes in a larger piece about investing in America:

Yes, making these investments will create more debt, which in turn will cast a shadow on the health of the American dollar for the next few decades. But if we choose our projects wisely and well, they will create more -- much more -- than enough wealth to enable us to pay those bills. After all, the infrastructure and education investments of the 30s and 40s were the foundation of the tremendous prosperity we saw in the 50s and 60s, which more than enabled us to discharge the debt.

Free-market fundamentalism was wrong in the 1880s, wrong in the 1920s, and wrong in the 1990s, too. Anybody who's still hanging onto that 30-year-old conventional wisdom -- or who thinks balanced budgets are so important that we should sacrifice our entire economy on that altar -- is not only admitting that they're incapable of rational, objective thought; they're also demonstrating that they're too ideologically addled to understand the clear lessons of history, let alone understand what's going on around them now.

It was Keynes's theories that got us out of the last depression; and if we're betting our futures on this (which we are), we'd be wise to follow that course again. Our choice here is clear: Invest in America and get our people back to work; or shrivel up and allow ourselves to become a third world country.

The free speech of the 21st century increasingly depends on a broadband connection. I think we need Internet in the same way we need an electrical outlet in every home. Access is essential to keep this country as an economic leader.

A New Age Of Communication In An Obama Administration

Barack Obama put out some good government and internet freedom proposals yesterday that were so transformative that longtime critic Matt Stoller all but endorsed him. Obama does seem to value transparency and the importance of broadband development in capturing civic engagement and bridging the digital divide. The FCC needs a radical restructuring. The current chief is trying to practically eliminate media ownership rules. An Obama Administration would encourage community and citizen-based media development by ensuring net neutrality and expanding toward universal access, in addition to goo-goo things like putting bills on the White House website (with comments enabled!) for five days before signage.

In the plan, Obama also calls for more aggressive government support of broadband access. Specifically, he says subsidies for phone carriers should be given only to those offering both regular phone service and Internet broadband to rural areas. To date, carriers offering merely phone service have been able to claim subsidies from the so-called Universal Service Fund, giving them little incentive to roll out out broadband.

Obama also calls for reviewing the decision by the Federal Communications Commission to open the wireless spectrum for competition. He thinks the FCC may not have gone far enough with its recent ruling, according to campaign managers who asked not to be named. He wants to conduct a multiyear review but is leaning toward pushing for the opening of some spectrum on the 700 MHz band so third parties can lease it on a wholesale basis.

This is to ensure that the winners of a pending auction for the spectrum - expected to be large phone carriers like Verizon - don't just sit on the spectrum and not use it. Some fear they may do that to block others from competing with them.

Obama's proposals are supported by Google, which is expected to bid on the wireless spectrum.

The candidate also is in favor of network neutrality, a policy that would prevent Internet service providers from charging companies like Google extra to ensure the speedy transfer of data over the Internet.

This really points to how an Obama Administration would be committed to change on these kinds of issues, which are at the root of our democracy. It should be noted that Edwards has been at the forefront of spectrum and media ownership issues as well.

Free the iPhone

I had the opportunity to play around with a friend's iPhone, and I have to say, it's pretty awesome. It's also the future of digital communication, with multiple devices merged into one box. Therefore, it is absolutely ridiculous that AT&T has an exclusive license to deliver their wireless service through it. It's like Comcast having an exclusive license for a Sony flat-panel TV. And much to my surprise, Congress has actually spoken up about this.

Bipartisan members of Congress spoke out today to free the iPhone and other next generation hand-held computers from the grip of phone incumbents like AT&T and Verizon.

During the hearing of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, representatives from both sides of the aisle called for a more open wireless system where new innovations aren't held hostage to the competition-killing carriers that control the network [...]

In what's been dubbed the "iPhone hearing" Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and "Chip" Pickering (R-Miss.) called for a different system - where wholesalers could compete and new applications and devices could be connected regardless of carrier.

"The iPhone highlights both the promise and the problems with the wireless industry today," Rep. Markey said holding up before other members his newly acquired iPhone. "On the one hand, it demonstrates the sheer brilliance and wizardry of wireless engineering. On the other hand, the advent of the iPhone raises questions about the fact that a consumer can't use this phone with other wireless carriers."

That Chip Pickering, a conservative Republican from Mississippi, jumped aboard this train is astonishing. This is the beginnings of making the telecom market much more open and free, to increase competition and to move this country onto a much better footing with regard to connectivity. We are one of the worst developed nations in broadband access and wireless connectivity in the world, and it's because we have this old guard system of delivering access that rewards big business at the expense of consumers and cripples innovation. The choice is between the telecom's wishes of putting gates up on the Internet where you only get proper access (as a consumer or as a Web content developer) if you pay more money; or the consumer's deep wish that the Internet and wireless networks are neutral, open and free.

Markey and Pickering spoke about the current dilemma in America's wireless system. The iPhone is shackled to AT&T and won't work on any other network. The reason? We have allowed carriers to exert almost complete gatekeeper control over all devices, services and content in the wireless sector.

This has left the U.S. generations behind other nations, a failure that prompted New York Times blogger David Pogue to call American carriers "calcified, conservative and way behind their European and Asian counterparts."

Here's Ben Scott from FreePress on the iPhone hearing (the rumor I heard is that the hearing came about because John Dingell got his iPhone and realized he was locked in to AT&T and he got super-pissed):



FreePress has also set up Free the iPhone, a website with action items to change this horrible, weird policy that only exists in the wireless market and not with any other consumer electronic device. You can sign the petition.

This is just one part of a fight over net neutrality and who controls communications in America in the 21st century. It's incredibly important.

Edwards: WiFi For Everyone!

This is the "chicken in every pot" for the 21st century. And as you will see, it's extremely doable and completely worthwhile for American competition, entrepreneurship and technological advancement.

In short, the FCC is about to auction off a portion of the broadband spectrum. All the major telcos like Verizon and AT&T are expected to bid on the prime real estate. But John Edwards has a better idea. He wants to have the FCC use that spectrum to increase Internet access for all Americans, young or old, rich or poor. This is the text of his letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

Dear Chairman Martin:

The upcoming 700 megahertz spectrum auction presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shape the next generation of American technology.

In recent years, the Internet has grown to touch everything and transform much of what it touches. It's not the answer to everything, but it can powerfully accelerate the best of America. It improves our democracy by making quiet voices loud, improves our economy by making small markets big, and improves opportunity by making unlikely dreams possible.

As you know, the Federal Communications Commission is now preparing to auction the 700 megahertz slice of the spectrum. This "beachfront" band is particularly well suited to wireless broadband because it has wide coverage and can easily pass through walls.

By setting bid and service rules that unleash the potential of smaller new entrants, you can transform information opportunity for people across America -- rural and urban, wealthy and not. As much as half of the spectrum should be set aside for wholesalers who can lease access to smaller start-ups, which has the potential to improve service to rural and underserved areas. Additionally, anyone winning rights to this valuable public resource should be required not to discriminate among data and services and to allow any device to be attached to their service. Finally, bidding should be anonymous to avoid collusion and retaliatory bids.

I urge you to seize this chance to transform the Internet and the future.

Sincerely,

John Edwards

Not only is Edwards asking that the principle of net neutrality be mandated for anyone who buys this spectrum (which is a big victory in and of itself), but he wants a significant portion to be used to wire America. Ultimately, broadband should be no different than electricity; the access should come standard in any home, and you should pay the way you pay your electric bill. Additionally, we should be wiring rural areas the way that FDR pushed rural electrification projects as part of the New Deal. It was actually predicated on the same premise.

Although nearly 90 percent of urban dwellers had electricity by the 1930s, only ten percent of rural dwellers did. Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of the nation's consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too poor to be able to afford electricity [...]

By 1939 the REA had helped to establish 417 rural electric cooperatives, which served 288,000 households. The actions of the REA encouraged private utilities to electrify the countryside as well. By 1939 rural households with electricity had risen to 25 percent [...]

When farmers did receive electric power their purchase of electric appliances helped to increase sales for local merchants. Farmers required more energy than city dwellers, which helped to offset the extra cost involved in bringing power lines to the country.

Just as FDR worked to bridge the electrical divide in the 1930s, we should be bridging the digital divide today. Poor and rural areas should be given the capacity to use the Internet, which will open new markets, allow for increased communication and expanded educational tools, and create that equality of opportunity that ought to be a goal. That a top-tier Presidential candidate is pushing this forward-thinking a policy is very cheering.

Combine this with Edwards' plan to take on the oil companies over rising gas prices, which is good and bad but is certainly bold, and you're seeing a pattern of someone committed to real change, and standing up for the middle class and the poor. The thing a lot of people wonder about Edwards is whether or not his progressive stances in 2007 are the real deal, compared to his fairly moderate voting record in the Senate. He was a neophyte politician then, and he relied on Beltway consultants like Bob Shrum, who details in a new book how he talked Edwards into voting to authorize the Iraq war, against Edwards' better judgment. In an excellent post by Chris Bowers that you ought to read, he discusses this evolution in Edwards' political development.

Returning to Edwards for a moment, I don't actually find this passage to be a particularly damning characterization of his political instincts or lack of leadership. Rather, I think is shows how his decision to originally support the war in Iraq probably served as a useful object lesson for a politician still trying to find his comfort zone. In 2002-2003, against his own instincts, against the advice of his wife, and against what he had seen as a member of the Intelligence Committee, Edwards listened instead to the contorted rationalizations of the Democratic establishment. Unsurprisingly, that establishment was also entirely wrong about the Iraq war, which has indeed become one of the biggest mistakes this country has made in decades. It is difficult to imagine a better way to learn to trust yourself then the catastrophic results of not trusting yourself on Iraq. Considering the many ways that Edwards has since bucked that same establishment--not firing McEwan and Marcotte, being the first to refuse a Fox News debate, publicly apologizing for his vote on Iraq, developing a populist, anti-corporate message--my belief is that Edwards learned from his past misplacement of trust in the Democratic establishment and the DLC, and has decided instead to trust his own, far more progressive instincts. For a politician who has been in the game for less than a decade, such a transformation seems entirely believable and genuine.

He may get nicked for this from the likes of Tim Russert. But I wish someone would have the cajones to go on that show and say, "Tim, have you ever changed your mind before? Are you supposed to be some kind of robot that has the same opinions and beliefs from the cradle to the grave? Have you ever been presented with new information? What you may call flip-flopping, I call learning." It's hard to divine who's being honest when so many politicians tell the electorate what they believe it wants to hear. But I think Edwards is genuine, for all these reasons, and I believe he would make an amazing President.