My deepest thanks go out to Jon Henke for providing me the opportunity to come on board back in 2009.  The experience of working with Jon, George Ou, Mike Turk, James DeLong, Brett Swanson, and Steve Effros has provided tremendous insight and mentorship during my time here and is greatly appreciated as I move forward in my career.  I would also like to thank our readers at Digital Society for coming here day after day over the last year and a half to get some of the best free market based expertise on tech policy issues on the net.  We have an excellent audience that has provided fantastic feedback and quality additions and debate on the issues of the day and that experience will surely be missed.

I wish everyone the best in their future endeavors.  In the mean time, I will be blogging at nickrbrown.com (still slightly a work in progress, but it should be up and running by the end of the week).

Best,

Nick R. Brown, MPA

In my paper Last-Mile Dilemma, I noted that,

“Neutrality of the Internet is rather the idea that individuals on differing systems of connectivity and differing speeds of delivery should still have the ability to communicate with each other without applications or locations on the Internet being blocked or the traffic purposefully slowed.  This is what Tim Berners-Lee was describing when he said, “If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.”

That seems to be a different sentiment than his new stance that the Internet should be “free” and that users should have open access to all types of content that exists on the net.  The idea that the principle of net neutrality is free and open access to anything on the Internet is one more notch in the belt of an ever changing definition of what net neutrality is.

Tim Wu has recently added an addendum to his ever growing list of Internet rules as well stating that the government should create “term limits” for successful technology and Internet companies.  And in his comments he makes no bones about his ideology of state socialism commenting that if a “company has clearly shown that it’s corrupt” then the federal government should “just nationalize their source code.”  Wu fails to explain who would be making these decisions or advocate the federal governments authority to carry out these decisions. Being a legal scholar it would seem that this would be an appropriate and rational step.

Both Berners-Lee and Wu seem to be opposed to the app model now booming on many Internet devices and additionally based on their comments find services that have a pay wall to be a violation of net neutrality principles being that certain groups, i.e. those that are not subscribed, are blocked access from that service.

Proponents of net neutrality regulation repeatedly proclaim the notion that regulation will improve and encourage innovation on the Internet.  What we have however are two individuals who have now been caught saying two different things.  Net neutrality regulation will encourage innovation, yet if the innovation is too good and uses a subscription wall then it is a violation or if it becomes too popular and ventures into a zone that, based on some arbitrary system, someone declares monopolistic and corrupt then it is in violation.

Clearly those are not safe market conditions that a company could work within taking risks and making investments, and it is certainly not a free market.  These notions are rather a utopian fantasy land in which companies operate under the whims of a federal authority and who would not be in the business of striving for financial success and profit, but rather offer all services free of charge and who run out to their money tree in the back yard whenever bills come due.

Profits increased to $237.8 million during the fiscal year.  GameStop is looking to close 200 stores in areas that are over lapping, but also intends to use information from their “PowerUp Rewards” program to open 200 new stores in unserved areas.

The company also plans to begin opening larger brick and mortar locations that will be able to house kiosks allowing consumers to purchase digital goods from within the store.  Goods can also be tied into various promotions to attract individuals into the store for either physical purchases or virtual purchases through these kiosks.

GameStop is a sign of one more business that plays a role in the digital economy that is proving that it can remain healthy in the down economy.

The contention that the two authors share on Facebook is that they see it taking over everything that we as content consumers/producers do online in one giant all encompassing box.  Facebook has transitioned from a site that simply allowed friends to connect, share pictures, and send messages to something entirely different, something that is very reminiscent of America Online.

In the mid to late 90′s AOL was king of the hill offering entrants into the online world a virtual sandbox of things to do and try.  The service is often referred to as a gateway to the Internet.  Personally I think that notion is incorrect.  AOL was simply a gateway to AOL.  In fact it wasn’t until years into the life cycle of the product that the company even provided a browser within the software to allow users to venture out into the wilderness of the “real” Internet.  The notion always reminds me of that conversation Morpheus has with Neo about reality in the first Matrix film.

For those of us using AOL in those days the “real” Internet held this reputation of being the Wild Wild West.  It was dangerous and mysterious.  It’s possible that it was not safe.  What if you were caught out there and were stranded?  How would you get back to the safety and security that AOL had built.  Within those walls you had everything you needed anyway, right?  It was so beautiful inside, almost botanic.  Why would anyone ever need to leave and go anywhere else?

What transpired was that we all (well, mostly, I’m still trying to break my mom free) figured out that we could get all of that stuff we were paying for free somewhere else. Email? Check. Chat? Check. Games, social content, message boards, research, shopping, and so on all cropped up for free on the “real” Internet.

Over the next almost half decade we all went running a muck across the free market of ideas in the Internet space.  Some ideas were amazing, some were terrible.  Some succeeded and some failed.  Some really great ideas also failed, and some really bad ideas still exist.  That’s just the reality of the market.  But for the most part the best ideas rose to the surface and not all of these exist simply in a traditional computer experience.

iTunes, Netflix, Xbox Live, Facebook, Kindle, and app stores; all of these in some way are walled gardens.  We helped to build them.  We drove business toward them.  And these ideas are not alone.  The thing is that we are using them more, not less.  They are getting more popular, not less popular.

In Tim Wu’s, The Master Switch, Wu argues that the Internet is headed toward this “app store” type environment that will create walled gardens and move away from the magical land of fairies and unicorns that he paints as the “open Internet”.  This is generally part of his Net Neutrality barking and along with this usually comes blame for big business and infrastructure corporations.  But the reality is that it is the content creators that develop these models on the net, not infrastructure.

Not only did content creators build the modern net as walled gardens, but we the consumer encouraged it.  When we ask Facebook to give us easier ways to communicate and they add chat, and then messaging, and then email, and then we ask for things to do with friends and they give us games, and other forms of interaction we helped to create AOL all over again.  Is that truly a terrible thing as Biddle and Dvorak decree?  Not if that’s what people want.  Facebook or any other popular website or platform is not fool proof.  And if something better comes along it can be stopped.

Take one of those non-computer specific models for example.  7 years ago Sony dominated the gaming space and were leaps and bounds in front of the competition with their move into online gaming with the Playstation 2.  Over the next half decade Microsoft learned from its earlier mistakes, innovated, developed a walled garden for gaming, music, movies, and communication with their Xbox Live product and left Sony scratching their heads.

If we face the truth, walled gardens attract users because they are easy to use, they have lots of integration, lots of options for what people do online are in one place, and frankly if user numbers are the indicator of success, then some of the top preforming online websites, applications, communities, and platforms are walled gardens.  The fact simply must be faced, we love them, they work, and they are successful.  In the near future we will begin to hear about how these models like the iTunes app store and maybe even Facebook need to be opened up.  But we simply can’t regulate a winner.  That’s a market decision, and the market is asking for pretty flowers and a guard gate.

Ford takes a look at the information gathered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration after the goals set by 2009′s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  Ford says that the data gathered will allow for the quantification of socio-economic factors and broadband availability across the nation.

Even though he feels that the NTIA should be praised in their efforts, there is concern that the mapping data carries with it errors, and there is more concern that there even exists errors yet to be discovered.  Ford feels that mapping data “should be viewed with skepticism” until some of the problems can be discovered and remedied over time.

Ford concludes that until measurement errors and sample selection errors can be worked out by researchers over the coming months and years, that it would be wise for the time being that the NTIA data was not used as hard and fast evidence in directing policy goals.

You can read the full paper here.

The feature has now become a pawn in the high stakes battle between browser designers Microsoft and Mozilla.  Microsoft’s newest iteration of Internet Explorer has included the technology, and Mozilla’s Firefox 4 due in a few weeks March 22nd will also carry the feature.

Mozilla CEO Gary Kovacs has said that he doesn’t believe these types of privacy features need to be regulated, stating that, “It probably doesn’t need to be regulated, but it probably will be.”  His reasoning is that consumers are demanding privacy features and to remain competitive in the broadband market, browser makers are answering the call.

Regulation may force the implementation of these features into browsers if there is consumer demand for regulation.  It is uncertain at the moment whether regulation is necessary.  Several things will need to be taken into account.  Currently it is not know whether all browser makers will implement these types of features as Google and Apple have not announced any plans for Do Not Track privacy protections in their Chrome and Safari, respectively, browsers.

If all major players do this on their own the likelihood of disappointed users asking for these types of features to be enforced may be unlikely.  If their are hold outs, however, then Kovacs may be correct in that we may see regulation on the issue even though it is most likely unnecessary.

However, Bennett says that a reading of the bill does not indicate in the slightest that municipal broadband would be off limits to unserved communities.  The bill actually focuses on the use of tax payer dollars for a second or third broadband pipe into a community.

The reason for the attention toward second or third infrastructure being built by a municipality, Bennett explains, is that private sector providers want to make sure that public sector providers are playing by the same rules.  Municipalities would have an unfair advantage in the marketplace if they used their regulatory authority to improve the quality of municipal service while hampering the the quality of service from a private sector provider who would also be in direct competition with the municipality.

Bennett feels that this is simply Net Neutrality from the private sector point of view.  And that business is simply stating that just because governments make neutrality rules to regulate private providers that does not mean that government providers should be immune to their own regulation.

Additionally he argues that this bill allows the people of a community to vote on these projects before their tax dollars are spent on it.  Bennett believes this is what most likely irks the “traveling band of rural overbuilding consultants,” as he calls them.  Essentially stating that those that often wave the banner in favor of municipal services are never around when the bills come and if the project fails.

Instead, Goodmon’s plan Wireless Internet Service Providers would use broadcasting technology within their networks.  Because video is the culprit of chewing up large amounts of bandwidth, the WISPs would design their networks to hand off any large simultaneous requests for video through the broadcasting technology and hand that traffic over to broadcasters who would then send it to mobile devices.

Additionally, it is being argued that this plan provides the FCC a better financial incentive.  Current rules allow ancillary use of public spectrum.  This means that any revenue made by broadcasters for providing this type of service to WISPs like T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc would incur a 5% fee to the FCC.  The long term profitability of the plan for the FCC could exceed even the billions expected to by made by spectrum auctions.

DeReggi comments in his testimony that he started reselling DSL in 1996 and eventually moved into wireless some years later.  He states that his business has been competitive in the market stating that, “We’ve proven many case studies, including Urban, Rural, Served, Unserved, Business, and Residential models, competing against the toughest competitors.”

DeReggi provides 11 solid reasons why the FCC Internet takeover is a juxtaposition to the Internets future, job security, the health of the economy, and innovation.  If the rules are allowed to stand it will result in:

1. Fewer Jobs
2. Stifle Innovation
3. Reduce Investment
4. Cause Uncertainty in the Industry
5. Distract Wireless ISPs from Building Networks to all Americans
6. Increase Government Spending
7. Create Unnecessary Liability
8. Drastically Increase Legal Costs
9. Degrade Subscriber’s Performance
10. Increase Subscription Fees
11. Possibly Put some small ISPs and WISPs out of Business

The President of RapidDSL & Wireless went on to say that these items will be the side effects from the regulation and that they are in opposition of the goals of the National Broadband Plan.  This is a fundamental point that is often overlooked.  The question must be asked of government whether Open Internet regulation is more important or whether the National Broadband Plan is more important.  If they cannot work cohesively as a unit then the goals and decisions made to this point must be reconsidered.

DeReggi noted that, “It is my belief that the FCC overstepped their authority to address a problem that didn’t exist, at the detriment of our industry.”

Glassman hosts Downes and Manne who discuss the Internet over the next decade.  Both have contributed to the book The Next Digital Decade, published by Tech Freedom.  A major point of conversation is whether or not the Internet needs government regulation and oversight, or should the Internet continue to evolve on its own.

You can find the accompanying information from Ideas in Action here.