Freeing the Internet
Some interesting pushback from my post on
Thursday. Sean Gallagher over at Rant Central has back-ranted my
rant:
Well, then, the Eisenhowerian glove
has been laid down. Is the government our last refuge from the opression
of capital? As the government tries every day to slough off its responisbilities
to the private
sector, has the time come to reverse the trend?
I
don't think nationalization
(that's what it would really be) is the answer. I think proper stewardship
is the answer, and the government has to take a more active role in
kicking the
ass of ICANN and its vendors when they step out of line with the public
interest.
Since the Internet extends outside the US borders, I
suspect we might have
some problems putting it under government control. What we really
need is an Internet
like the US interstate highway system--built with federal money,
the use of which is governed by regulations designed to promote public
interest;
but constructed,
policed and maintained by the localities it passes through.
If the
Commerce Department
were to take over the registry of domain names, it would probably
treat it
like it does the Patent and Trademark Office--as a piggy bank to
raid for other projects.
What has to happen is that ICANN needs to be made publicly accountable,
and made to reclaim its responsibility to oversee the master DNS,
supported by
royalties
from multiple registrars and contract revenue from the federal
government based on its adherence to public policy.
Sean's absolutely right, and my rant should have
been more clear. We need less Internet design, not more. I'm not advocating
a 50s-era Highway Trust for funding Internet packet forwarding.
What we
need is a set of prohibitions on what we can't do to the
Internet. Perhaps this is another expression of my Minimalism
screed of last
month.
Rollin' Down the Highway
I really like Sean's Interstate Highway analogy, and it separately
occurred to me when speaking with David
Weinberger on the phone Friday afternoon. We spoke of I-90, running through
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where David lives. It's also the Massachusetts
Turnpike, where they charge you a toll when you leave it, often by scanning
a Fast Lane sensor
on your car. It may help to think of our little Internet packets as cars
appearing and leaving the Internet randomly, pursuant to the owners'
whims.
The Mass Pike really doesn't care which car-packets enter
and leave its collection system, as long as the fare is paid. The cars
paying cash are like analog phone calls on a switched phone circuit. The
carrier knows nothing about the who or the why of the traversal except its
physical start and end. It knows more about Fast Lane cars, since it has
a contractual
relationship with each owner, limiting the rights of the parties to harm
each other.
Presumably the Interstate Highway Commission also has contractual
arrangements with the Mass
Pike Authority.
The tolls are charged because Massachusetts stretch of I-90 receives no federal
or state
funding (according to their web site), so it can charge tolls on
the I-90 traffic that would not dream of paying a toll west of the Mississippi.
However, there are certainly constraints on the Mass Pike Authority's freedom
to impede travel by people who are expecting an I-90 level of service, quite
separate from any overarching notions of personal freedom. The Feds and the
Mass Pike Authority might have a little chat if the Commonwealth started
detaining travelers for 24 hours every 100 miles while examining their license
at a Patrol HQ next to a $350 per night motel operated by the state. It would
probably
be a Federal case but not a drawn-out Constitutional battle before the Supreme
Court. Contract law can be a lovely environment when you want to get to the
heart of a disappointment.
Most of the "improvements" we might make to the Internet are
degradations as significant as new toll booths or mandatory overnight
stays. The reason such upgrades are suspect is because we really prefer the
1995 Internet to the one that powerful interests are now imagining. Our
illusion is that the Internet is an unmanaged pipe, like a water main, into
which we pour information and inquiries, and out of which we drink news and
answers.
A Straight Wire with Gain
In the world of Hi-Fi, the perfect amplifier is called "a straight
wire with gain": no noise, distortion or unpleasantness, just a pure signal
made strong enough to energize loudspeakers. That's what we expect from
Interstate highways and the Internet. The trick for the Internet is to instantiate
a way of
dealing that restricts the telecom companies from turning packet forwarding
into a protection racket ("It'll cost you to enjoy our new services, like
guaranteed delivery"). Better they should handle
it forever
as a commodity routing project. Like the Mass Pike Authority.
I just didn't "get" Lawrence Lessig's cautionary statements
that the Internet as we know it is at risk, presented in CODE
and Other Laws of Cyberspace almost four years ago, and his every
action since:
"Lessig's chief message is aimed at those
who view the Internet as some kind of democratic wonderland, a place
of unfettered free speech, business competition, and creativity. Set
the euphoria aside, he warns. Government and industry are already stripping
privacy, free speech, and other liberties from the Internet in order
to suit the needs of online commerce."
–The
Net at what price? Aaron Zitner,
The Boston Globe, March 19, 2000
As I wrote yesterday,
the concern so eloquently described by Lessig and Searls has just been reinforced,
even more urgently, by John
Walker and Ernest
Partridge.
My concern this Presidential election cycle is that the free
trade of ideas and their stakeholders
may be as
threatening
to
politicians
as to
entrenched commercial interests. That's why I've established the Free
the Internet Contribution
page at Dean for America.
Dean is the only candidate with a vested interest in a free and open Internet,
so he's the only candidate we can trust to defend it against the establishment.
If elected, he will see an open Internet as his best hope for re-election,
so he's our best hope for the Internet to which we'd like to become accustomed.
I suggest that we pay the equivalent of $2.74 per day for the next year
to secure the Internet for ourselves, our kids and theirs. Aha! That's
$1,000. Fair enough. It's a grand cause, worth a grand.
Starving Student Backlash
Jefferson Provost suggests that I'm impeding contributions:
Hi Britt,
Great idea, but I think you may be alienating your potential contributors.
Setting the nominal contribution at $1000 and then saying, "contribute
as an indicator of you clue inventory." It makes it sound as if those
who contribute much less than that are clueless. I'm guessing that's probably
not your intention, but it really makes it sound like you'd rather not
have small contributions.
I'm a graduate student, and $1000 is 2/3 of a
month's salary. I sure as hell don't pay $3/day for coffee. Why would I
want to contribute anything,
when
you make it sound like those who can't kick in your (totally unrealistic)
nominal contribution are clueless? You should be saying "Every little
bit helps!"
Jeff
The ringing truth that reinforces Jeff's point is that this
is the first time in several Presidential cycles that the youth vote will
be significant. That will probably be the greatest deciding factor in this
cycle.
Jeff, my intent is not to discouraged your demographic, the
most important in this race, and I think Zephyr, Josh and Zack would concur.
What I'm trying to do is to get my generation of
its ass and throw in some serious shwag. There are a lot of us who talk about
these issues and have strong opinions. I'm trying to get us to vote with
relevant dollars. Jim Moore has written elegantly that the NeoCons are getting
a hell of a bargain. They throw in about $200 million every four years and
then get to play with about $6 trillion dollars until the next time. Jim
rightly calls their investment "chump
change".
The question on the table is whether Non-Repubs are willing
to make those kind of investments. We're often long on rhetoric and short
on contributions. Do you suppose that's part of the same restraint that causes
Democrats to be so much less strident in calling bullshit on the Repubs? Jim
Moore suggests that we should be able to inspire one million people willing
to throw
in $1,000
to
create
a Dean war
chest
sufficient
to transform American Politics. Righteous math, that.
Jeff, the news I'm trying to add is that the precious Internet
we currently plan to leave to your generation could be as
compromised as Our Bill of Rights has been since 9/11.
"The price of freedom is vigilance", indeed. And some real
cash once in a while. I hope some people like me choose to set an example
for people like Jeff. This is the quarter to put in the cash and to make our
statement.
4:47:24 AM 
|
