Powell on neutrality
| Permalink | technorati
« GarageBand and CC | Main | more Ro »
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://lessig.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1166
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Powell on neutrality:
» Lessig on Powell from what's not implied
Well, even though Lessig had to cancel his appearance at the Silicon Flatirons conference this past weekend (heard he was sick with a bad fever), he did give a shout out to Powell for his rousing speech at the conference. [Read More]
Comments (18)
I imagine this is out of plain ignorance, but I had no idea he was related to C. Powell, which is mentioned in the professor's piece. Good to know, thanks.
Gee, nice and vague words.
When it comes to specifics, he ignores them and acts like the mig media whore he was before getting on the FCC.
Look at low power radio, when the corporate whores on the board ignored the science.
Some of us will, out of principle, refuse any Microsoft DRM solution forever. If the market goes 100% for that, and it turns out that I cannot get any entertainment without using Microsoft DRM, then I turn off all entertainment forever and go back to paper books. That's how serious I am about staying far away from Microsoft. I sincerely hope I am not alone. But stand alone I will, if need be.
"to be missionary" means what, if anything?
What is this "high-speed Internet" he keeps talking about? Surely he's not talking about this slow speed DSL crap I've got now. Does this mean that the FCC is going to force the issue of fiber in the last mile? I suspect that I shouldn't get my hopes up.
"No amount of regulations (or wishful thinking, for that matter) will bring consumers the benefits of high-speed Internet if the networks are not in place to serve them." He's kidding, right? Does he completely disavow any knowledge of the history of telecommunications in the USA? How the heck does he think rural America got telephone lines - competition?
If he knew anything about our history, he would know that we gave the "Bell System" a monopoly in exchange for them making the effort to wire America. They didn't do it out of the goodness of their little hearts. They did it because they were regulated, and required to do it.
"Companies are eager to feed consumer hunger for these Internet-related goodies. Many are racing to develop content, applications, and devices they hope will entice more and more consumers..." What, did he miss the dot.com bubble in the late 1990s too?
The biggest impediment to the expansion of the 'net, and to companies providing services on the net, is the FCC and Michael Powell. Unless Powell actually acts (rather than talking, which seems to be his forte), and forces the issue of fiber in the last mile, the 'net in the USA will continue to stagnate.
It really doesn't matter how much he wants something to happen. The laws of physics tell us that you can't stuff 10 pounds of bits into a five pound bag. We will never see the "killer apps" that he rhapsodises about, until we have a couple of orders of magnitude more bandwidth than you can get from 1960s twisted pair copper wire. This requires fiber, and we won't get fiber without regulation.
I notice that he uses 'consumer' as a substitute for 'citizen.'
You noticed that, too, kt? I was afraid it was just me ...
Hogarth, why is regulation necessary for companies to extend fiber to the home, if there is consumer demand for it? Is it the case that consumers would be willing to pay (extra) for the increased bandwidth, and that this additional revenue would more than make up for the costs to lay and activate the fiber (hence that the whole project makes economic sense) but that there is some kind of market failure that prevents the process from going forward?
Nate,
I agree with you. I also will not succumb to any DRM (against my will) forever. And I am also prepared to go back to paper books and so on if that happens, but it won't. The "market", the real market would never go for that, because the very market is mostly populated by customers. And I challenge you to find a single customer who actually *wants* restrictions placed on them.
The current fiasco, is a combination of the media oligarchs and brown-nosing, lawsuit fearing companies like HP and M$.
The global market is huge, and capital has a way of favoring liberty over tyranny (in digital form or not)
Lets not also forget about the promise of underground neighboorhood area networks, mesh networks, and other encrpyted darknets that will keep the spirit of an open internet alive no matter what.
Paul, "the promise of underground neighborhood area networks, mesh networks, and other encrypted darknets that will keep the spirit of an open internet alive no matter what."
YIKES! If the situation is that bad that we new 'consumers' in the coming broadband age have to think about preserving the spirit of the open internet by running around like a bunch of cyberCong in underground tunnels and shadowy encrypted networks like a bunch of digital guerillas, I'd say we've already lost the battle! Let's face it, if the FCC makes these decisions badly, expansion of broadband goes badly and plays into the hands of monopolists, most of the middle-America 'consumers' out there will go toe the line and go along with it than risk doing something elicit. Kiss being able to run your own server goodbye.
it would be a mistake to assume that there is, or will be, one “internet” or that the present status quo covering the TCP/IP OSI stacks should apply universally across the physical layer/radio spectrum.
it seems that this is what powell was hinting about when he talked about regulation of layers other than the physical layer. why shouldn’t the physical layer support other visions of the future? there is no reason a parallel system could not be built into the OSI stacks to accommodate different levels of “openness” in the internet.
choosing one other the other: a) the perpetuation of the anarchy of "openess" or b) a content rich environment supported by DRM, seems hardly the intelligent way forward.
the best course of action for the FCC is to promote these parallel “internets” and then to allow the market to be the mechanism the public uses to decide the best use of the radio spectrum/physical layer. looking at different ways to regulate sublayers 2 and 3 is exactly what the FCC should be doing.
it should definitely not be left to the self-interested “commons crowd” to force their political agenda on everyone else and decide for the public how these resources can best be used. there has be room on the physical layer for something other than your trablant.
what powell’s remarks suggest is that he supports providing choice and allowing the public decide what they want. what’s wrong with this? or are you afraid that without your “commons” wall, people will defect to the DRM west?
What Powell said translates to "I'm watching you" directed at ISPs, particularly cable modem and ADSL providers. It's intentionally vague and I don't believe it pre-supposes any particular architecture of the Internet - nor does it require an "anarchic openness." He's generally deregulatory and he doesn't want to step in and mess with things - but to the would-be violators of the "net freedom" principles, it's a warning. What he said was "if you don't cross this line, we won't burden you with costly regulations." I think it's about the best thing that he could say at this stage.
for all your DRM and MS and darknet doomsayers out there: do not equate the U.S. with the rest of the world. Just because you guys have some restricting legal and technical initiatives going on, doesnt mean the rest of the world is going to swallow it. How much bigger than the U.S. was China or India again?
read this interesting piece about MS tipping point (and dont forget to check the related slashdot discussion) for a good nights sleep
its not all lost yet (see parent)
The genie is out of the bottle and thanks to the Internet, open standards, and GNU/Linux, when it comes to enforcement and restriction, the rest of the world can (hopefully) save Americans from themselves. I doubt globalization proponents ever conceived of the globalization of ideas and how it might eventually affect their profit-margins. *shrug* What comes around, goes around.
I interpreted Chairman Powell's speech as a cattle-prod to the telecom and media industries. In essence, I think he was implying: "If you don't stop fighting with each other, we're going to step in and we'd rather not do that."
So this is what the Chinese proverb meant; interesting times indeed.
--Jason
I think you're being unfair to the truly 'important' Michael Powell...
http://www.powell-pressburger.org/
The Bell System didn't wire America. They wired the cities where they could make more profits. Rural America wired itself by forming what Bell called "farmer companies" to string the wires to remote farms and villages. Bell permitted them to link up to their networks.
If Disney is adopting DRM and ComCast wants to buy Disney where will it all end?
I think it's interesting that Comcast wants to buy Disney after the abject failure of the AOL/Time-Warner merger. Maybe they think they'll do better somehow? "Yeah they blew it but they were morons, we're much smarter than them." Uh-huh. We'll see.
Where will it end? It ends when there's two players left. That's the minimum to meet the strict definition of "competition" to avoid antitrust suits. Right? Like Democrats and Republicans. It ends when those two players have perfect control over what we can watch on TV, hear on radio, and read on paper (and if they can swing it, talk about in public). It ends when we are all turned into ideal, perfectly predictable revenue sources that fit neatly into economic models.
In that sense, I hope it never ends.
Nate, you won't be alone, I'll be right there with you on principle. But to be clear, the principles of which I speak are those I learned (largely) from the free software movement. I think it is possible to get virtually everyone to side with software freedom, but they need to know what software freedom is and what happens when you don't have software freedom.
The last mile is where Powell shines. It is this Powell FCC that has allowed the use of the 70-80 GHz space just months ago for multi-Gbps radios that have "pencil thin" beam widths.
This is disruptive technology to a very high power and I think Powell gets it. You don't need fiber in the last mile when you can deliver 12.5 Gbps to an almost infinite number of paths wirelessly.