As Iraq burns, lots of other stuff is going on in policy-land. For instance, the propaganda campaign against a free and open internet has heated up. Here's the Washington Post's economics columnist, Steven Pearlstein, on net neutrality.
Perhaps this is the kind of economic illiteracy we should expect from people who get their information from "The Daily Show" and the Daily Kos. But isn't it time for the rest of us to move on and acknowledge that the days of the online free lunch are over?
Of course, what's actually happening is that Comcast is randomly cutting off paying customers for downloading 'too much' without telling them what the download limit is. Fortunately, shills like Pearlstein may soon become irrelevant in this fight, as Apple is considering making a game-changing move in our communications infrastructure. Steve Jobs is eyeing a piece of the spectrum we fought for earlier this year and helped set partially free.
The FCC today announced terms for the upcoming 700mhz wireless spectrum auction, setting the minimum bid price of $4.6 billion for the prime block to which they've also attached two of the four proposed open access provisions. $4.6B is coincidentally the exact number Google said they'd put up if four out of four provisions were in place.
The take from Wired's Bryan Gardiner is that this is a "put up or shut up" move from the FCC to the industry. He may be right, especially considering this:
If the reserve price isn't met, the auction will be rerun without these two conditions in place, according to the FCC.
So the stage seems to be set for the spectrum to be sold with no open access provisions at all, if that's what it takes to get the FCC their asking price. Hopefully Matt will have some first-hand information on what's going on here, but I've got a baaaaad feeling about this.
I'm going to this panel tomorrow at 2pm, with Commissioner Copps of the FCC. He's one of the most powerful decision-makers in media policy, who can actually address the structural problems. In a Democratic administration, he'll be even more important.
I'm increasingly impressed by our ability as activists to work with internal allies in corporate America, Congress,, labor, think tanks, and within regulatory agencies. I expect a lot of this kind of networking at Yearlykos to take place.
Anyway, if you're coming to Yearlykos tomorrow, come to this panel. If you're not but have questions, leave them in the comments and I'll put them to Copps.
FCC's Michael Copps to Speak at YearlyKos
Commissioner will discuss future of the media with netroots activists and media reformers
Chicago -- As part of this week's YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, Free Press is convening a roundtable discussion with FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on the future of the media -- from broadcast to broadband.
WHAT: "A View from Washington: Winning a Better Media for Everyone"
WHEN: Thursday, Aug. 2, 2:00 p.m.
WHERE: YearlyKos Convention, McCormick Place Convention Center, Room 401 a-c, Chicago
WHO: FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, media reform advocates, netroots activists
Commissioner Copps will explore how the netroots can work with Washington policymakers and public interest advocates to create more democratic media polices. His remarks will be followed by a moderated question-and-answer session.
Any good piece of legislation is built on a solid understanding of the available research and data. Sen. Durbin has enlisted several knowledgeable experts to help him in this project and there's been some great discussion in the comments on OpenLeft. But comment threads can only go so long before the, well, threads get tangled.
So, to fully enable collaboration between all the Internet wonks, policy geeks and regular Joes and Janes out there who have some relevant information (or can find some), we've created an open knowledge base on the Congresspedia wiki for Sen. Durbin's project.
As I read Sascha's proposals (http://www.openleft.....)
and others offered this week, I'm struck by how powerful and sensible is the vision of a commons-based, universal, high-capacity open-access Internet.
While imposition of network neutrality or structural separation rules on incumbents may be feasible, I think what's most important for achieving this vision is to unite the municipal broadband, unlicensed, open-access and open-source movements around a strategy that incorporates key elements of what Sascha, Harold, Ben and others are proposing, along with the approach to white space spectrum I laid out in an earlier comment (see: http://www.openleft.....).
If the collective forces of what I'll call "freedom" and "community" are able to leverage the large amount of white space spectrum (and maybe also some of the 700 MHz spectrum) to begin building an attractive alternative to what is offered by incumbents, the result will be a shift in real-world market power.
Rather than insisting that incumbents adopt the model we believe is best, it makes more sense to me that we focus on insuring we have the freedom and resources to manifest that model ourselves. And, as this online discussion reminds us, the Internet provides an efficient and ever-evolving platform for aggregating and synthesizing ideas and resources in highly efficient and creative ways.
I run the nonprofit Mountain Area Information Network (MAIN)http://www.main.nc.us... in Asheville, N.C. Among other things, MAIN is a wireless ISP serving four mountain counties with broadband Internet.
Our sustainable business model is based on a simple principle: give citizens and locally-owned businesses the option of spending their Internet dollars to support local news and information.
We currently have 400 wireless subscribers, and we're adding 8-10 new subs per month. We began operation in 1996 as a dial-up ISP, serving the entire mountain region of western North Carolina (roughly the area of Vermont).
Our ISP revenues (we also offer webhosting and nationwide dial-up under the IndyLink.org brand) support a low-power FM radio station, WPVM-LP http://www.wpvm.org at 103.5 FM and an online news and information portal that attracts more 16,000 unique visitors per day. We also led the effort to create public access TV in Asheville, which went on the air in August, 2006. http://video.google....
Mr. Meinrath will be live-blogging tonight here at 7pm EDT.
Thanks to everyone who has been participating these past few days -- your input, feedback, and commentary have been quite inspiring and have helped me to formulate the ideas I lay out below. As an Illinois resident, I'm also quite proud to know that Senator Durbin is leading the charge to reform broadband service provision to maximize the public benefits of this vital communications resource.
While some commentators may want to spin the Internet era as something entirely new and unprecedented, what's clear is that the history of telecommunications provides ample caution for those of working in the public interest.
Dr. Faulhaber will be liveblogging here this evening at 7pm EDT.
Gerald Faulhaber is a Professor of Business and Public Policy, and of Management, at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School. He has written widely on telecommunications and Internet issues, most recently on spectrum policy issues, public safety radio, and file sharing. He was Chief Economist of the Federal Communications Commission in 2000-2001.
First, a note of thanks to Sen. Durbin for hosting this online real-time blog regarding these issues critical to our nation's infrastructure.
Municipal broadband, particularly in its WiFi incarnation, has seized the headlines over the past few years, with my hometown of Philadelphia in the forefront. The ubiquity of WiFi-enabled computers and in-home WiFi receivers, all using unlicensed spectrum in the 2.4 GHz band, has spurred interest by cities and towns to provide broadband access to all their citizens using this popular technology. Free (or cheap) broadband for all was the watchword.
Has it worked? Yes and no. Towns without broadband from commercial providers have been most successful, with WiFi being deployed by municipalities directly, by municipal power companies, or by community volunteer organizations. While many have had problems, it seems that this market most amenable to successful municipal WiFi, and I certainly applaud it. Cities and towns where commercial providers are already present is a rather different story. The rationale for municipal deployment is usually to provide more complete coverage (digital divide issues) or cheaper coverage. Unfortunately, many of these systems have had coverage problems and have had difficulty pricing the service to compete with existing vendors and still cover their costs (an interesting and balanced review of the studies of municipal WiFi is in Ars Technica, at http://arstechnica.c... ).
Mr. Feld will be liveblogging here this evening at 7pm EDT.
Hello all. My name is Harold Feld. I am Senior Vice President of the Media Access Project. I also maintain a blog on spectrum and other media and telecom policy issues called Tales of the Sausage Factory (as in "people who love sausages and respect the law should not watch either being made").
In addressing Senator Durbin's question on how to use wireless (sometimes referred to as "spectrum"), we must first abandon the industry frame that this is a question of a "free market" v. "government control." Every aspect of wireless, including the prevalence of today's business models, is a function of government regulation. Nor is the wireline world free of "corporate welfare"-type subsidies, regulations and policies that confer advantages to one party or another. For example, cable and DSL providers enjoy both direct monetary subsidies as well as a host of regulatory benefits (such as the right to use utility poles at regulated rates, preemption of local government control of rights of way). We must therefore begin by setting the right public policy goal, rather than allowing incumbents to distract us with slogans such as "free market" or "level playing field." This is economic policy about critical infrastructure, not a question about whether Barry Bonds "deserves" to break a home run record.
Tonight at 7PM EDT we will be joined by Harold Feld of the Media Access Project, Dr. Gerald Faulhaber of the University of Pennsylvania, and Sascha Meinrath of the New America Foundation, amongst other initiatives. I hope you'll join us as well. Be sure to read their introductory posts (listed now in the 'Featured Posts' at right).
Hello and welcome to the third day of this experiment to reach out and gather the opinions of the on-line community as we begin crafting a broadband bill.
I thought the past two nights' discussions were great, with many well-informed comments and useful input. I'm expecting similar participation this evening.
I want to specifically thank our host Matt Stoller, Ben Scott of Free Press, Chris Wolf, from Hands Off the Internet and Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center for contributing to the exchange of ideas.
Tonight, we're going to focus on a topic that has frequently come up in our conversations. How can we obtain universal, affordable broadband coverage today?
Some of the most interesting initiatives I've seen have involved use of the public airwaves using Wi-Fi. The successes, like my own state's Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, show what happens when communities roll up their sleeves to find innovative ways to get everyone connected. Other challenges include figuring out how to ensure that the newly connected are given the skills and equipment to obtain the most out of it. I'm curious to hear about other successful models and what the federal government should be doing to promote these efforts.
Free Press just launched Free the iPhone. Now, I know this blog has been telco-heavy this week, and I want to explain what I'm trying to do by writing so much about the intricacies of internet and wireless policy. What does this have to do with building a more progressive America and a more functional progressive movement?
I'll have more on the hearings shortly in terms of their overall meaning. I have been blogging about telecom policy since 2005, and collectively we've been involved in an amazingly effective coalition that will be a model for progressive politics and governance for the next twenty years. If we're going to solve big problems like global warming, this is how we're going to have to do it
We had some big events happen yesterday. Here's Free Press lobbyist Ben Scott explaining them.
I spent all day producing and editing this video to make it as clear as possible. Let me know what you think, both on the issue and in terms of the video style. Ben's first video is here. Be gentle, I'm new to this video thing.
I'm editing a video with Ben right now, but I'm not going to get it done for a few hours. Here's what's important to know about the iPhone hearing yesterday. Republican Chip Pickering of Mississippi and Democrat Ed Markey both came out for the principle of 'open access' and 'wireless carterphone'. It's hard to describe what a big deal this is in Congress and to the FCC, as both Pickering and Markey are respected in this area for very different reasons. It's the political equivalent of Chuck Hagel coming out on Iraq, or to frame it in right-wing terms, Al Wynn co-authoring the Bankruptcy Bill. FCC decision-makers come from both parties, so the bipartisan aggressive framing is a HUGE deal. Those words are a giant red flag to telecom and cable lobbyists, and a sign that they must begin to think about adjusting their business model to an open internet. Chairman John Dingell's aggressive presence at the hearing only underscored the point.
The way to think about the policy issues at hand is that the government's job is to use the public airwaves to create a healthy market. A healthy market has rights for both buyers and sellers. 'Wireless Carterphone' is the right for the buyers of the iPhone to port their devices anywhere they want, to use their property without needing to ask permission. 'Wholesale Open access' is the right for entrepreneurs to lease the public airwaves to innovate without having to spend billions to buy spectrum or ask permission from incumbents.
In other words, buyers need to be able to buy and use property, and sellers need to be able to access the market without monopolists in the way. That's the frame. And yesterday, at the iPhone hearing, at least one powerful member in both parties said loud and clear that this is what they want from the FCC.
