Who owns the Internet?
Summary: None of this would be possible if consumers had choices in the market, but over the last decade the U.S. government has helped create, and then endorsed this duopoly.
Open source depends, for its very existance, on a free, open Internet, in which commerce is frictionless, with no barrier to entry, no cost for distribution, and very low marketing costs. (Picture from UC Berkeley.)
Without it an outfit like Excelsior, located in the Siberian city of Novosibirsk, wouldn't stand a chance, even in its home market. It would be like Tom Lehrer's song about the great Lobachevsky.
Over the last few months a number of stakeholders have tried to forcefully control the resource. The question for users and the industries which depend upon them is, what are you gonna do about it?
The most important threat comes from infrastructure owners -- mainly the phone and cable duopoly. It started with the throttling of BitTorrent, a service many open source projects depend on for distribution, to protect their video monopolies.
Now, in a response to the FCC ruling that throttling is illegal, they're talking about metered pricing, which is bound to limit usage.
None of this would be possible if consumers had choices in the market, but over the last decade the U.S. government has helped create, and then endorsed this duopoly.
Why? It's easier to control a resource with a small number of stakeholders than one with many. Getting IP traffic shunted to it took the government just a few phone calls. If the market were more diffused it would have been impossible.
There is a second risk to government control of the resource, which is that it can be militarized. Evidently that happened during the recent Russia-Georgia conflict.
Which brings us back to Novosibirsk. Sure, the company can set up servers outside its home country. But if stakeholders or government control the resource, they control the economy which depends upon it.
That's why the issues of Internet control should deeply concern those in the open source world, and why we need to get far more deeply involved in Internet governance issues than we are.
It's our roads they're blocking.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
The internet isn't free (of costs)
So how do you bill them? How about by the amount of use they make of the internet to deliver their products? Seems reasonable, no?!
And if efficiency requires different channels for some content to reach users who want that content, then those additional costs should be partly paid by those who/which use the special capabilities, no?!
So how would you design internet pricing to meet the goals you want to achieve?
One solution which should be avoided is the all-you-can-eat approach, setting a fixed charge no matter how much of any kind of capability is used. That too, is sensible, no?!
Cost allocation
No. Customer pays for distribution costs (I buy a DELL PC, I pay for it to be delivered).
No big deal anyway because these should be small.
I think this is an area where the music industry has failed to pass on cost savings. Instead of expensive physical delivery of CD's to city centre stores I want a straight digital download. [No objection if you want to pay 3x the price in store.]
"One solution which should be avoided is the all-you-can-eat approach,"
How about a hybrid: fixed monthly charge giving you access to the ENTIRE catalogue and a rate for per GB downloaded?
costs are low and declining
We've monopolized the Net so those cost savings aren't captured by users. The monopolists lie to us and tell us costs are increasing, thus AYCE pricing must end.
This is a problem for the economy. The Internet is now our economic lifeblood, and we've got monopolists strangling it.
That's an issue of fact
If you're right that the expenses are "low and declining", then a population or organizations are being gouged. So far, though, I haven't seen profits which would indicate that they're charging on a what-the-market-can-bear basis.
I agree with you that the duopoly will be able to make excessive profits, however defined. And that they can do so without the direct collusion that can be controlled by law. Just looking at each other's price lists supplies sufficient information.
But adding to the issue, and more important at this point, is who/what pays the current charges. I'm concerned that high-minded principles don't allow large corporations using the internet to shift costs they incur to users in general. And that government policy not favor either phone or cable over the other.
Also, the internet is not "now our economic lifeblood". It's sale of IP, some of which does move on the internet, but not all.
I've got something for you to read....
How The Bells Stole America's Digital Future<br>
http://www.netaction.org/broadband/bells/
Article published in 2000
re: Article published in 2000
One thing that hasn't changed is, even 8 years further on, the various telcos still have not kept the promises they made in return for favorable deregulation.
:)
re: The internet isn't free (of costs)
The content companies in fact are billed according the amount of use they make of the pipes they lease. You make it sound like Microsoft, for example, realizes no cost burden each time it delivers automatic updates to 95 percent of the installed PC base.
:)
The internet isn't free (of costs)
Same over here in the UK
'Should any other stakeholders such as consumer organisations have a place in the selfregulatory approach?
Consumers? Why should they be involved? :-(
Think you've got throttling problems - in the UK BT are reported to be scaling traffic down to 15%!
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/news/now-available-our-first-performance-monitoring-report-417.html
Not to mention BT and PHORM secretly gathering customer data for publication to ad agencies. Indeed the BERR didn't see fit to mention it, or indeed any controls on companies.
Didn't think to mention the ISP TISCALI asking for more money from the BBC when they started up their iPlayer video streaming service either.
I think metered pricing might be a fair solution. Time we all opened our kimonos. ISP's are falsely advertising a broadband rate they cannot sustain on any scale; rights holders are failing to pass on cost reductions which should accrue from a global digital distribution network and we consumers are freeloading. Let's all be honest and come to a civilised solution.
The alternative of course is a technology war.
I have no problem with metered...
Whether you like it or not, the only way to control a market with no competition is through regulations. It is impossible for market forces to truly control this type of environment. This is fact!
It is truly ridiculous for legislators to say the market forces should determine the future. Only in a perfect economy can market forces work like they should. And there is no such thing as a perfect economy. This is straight out of Economics 101.
The real reason legislators don't want to but in is because of all the money being thrown their way by those who own the infrastructure. The consumer is totally being screwed. But until the consumer makes a stand and speaks with his vote to remove special interest proponents, he/she might as well shut up and live with the reaming.
I have no problem with metered
I have unlimited calling for my phone...
...unlimited listening to my radio.
I pay for x amount of bandwidth... I want x amount of bandwidth.
I don't mind paying a bit more, but any company that meters my bandwidth is lying to me about my full bandwidth, and I will leave them the moment they try to meter me.
I do not understand your logic at times
You are quite wrong on your argument that the government created some doupoloy on this, when the truth is that the market did.
Tell me why [i]you[/i] did not create your own ISP company, and I'll tell you why the phone and cable companies did.
If you are so upset about this, why not run your own fibre optic lines and create your own network?
I read free ...
... as opposed to 'without cost'.
"... no cost for distribution ... " ...
Quoting from the Comment:
Open source depends, for its very existance, on a free, open Internet, in which commerce is frictionless, with no barrier to entry, no cost for distribution, and very low marketing costs.
... better wait for the author ;-)
Ignoring government policy is endorsing bad policy
That's government policy in action. Not the market. Other countries, with different policies, have had different market outcomes. They have competition. We don't.
Don't blame the market for what the government did.
In the UK ...
"If we are to convince consumers that they need to respect copyright laws, then it is vital that industry competes to make available suitable products and offers which allow them
to enjoy this content legitimately."
This is of interest to the US since the list of parties includes:
? EMI
? Motion Picture Association (MPA)
? NBC Universal
? Sony BMG
? Warner Bros
Whether these providers will actually agree on a decent model should prove interesting. I've volunteered to be on the panel examining their costs ;-)
Here, Here
Dana you are correct in that this is just how the government wants it. When it became clear some years ago that the internet as a new public medium could not be controlled easily, it left it to the infrastructure owners (?) to provide the early internet roads. As more and more people used it, got hooked on it, and have made it the "social" context of their daily lives, the government wants to appear less "big brotherish" while allowing the infrastructure owners to dictate to the rest of us.
It is already difficult not easier for many families to access these services. This is clearly setting up a class system in our cherished notion of a land of freedom. With internet "throttling", cost per use, etc. a great deal of the citizens will be left with mediocre services or none at all. Is this what we really want?
Don't forget that businesses on the internet (and almost all are on) already pass the cost of doing internet business on to consumers as they shop, etc. Why should the average citizen have to pay two or three times over?
To my way of thinking, and I suspect a great deal of others as well, it is best to keep the internet as low cost or no cost as possible to the citizens and mass consumers if real innovation and competition is to survive.