Yesterday, Arts+Labs in partnership with George Washington University’s Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet (IPDI) hosted an event titled New Media, New Networks: The Evolution of Content on the Internet. Given the FCC’s new proposed rules on Net neutrality, and the resulting groundswell of public commentary on this issue, the event was both timely and substantive.
While the future of the Internet was the topic of the day, many speakers were tentative to speculate on future innovation when today’s regulatory environment casts uncertainty on the progress of our innovation agenda. This tone was shared by a number of the panelists
– who included Dr. David Farber (commonly known as the “Grandfather of the Internet”), Richard Bennett, resident scholar, ITIF, and Christopher Yoo from the University of Pennsylvania Law School – all respected by both sides of the Net neutrality debate. The event also featured Derek Turner of the Free Press and Harold Feld from Public Knowledge.
Dr. Farber shared his concern that those innovating and experimenting with networks in order to offer a better consumer experience will have to check with the FCC first before pursuing new advances. He also raised a critical question that spoke to the intrusive nature of government-managed innovation: “How do you regulate something as dynamic as the Internet?” Dr. Farber shared his belief that regulating the Internet is equivalent to saying that today’s capabilities are the best we have to offer. A dangerous position that surely would have stymied important Internet innovations that came of age in a pro-investment, pro-innovation policy era.
Richard Bennett, an ITIF research fellow specializing in broadband networking and Internet policy who authored a paper titled Designed for Change: End-to-End Arguments, Internet Innovation, and the Net Neutrality Debate, used the word “ludicrous” when referencing the FCC’s Net neutrality proposal, stressing that new regulations would preclude the Internet from performing its most basic functions.
But perhaps the most poignant moment was found in the silence that followed an audience member’s question directed to Harold Feld: “What problem is the FCC trying to solve through its Net neutrality NPRM?” A seemingly simple question, but the loaded silence told another story underscoring the lack of clarity shrouding such a policy direction…and that was not lost on the crowd.
Click below to tune into our interview with Dr. David Farber, and also enjoy bonus footage of our discussion with George Ou from Digital Society.
One Response to “A Familiar Ring Tone…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:57 am
You said “many speakers were tentative to speculate on future innovation” — I’m assuming that you mean innovation within the United States, specifically.
Granted, if you believe the findings in John Kao’s book, “Innovation Nation – how America is losing its innovation edge, why it matters, and what we can do to get it back” then clearly there’s reason for serious concern.
That said, the current U.S. regulatory environment apparently isn’t a primary concern, if meaningful American innovation progress — within the Global Networked Economy — is the ultimate objective.
As an example, regarding the “Evolution of Content on the Internet” we need to celebrate the progress already made to date, to break down the legacy restraint-of-trade practices of the past.
The Internet was the enabler that dismantled the music recording industry’s restrictive and closed distribution of content that created a artificial scarcity of artistic content — now, in contrast, we have an abundance, thanks in part to the “open” Internet.
Likewise, the Internet has enabled broad exposure to a multitude of documentary films that would never have been distributed by the legacy movie industry. Again, scarcity has given way to an abundance as low-budget filmmaker and videographer substantive content that can now reach their full market potential online.
Let’s not forget all the previously untold News stories — and alternative points of view — that are finally seeing the light of day, once again, thanks to the open Internet. U.S. citizens are no longer limited to the selective coverage of the legacy News media. This is wonderful progress for anyone that values “real” democracy.
Moreover, as each and every one of the big media enterprises fails to survive in a the truly “free market” enabled by the global Internet, thousands of new entrepreneurial enterprises will take their place. This unhindered meritocracy has set in motion the extinction of the dysfunctional payola schemes of a bygone era.
My point: rather than portray recent events to increase openness in a negative light, perhaps the USTelecom membership would gain more friends and willing partners if they simply acknowledged the apparent upside to the remarkable open Internet phenomenon.
David H. Deams
Economic TeleDevelopment Forum