Hands off my Internet!
Could it really be? With all these billions of dollars being thrown around on ad-time and barnstorming? Have all the campaigns just coincidentally skipped over an issue of such great importance? An issue that almost undoubtedly will be thoroughly lobbied, legislated, and litigated throughout the next President’s term? Well, unless I missed something on my recent search through candidate websites and an extensive collection of youtube videos (and please feel free to check in with your favorite personalities if you can find anything) that appears to be the case. [Outside of John Edwards‘ plan for a “New Deal”-like national broadband project, to connect all wireless devices, and ensure that internet providers do not discriminate “against rural and low-income communities in building their broadband networks,” (even this is buried deep within his comments on “Innovation,”) and Ron Paul who only touts his “vote[s] against regulating the Internet,” (though to be fair he has plenty of other battles to fight, so I can understand why this isn’t at the forefront of his campaign. I’ve also now found a video and press release where Mitt Romney proposes a plan to increase software regulation, and institute mandatory sentencing and stringent probation procedures, including lifelong GPS tracking, for people “convicted of preying on children using the internet.” Fred Thompson, who has finally announced that on Sept. 5th he will announce that he is going to announce his candidacy on Sept. 6th, also makes brief mention of the internet while talking about Federalism, he describes the internet as “a haven for illegal activity,” and a proper place for Federal intervention.)]
On that head, I’ve recently come across an extraordinary debate, that really hits the very heart of everything we are confronting with this site. If you can wade through the British vernacular it is well worth it, but since I’ve sensed that some of us here would prefer brevity, I will try my best to provide an overview: Andrew Keen, who I first saw on the Colbert Report promoting his recently published book, The Cult of the Amateur, argues that the internet as it exists today contributes to a “dumbing down of culture.” He derides the internet’s end-run around “cultural gatekeepers” for its introduction of these “amateurs,” and he cites the devaluing of the copy as an impediment to the creation of “professional” art, by which he means art that creates profit. He even eventually makes the statement: “Where on YouTube can I watch the next Lion King?”
The Guardian’s Emily Bell relentlessly takes him to task, so I won’t bother with that, but I would like to start a discussion here on the merits and future of the internet. Now I’m not surprised that the issue is being mainly overlooked by the campaigns, it just isn’t as sexy as healthcare to Democrats and gay-marriage bans to Republicans, and lets face it most of these candidates have little to no idea of what the internet is, or what goes on there. I am, however, scared that another election season will come and go without these critical issues getting discussed, and I worry that they will eventually be decided by bureaucrats with gold-lined suitcases in back room deals. Am I alone on this one?
on August 30th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Oh, and to illustrate the potential of market self-regulation: Virgil Griffith’s new tool is great!
on September 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 am
Brevity and coherence young jedi, overlook these values do you at your own risk…
You bring up about a half dozen or so issues that are heavily followed by say a telecom journalist. I started writing a longer response, but realized it needed to be in 4 posts or so. In the meantime -
At the 2007 Personal Democracy Forum, Andrew Rasiej and Micah L. Sifry issued a challenge asking, “Who will be America’s First TechPresident?” The plan includes a bold 6 point proposal addressing many issues of importance to a Yochai Benkler friendly audience -no candidate has endorsed the plan.
on September 2nd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I’ll agree this post doesn’t concisely sum up one single issue, but if you can’t get through 600 words I have no apologies. I’m looking to engage our audience in the deeper discussion… Whichever way anyone wants to take it, the fact alone that you could write four posts worth in response suggests we have a lot to say about this issue. I don’t want to box it up, and stifle the conversation.
I simply got the ball rolling with a few things I’ve noticed: Most importantly, the lack of public debate on this very pertinent and important issue, but also a serious discussion on the merits of, and problems with, the internet. (Hence the Guardian debate, and I included a brief commentary on the WikiScanner, which has already answered Andrew Keen’s call for less online anonymity.)
Your addition is welcomed. I agree with most of the sentiments they express: “Market players have worked the levers of government to create a scarcity for Internet access when it is […] abundant.” Though I disagree with most of the conclusions they reached: “The Internet is the dial tone of the 21st century” is particularly scary. Apparently they want to usher in the next government sanctioned/sponsored telecom monopoly. (Maybe we’ll call this one Pa Tubes, for Ted Stevens.)
Please forgive me as I delve into the minutae:
Plank 2, the “Internet Innovation and Investment Fund,” would be a better use of funds than much of what we spend money on, but fostering competition would provide a lot more efficient expansion and minimize waste (which as an environmental hazard is probably more worthy of consideration.)
Plank 3, “Net Neutrality,” is only acceptable, or necessary, if we’re talking about a government monopoly. Market competition wouldn’t allow effective discrimination (unless consumers are happy about the discrimination.)
Plank 4, “Every Child Connected” takes an awful idea, Federal involvement in education, and then perverts it to the worst degree.
Plank 5, building a “Connected Democracy” is gospel, and should’ve been the primary focus of the piece. It is also well underway, and as I see it the main focus of this site.
Plank 6, a “National Tech Corps.” could use a better name, (I’d suggest Nat’l Tech Guard.) But it does sound like a legitimate place for Federal action. Though, I’d imagine it would be a tough task to manage. Ultimately, it might make sense to have an entire new branch of the military devoted to tech crises.
Does anyone else care about the future of this promising tool?