In The Office of Connectivity Advocacy, Bob Frankston argues for something we’ve needed a long time: prying the Net from the regulatory grips of telecom and cablecom, both of which are inside the FCC and part of a regulatory mess that traces back past the 1996 and 1934 telecoms acts, all the way to the railroad thinking and legislation that modeled those acts.
What we need, Bob says, is to re-frame the Net outside of telecom (which includes cablecom as well). The Net needs to be more than just the third act in a “Triple Play” sold by phone and cable companies. It needs to be more — and other — than just a “service” we get from monopolists operating in an old regulatory habitat.
Inside our homes we do not negotiate with, or pay, a “printing service” to use our printers. Nor are our phone and cable companies required to hook our computers and other appliances together inside our homes. As a result, there is no issue of speed, no need for “broadband”, because we enjoy much limitless network speeds without a “service provider” in the middle.
We need a “Connectivity Strategy” with a champion; a “Connectivity Advocate” who is outside the FCC and is thus can focus on a positive agenda. “Internet Connectivity” is not a telecommunications service but something new. It is based on the idea that we can create our own solutions out of imperfect resources. And it has proven to be an exceptionally powerful idea.
It has allowed us to create new solutions by focusing on the end points of relationships rather than all the myriad points between. We’ve seen a similar dynamic with the interstate (defense) highway system that has been credited with adding trillions of dollars to the economy. The Internet-connectivity has the potential to do far more because it doesn’t have the limits of the roads and demand creates supply.
The challenge is to overcome the artifacts that we confuse with the powerful idea. We happened to have repurposed existing telecommunications infrastructure and thus the idea has become captive of the incumbents whose business of charging for transporting bits as a service is threatened. To add to this confusion we can easily spoof existing telecommunications services ourselves but still act as if only a carrier can provide the services.
Instead of spending so much time and effort forcing connectivity into a service framing we need to be able to focus on connectivity from first principles. After all, the Internet (as connectivity) and Telecom have no intrinsic relationship beyond their common use of electromagnetism to transport bits.
By having an Office of Connectivity Advocacy (I’m open to a better title) outside the FCC we can have a positive and proactive strategy. We have abundant existing resources that are lying fallow either because we don’t recognize what we have or are forbidden from competing with those who control are very means of communicating and the vital information paths we use for commerce.
So look at it this way. What we have inside the free spaces of our own homes is connectivity. What we have outside of our homes, through telco and cable systems, is broadband. The latter may seem desirable, but only in the absence of free (as in liberty, not price) alternatives.
Bob sees the Internet less as a physical infrastructure of CFR (copper, fiber and radios) than as a “bit commons” to which we all contribute. It’s an ocean rather than canals across a desert. Its nature is one of abundance, not scarcity. One can only make it scarce, which is what phone and cable companies do, even as they increase our broadband speeds to larger fractions of what we have at home for free.
Bob has specific recommendations for what an Office of Connectivity Advocacy would do. Read them and give Bob (and the Transition Team) constructive feedback. Here’s part of his post:
Initially the OCA would be charged with:
- Empowering communities and individuals to create their own solutions using common facilities – the bit commons.
- Education and research focused on achieving and taking advantage of end-to-end connectivity.
- Educating Congress to understand the meaning and value of connectivity. Ideally it would play the role of providing a first-principles reality check rather than just checking for conformance to regulations. For example, a call is completed when the message gets through, not when a phone rings.
- Assist the government in its own use of technology both for its own use and as an example for others. It could encourage technologies that have wide market appeal rather than just those that can conform to government RFPs.
- Developing enlightened investment strategies which don’t try to capture all of the value.
- Supporting research in using networking rather than the networks themselves.
- Supporting research in how to get more out of existing physical facilities as well as encouraging new technologies.
- Developing decentralized protocols for connectivity rather than today’s provider-centric IP
- Working to simplify building applications using public connectivity (the bit commons). This could be mundane telemedicine, community information or …
- Acting as an advocate for a transition from a telecom framing to a connectivity framing:
- Evaluating existing assets and business practice afresh without the century old technical and policy presumptions.
- Working towards a bit commons or common infrastructure including removing the artificial distinctions between wired and unwired bits.
- Assisting in transitioning the existing telecommunications industry to industries supporting and taking advantage of connectivity.
At first glance the idea of the OCA may seem fanciful but it’s far easier to start afresh than trying to struggle out of the mire of the existing Regulatorium. We didn’t build the automobile by modifying stage coaches – we just used our understanding of wheeled vehicles to start afresh.
Starting afresh is essential to the telcos and cablecos as well. They need to see the Internet as something more, and other, than just a “service” they provide. Their existing phone and cable TV business models are in trouble. Charging for Net access is no gold mine, either. They need to start looking for ways of making money because of the Net and not merely with it. This is what Google and Amazon have done with “cloud” services. (Many of Google’s are in this list here. Amazon’s are here.) The only thing keeping the phone and cable companies from being in similar or allied businesses is a lack of imagination. Also a lack of appreciation for advantages of incumbency other than the ability to charge folks for broadband alone. These companies have waterfront property on the Net’s ocean. They also have direct relationships with customers. Those relationships can be used for much more than billing and essential services alone.
It would be much easier for these guys to start thinking outside their boxes if the Net were split off from the phone and cable regulatoria. And that Nick Carr’s Big Switch would happen a lot faster. (By the way, for thinking outside the box, it’s fun to read Nick’s post on Microsof’ts “trailer park” based cloud infrastructure.)
Phone and cable companies today are in a lousy position to run the Internet business. Telephony and Cable TV are railroads and steamships. They “carry” the Net as a “service”, but the Net isn’t essentially a service. It’s just a way to connect things. Connectivity is what matters. Not “broadband”, much as it appeals within the context of phone and cable companies’ limited offerings and imaginations. Who will imagine what can be done when connectivity is freed up? Phone and cable companies? I’d rather bet on the people leaving those companies.
If phone and cable companies want to attract rather than lose its most original engineers, they it would help if they got out of the old regulatory frame and into a new one that separates the Net from their legacy monopolies.
Bonus link: Beyond Telecom: Bob Frankston on the Future We Make for Ourselves. It’s is an interveiw I did with Bob earlier this year, for Linux Journal.
Tags: "Bob Frankston", "cable tv", cable, cablecom, fcc, frankston, telecom
As I’ve stated over and over in the past, the Internet will always be a Service regardless of how hard we try to make it otherwise for one simple reason, security.
You can’t trust any of the current crop of PC operating systems to stand up to the full fury of the Internet. The beauty of the internet is it’s simplicity, any node can simply open a channel to any other, at any time.
This is a security nightmare because any node on the internet can be the source of an attack, or the destination for something that shouldn’t be sent, or a relay for either of the above.
This provides a simple, persistent excuse to filter the net.
Regardless of the radical novelty of the Internet, regardless of the economic benefits of the innovation of freedom, we will always get pushed back into the box until we wake up and see just how important PC security is.
It’s not about the time wasted re-installing an OS from scratch, or the costs to the owner of a PC in terms of time and energy to recover a usable PC once it’s been compromised. It’s the fact that millions of PCs are available at any given moment for hire in botnets.
Connectivity to the internet will always have to be a managed resource until we get the ends fixed. There will always be a need to cut off the end nodes, for the greater good.
The ends can be secured, but as long as people are happy with an OS that’s merely good enough for them, it’s not going to happen. Eventually, we’ll wake up and figure this out. It can be done. It’s just not likely for a very long time.
My recent discovery of the writings of E.W. Dijkstra convince me that it is possible to write programs with no errors. The current “good enough” practices in the world of programming are yet another place where it’s going to take awareness.
The future can be much, much brighter, but we need to stop and do some VERY deep analysis, and make better long term choices.
I thank you for your time and attention.
Comments are now closed.