Nayanee Gupta's weblog

On Tuesday, 9/25, I attended a discussion forum organized by GWU’s ITDI (Institute for Politics, Democracy and Internet). The guest speaker was Rick Whitt, Media Counsel for Google.

The topic under discussion was the forthcoming auction for the 700 MHz frequency space vacated by TV broadcasters next year, which Google wants to bid for. For more on why would Google be interested in bidding for this frequency read here,

Mr. Whitt said that Google is in discussion with handset and hardware providers to develop it’s own telecom network. The company is even looking at changing it’s business model to be competitive in that direction. This gives Google a chance to be a player in the net-neutrality debate — Google, along with Yahoo, Microsoft and the big content providers (and the Democrats in general) are big proponents of network neutrality; wireless providers vehemently oppose it.

Discussion also centered around the FCC adaptation of 2 our of 4 of Google’s proposed recommendations for network neutrality, which, I quote from Robert Cringley’s post are “1) users should be able to download software from anywhere and use it on their communication devices without restriction; 2) users should be able to use any communication device that meets the technical requirements for connecting to the network no matter who made the device; 3) third-party resellers should be able to buy wholesale bandwidth from auction winners, and; 4) other networks should be able to connect to the 700-MHz network.” Cringely feels that Google should stay out of the wireless business for it’s own safety, and given what I am reading about the telecoms’ fierce turf protection, I would generally tend to agree.

One of the discussion attendees, a VP at Verizon, sort of sidestepped the neutrality argument by trying to focus on the choices that the consumers did have… but the overall attitude of the big telcom providers is that laying down the cable gives them the right to collect tolls every which way possible. I don’t believe companies like Google, or even net-neutrality regulations, stand a chance against the Verizons and the Bell companies who wish act as if they run a monopoly.

Instead, I believe, (in a move that sounds counter-intuitive even to me) that we should forget about enforcing net-neutrality, and give the telcoms a run for their money by opening up their backyard to full-fledged competition. This would increase the “last-mile” service options that consumers have; it will give smaller companies the chance to provide specialized services like streaming video or encryption; and even give Google and other content providers freedom to form partnerships if they choose (channeling Christopher Yoo’s arguments). Yes, it would give telcom companies full license to block sites as they want, and manipulate service options — but one gets the sense that they are doing so anyway, and will probably continue to, so long as the competition in the field is limited.

Posted by Nayanee at 02:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My first entry is going to spell out my thoughts on some of our readings so far, because I’m still thinking about the general long-term direction of my blogs this term.
To me, some of the arguments presented by the lawyers in the list seem exaggerated as well as vague as they argue the exact mechanism of policing the internet without clearly outlining the boundary conditions of the problem. Some of the issues I have a problem with are :

1. The internet has been put on a VERY high pedestal. The internet is a piece of computer code that gives us information from a network of computers around the world. It can also do many other things, but the internet cannot supersede life. It is an alternative world, but a MUCH narrower world than the real thing. Dr. Lessig argues that by controlling the code, we can control the internet — meaning we can build in sufficient encryption to allow control. This very ‘Matrix’ like scenario, while technically possible, again, will create a boogeyman out of the internet because we over-exaggerate it’s threat.

2. The viewpoints are very much the viewpoints of a highly educated, academic, elite crowd. I believe that the need for a policy governing the internet is a big function of the user group. A small, highly techie group (like fans of Slashdot) will need NO oversight because the internet is their passion. At the other end of the spectrum, the poorest people in developing countries (fishermen in India who use telecom technology to connect directly to sellers; families in Africa who use the internet to locate the nearest medical facility) will need no oversight either, they are too busy surviving to think of Internet crime. Along the way are groups of different age, functionality ( in terms of internet usage) and social and commercial interests…. and I believe that the more we can learn about and attempt to classify these groups of users, the more we can clearly map out areas where governance is needed…. and then we can move on to discuss who will provide it.

A couple more points will come in the next entry.

Posted by Nayanee at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)