Keen on Media - Andrew Keen interviews Richard Bennett on Net Neutrality

Who isn't confused by the byzantine complexities of the network neutrality debate? Richard Bennett (bennett.com/), long time network maven and fellow of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), is one of the few experts able to cut through confusion and present the net neutrality debate both accurately and simply. So we caught up with Bennett in Washington DC this week to get his take on where we are and where we are going with net neutrality.

 

Richard Bennett from andrewkeen on Vimeo.

Arts + Labs advisor Andrew Keen weighs in on the tug-o'-war between Amazon and Macmillan over e-book pricing:

"The problem, of course, is that both sides are wrong. There is no good and evil dog in this fight, no scripted, morally suitable ending. Rather than a movie, this is capitalism, an economic system that rewards the strong and punishes the weak. The truth is that Amazon and Macmillan are both way beyond good and evil. They are both smart companies trying to maximize their commercial power in the new digital economy by controlling the terms of trade in the e-book market."

Read the complete article here.

In an effort to make online media more accessible to students, UCLA will be adding a custom Clicker program guide to its MyUCLA portal website.  The program guide will help students find programming made available by movie studios and television networks, as well as videos produced on campus.  The site will let them know if content is not available legitimately.

While UCLA does not yet have a system in place for students to submit their own video content, Jonathan Curtiss, manager of technology development for UCLA student and campus life, said the My UCLA portal is "likely to be one of the most visited campus sites", and that it will "provide them with a kind of in-your-face opportunity" legal online video.

This effort may prove to be a more effective way than installing blocking software to combat piracy, because it provides a much simpler way for students to access the content they want.  It stands to reason to think that many students would rather find what they are looking for in minutes, rather than spending hours scouring torrent sites and waiting for downloads of questionable quality, all the while worrying about running afoul of the law.  Also, when one takes into account the staggering growth of sites like Hulu.com, it's easy to see why something like what UCLA is attempting just might work.

Additional sources here and here

Arts + Labs advisor Andrew Keen talks about the ludicrous comparisons between the fight for Internet freedom and living under actual oppression, such as in China:

Free Press used -- or should I say, abused -- the speech to launch a ridiculous attack on American companies. Explicitly comparing American phone and cable corporations with repressive overseas regimes in Iran and China, Free Press Executive Director Josh Silver conflated the network neutrality debate in the U.S. to the struggle for human rights in the rest of the world.

"Our moral authority as a world leader stems from our vibrant democracy, which is predicated on the openness of civic communication. Network Neutrality means no corporate censorship and no government censorship," Silver said yesterday, echoing the neo-Marxist critique of mainstream media by Free Press co-founder Robert McChesney. "How can we encourage freedom abroad when it has not been defended in our own communications infrastructure? Without badly needed U.S. government action to maintain freedom on the Internet, our great democracy is at risk."

No, this isn't an early April Fool's joke. Silver really did argue that "our great democracy" is at risk because some American cable and telecom companies -- as well as many writers, filmmakers, musicians and other creative artists -- want the option of additional services. Yes, Silver really did conflate the bloody repression of anti-government individuals in Iran and China with the possibility that American access providers could give consumers more choices."

Read the complete article at The Hill

Arts+Labs advisor Andrew Keen comments on the opponents of "TV Everywhere", and explains that they are just writing another chapter in an ever-expanding book of conspiracy theories:

"Some people don't like TV Everywhere, Comcast's and Time Warner's plan to bring cable TV to the Web.  They are just paranoid.

Allow me to explain. In his 1964 Harper's Magazine essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics", Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter argued that American politics has often been a stage for excessively conspiratorial and suspicious minds from both the left and the right. What disturbed Hofstadter most of all was the sanity of the paranoid. "It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that make the phenomenon significant," he explained. By infecting normal people, Hoftstadter worried, the paranoid style had made conspiratorial fantasy a troublingly recurrent feature of American political culture."

Read the entire article at TechCrunch

Public Knowledge posts a mystifying assault on the Irish rocker Bono over the issue of music piracy.

Whether or not you admire his music and political views, Bono made a good point when he wrote in the NYTimes that just because technology lets us make perfect digital copies of our favorite songs doesn't mean it's right to steal musician's work without paying for it.

Public Knowledge objects, dismissing online thievery as "trivial."  Although on other days, its founder Gigi Sohn, says pirates "stink; they should be thrown in jail. And I actually ... encourage the content industry to go after people like that."  However, she primarily argues that intellectual property rights hurt people in developing countries.  Sohn even accuses Bono of "undermin[ing] just about everything else he professes to stand for" - causes that he's devoted considerable time and energy to - by advocating for the protection of creative rights.

I'm not sure that Bono's New York Times op-ed, in which he specifically tried to "rally America to defend" creative rights, was really addressed at Africa. I'm also not sure that music piracy is a top priority for the desperately poor people Bono tries to help. That seems like a bit of a diversion from Public Knowledge. 

However, even assuming that this actually is about developing countries in Africa, it's worth noting that economists like Hernando de Soto would disagree with Public Knowledge and argue that "data shows that countries that protect the physical and intellectual property of their people enjoy nearly nine times higher GDP per capita than countries ranking lowest in property rights protections."  It will be more difficult for developing countries to develop without the presumption of property rights.

How those rights are protected is a different question and perhaps a process of discovery.  But on the question of whether they should be protected, Public Knowledge is wrong to treat intellectual property as if it is a public utility.

Everybody demands new business models for the internet until somebody actually tries them....at which point, some groups can't take yes for an answer.  Yes, Free Press and Public Knowledge are back to attacking attempts to find new business models for the internet.

TV Everywhere is a new approach that gives subscribers more access to the content they pay for in more places at no additional charge...and yet still protects and fairly compensates content creators.  So, of course, Free Press and Public Knowledge take a break from talking up "innovation without permission" to let everybody know they don't approve of this innovation and think the government should put a stop to it.

So, they want to replace the alleged "corporate gatekeepers" with "non-profit gatekeepers" who know exactly what content owners should be required to do with their video.

And I do mean "non-profit". Free Press' report, "TV Nowhere" (PDF), recommends an amusingly bad model for the cable industry.

Newspapers have been forced to compete and to give consumers what they want -- access to content, widely available, sometimes under subscription, sometimes free. If a newspaper refuses to make its content available online, or does so only at high rates, another newspaper can gain revenue by making its content available at more reasonable rates or giving it away for free and relying on ad revenue. Most newspapers haven't charged or required subscriptions to their content because they fear being undercut by their competitors.

The Arts+Labs New Media, New Networks policy forum is here. (Recorded Oct. 29th, 2009)

New Media, New Networks Presented by Arts + Labs and GSPM's Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet from GSPM on Vimeo.

By Arts+Labs Co-Chairs Mike McCurry & Mark McKinnon

Late yesterday, Google and Arts+Labs member Verizon issued a joint statement ("Finding Common Ground on an Open Internet") by Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam and Google CEO Eric Schmidt.  While significant policy differences remain, Verizon and Google agreed that there is much more that unites us than separates us. AT&T, another Arts+Labs member, echoed that sentiment this afternoon suggesting that the FCC has allayed a number of its concerns in its adoption of draft rules regarding the preservation of a free and open Internet, and expressing hope that the possibility of consensus within the Internet industry on key net neutrality issues will inform the FCC's rulemaking process going forward. There are many important points throughout the Google/Verizon joint statement, but we'll highlight the central areas of agreement.

After noting that the key factors driving innovation on the web are the common programming language and private investment to improve infrastructure, Google and Verizon list their areas of agreement.

1. "[U]sers should continue to have the final say about their web experience, from the networks and software they use, to the hardware they plug in to the Internet and the services they access online."
2. "[A]dvanced and open networks are essential to the future development of the Web", as are "Policies that continue to provide incentives for investment and innovation..."
3. [T]he FCC's existing wireline broadband principles make clear that users are in charge of all aspects of their Internet experience--from access to apps and content" and the FCC should "establish that these existing principles are enforceable, and implement them on a case-by-case basis."
4. "[F]lexibility in government policy is key" and we need to avoid "overly detailed rules" that attempt "to predict every possible scenario and address every possible concern" because it "can have unintended consequences."
5. "[B]roadband network providers should have the flexibility to manage their networks to deal with issues like traffic congestion, spam, "malware" and denial of service attacks, as well as other threats that may emerge in the future -- so long as they do it reasonably, consistent with their customers' preferences, and don't unreasonably discriminate in ways that either harm users or are anti-competitive. They should also be free to offer managed network services, such as IP television."
6. "[T]ransparency is a must. Chairman Genachowski has proposed adding this principle to the FCC's guidelines, and we both support this step. All providers of broadband access, services and applications should provide their customers with clear information about their offerings."
   

Arts+Labs is enouraged to see this sign of convergence around some of the central principles we have advocated. This is clear evidence that the rhetoric that FTC Chairman Jon Leobowitz referred to as "dystopian nightmares" is now fading and being replaced with a serious, rational policy discussion among stakeholders and policymakers. In fact, Chairman Leibowitz' May 2009 remarks now seem like a good description of where we are at today.

"We believe consumers need to have notice and consent about what they are getting. So it is very, very important that these providers tell consumers now about the speed that they are getting and whether they are making any types of management decisions in terms of the network."

He added that "broadband is a deregulated product. That's good.  We like deregulation generally."

We believe this recognition by Google that we all have a critically important role to play in developing the smart, sophisticated Internet of the future is a positive sign that the FCC's existing policy framework is solid and our focus going forward should be on defining transparency, managed services and the role of wireless networks.

Arts+Labs is hopeful that we continue to see this emerging consensus around FCC guidelines that enable everybody - network, application, service and content providers - to give consumers more choices and better products. Smarter networks enable content and application providers to deliver better products and services to consumers.  Better products and applications increase the demand for better, faster and smarter networks.  These outcomes work well for consumers, providers and the public interest.

The key will be flexibility in government policymaking, as at least 3 of the key stakeholders have noted in the past 24 hours.  Rigid rules and regulation will thwart the innovation and creativity that makes the Internet so vital.  We hope the FCC will move forward in that spirit, and we similarly hope that other participants in the debate will resist any new rules that would deprive operators of the flexibility necessary for reasonable and effective network management in order to meet users' needs.
 
The role of the FCC is not to limit our ability to innovate and evolve, but to facilitate our ability to innovate and evolve together.  We welcome policies that accomplish that goal.

- Mike McCurry and Mark McKinnon

At Broadcasting & Cable, Mark McKinnon and Mike McCurry write about the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for net neutrality, and particularly the barriers it could impose to digital commerce and creative rights.

The proposed bar on customized services, which are common throughout the U.S. economy, is especially puzzling given that the Commission's own Broadband Task Force has publicly observed that different Internet applications have different quality of service requirements. Some require substantial bandwidth, others are latency sensitive, and still others are dependent on speed. Increasingly, creators of applications, software and other online content are partnering with network operators in the early stages of development to better match capabilities and needs.  The proposed rules would choke off this beneficial trend.

Such rules also would effectively cripple the creative industry's ability to compete with "free" content by offering consumers a higher quality experience. The creative community is actively experimenting with new business models, including free advertising-supported content, subscription-based content, streaming content, downloaded content, and pay-per-view content, that aim to provide consumers the content they want, when they want it while also providing content creators the continued incentive to invest in new movies, new music and other types of entertainment that consumers want. However, the distribution of multimedia content over the Internet is still in its infancy. The potential rule would foreclose options by government fiat, limiting the services available to consumers and curtailing the creation of new content by eliminating potential revenue sources to fund it.

Read the whole thing here.