For all the hubbub from the big broadband players about how having the FCC regulate broadband connections under Title II would kill off investment and harm their ability to innovate, Wall Street has always known that's hogwash. While saying scary things to the press, all the big broadband companies were quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) telling investors that Title II wouldn't really change anything. In the last couple months, I've seen a few different Wall Street analyst reports all basically saying that they don't think the FCC's rules will really have any impact at all on the bottom line for broadband players.
Now, you could argue that the market was already pretty sure what the FCC was going to do and had priced that into the stock prices -- and it's a fair argument as many of the stocks did see some decline at the beginning of the year as the likely rules became clear. But the idea that this was going to create some sort of bloodbath for investment and the internet doesn't seem to be supported by the folks investing in those companies.
As we've been noting for some time, despite a lot of lip service to expanding broadband availability, AT&T and Verizon have been backing away from unwanted fixed-line broadband customers for years, either offloading them to smaller phone companies packaged with oodles of outstanding debt, or willfully neglecting to upgrade (or in some cases even repair) these users in the hopes they'll flee to wireless (or cable, where they'll be pitched wireless service anyway). Both companies clearly want to focus on wireless services, where caps and per gigabyte overages are far more profitable.
The problem is that in many markets this is going to wind up giving cable broadband a stronger monopoly over fixed-line broadband than ever before, resulting in even higher prices and worse service than those customers currently "enjoy." Meanwhile, the companies that Verizon and AT&T sell these assets to usually struggle under debt load and lack the resources or competitive incentive to upgrade user lines to next-generation broadband. Most will spend much of the next five to ten years struggling to get close to the FCC's new 25 Mbps broadband standard.
After selling off huge chunks of its fixed line networks to Frontier and Fairpoint years ago, Verizon has now announced it's actually selling all of its fixed-line broadband customers in Texas, California and Florida to Frontier Communications in a deal worth around $10.5 billion. The move's a great one for Verizon, which again gets to offload customers it never wanted alongside packaged debt, regulatory obligations and union woes. Investors don't think it's a great move for Frontier, which appears to be acquiring these quickly deflating copper assets simply for the sake of growing larger.
Anyway, point being, this is something Verizon's been working on for years now, and it's got nothing to do with net neutrality. Former CEO Ivan Seidenberg was bullish on fixed-line broadband, thus the $24 billion FiOS investment. New CEO Lowell McAdam lacks the patience for the slower ROI of fixed broadband, and has been planning Verizon's exit from fixed-line services since he was named the new CEO four years ago. So it's funny to see Verizon last week feebly trying to blame Title II and net neutrality for the company's decision to focus solely on wireless:
"The agency’s efforts to re-regulate the Internet have created uncertainty in the telecoms industry," McAdam said. He warned against the new proposed rules, also alluding to AT&T's recent acquisitions of two carriers in Mexico. "Washington should be very thoughtful how they go forward here," he said. "This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America."
There are a number of things wrong with that statement. One, as already noted, Verizon was already making this shift and it had nothing to do with net neutrality. Two, AT&T's entering Mexico because wireless is profitable -- they're not running to Mexico to hide from the FCC, which is just a stupid argument. Three, if Title II is so bad, why is the company acquiring these assets telling everyone Title II is no big deal?
"(Frontier CEO Maggie) Wilderotter said she was quite comfortable with what’s called “Title 2” regulation because Frontier already operates under those rules in many areas, and she noted that the proposed rules didn’t impose fixed broadband rates."
Four, it's worth reiterating for what feels like the fiftieth time that the regulatory "uncertainty" surrounding neutrality was actually caused by Verizon when it sued to overturn the FCC's original, flimsy rules the rest of the broadband industry was ok with. It's almost as if Verizon wants to add insult to injury lately by not only fighting net neutrality, but doing it using the flimsiest arguments humanly possible.
There's been plenty of propaganda concerning the net neutrality fight, but with FCC boss Tom Wheeler finally making it official that the FCC is going to move to reclassify broadband, it's kicked into high gear of ridiculousness. An astroturfing front group that's anti-net neutrality is trying to make a "viral" anti-net neutrality video, and it did so in the most bizarre way, by making an attempted parody porno video, based on the classic "cable guy" porno trope. The video is sorta SFW, since the "joke" is that "the government" stops the homeowner from getting naked with the cable guy, but people at work might still question what the hell you're watching:
The video makes no sense at all. You get the sense that some not particularly internet savvy (or, really, clever at all) telco wonks got together and said "how do we make a viral video -- I know, let's pretend it's a porn film!" And then tried to shoehorn in some sort of message. But the "message" appears to be that whoever put together the video doesn't know anything about what net neutrality is.
Next up, we've got a not quite as bad, but still cringe-worthy attempt by CTIA, the lobbying arm of the mobile operators, which has been arguing that mobile broadband shouldn't be covered by the new net neutrality rules (a fight it appears it has lost), posting a ridiculously poorly acted "shill in the street interview" video, in which really bad actors pretend to be average people answering questions about their mobile service. It's clearly scripted, given the overexaggerated reactions and stilted dialog. The funniest bit comes in the first "interview" where this bad actor (who looks like a DC lobbyist) in a DC lobbyist video claims, "Well, Washington isn't actually known for its next-gen thinking, now is it?" No, "real person," it's not.
There's also the second interview, with the woman who shows up pre-shocked, and proceeds to "complain" about the totally fake "new taxes" that are not actually going to show up because of Title II reclassification. And then there's the third guy, who, when prompted to take off his earbuds when the "interviewer" sits next to him and asks what he's listening to, says: "Pandora.... it's free." Because, yes, that's how every "real person" describes what they're listening to. By the price of it. And then, again, unprompted, he explains how great it is that his mobile operator doesn't make him pay for data when listening to Pandora (leaving out the fact that this is because his operator has set in place artificially low data caps). The video concludes with the "regular guy" interviewer saying, "There you have it, the vast majority of Americans are against stagnation, against higher fees and against fewer choices."
Of course, the video doesn't show that at all. And of course, putting wireless under Title II doesn't mean any of those things. In fact, it could mean more choices and lower fees. But who needs details when you have "real" shills in the street?
Finally, we've got an infographic from another front group, called "Mobile Future," whose staffers just happen to include former CTIA and US Telecom Association employees (coincidence, I'm sure). The infographic pretends to show how startups will be hindered by Title II, because now companies can (they claim) take your startup to the FCC to have your service declared unlawful, and you'll have to hire telecom lawyers, and no VC will fund you. Here's a snippet:
This is, of course, complete hogwash. Why not take it from a real venture capitalist, like Fred Wilson (early money into Twitter, Tumblr, Soundcloud, Kickstarter, Etsy and many more). He pointed out the real story of what would happen in a world without these net neutrality rules, where it would make life nearly impossible for startups, because they wouldn't be able to afford to pay the big ISPs to get equal treatment to the major players. Who do you trust? A bunch of DC insiders who have never worked in the startup or venture investing world (their staff appears to include entirely DC-based folks who have either worked in the government or lobbying organizations) or one of the most famous venture capitalists around?
The simple fact is that net neutrality rules help startups. Startups aren't going to have to hire a lawyer to go to the FCC because these are rules for broadband providers, not the services built on top of the broadband. The infographic is pure FUD from an astroturf group acting like sore losers.
I imagine we'll continue to see more of this kind of propaganda, but the laughably bad quality of it all just goes to show how incredibly desperate they've become.
After hinting about such a project for some time, you might recall that AT&T introduced "Sponsored Data" at the company's developer summit around this time last year. It works like this: if companies pay AT&T a fee their content is specifically allowed to bypass AT&T's already entirely arbitrary (as in, not tied to any real world costs or network conditions) usage caps. To hear AT&T pitch it at the time, this would be akin to "free shipping" or a 1-800 number for data, and an incredible boon for consumers who want to conserve their pricey data allotments.
While some consumers seemed quick to applaud the idea, they weren't understanding the awful precedent AT&T was setting. If you allow AT&T to set arbitrary caps then charge companies to bypass them, you're injecting a company with a rich history of anti-competitive behavior into a content and service ecosystem that works much better with it out of the way. Also, as VC Fred Wilson correctly noted at the time, such a model puts smaller companies and developers at a distinct disadvantage to their deeper-pocketed counterparts. What AT&T pitches as a great creative boon to industry is actually AT&T just desperately trying to retain gatekeeper power.
While AT&T executives have spent two years claiming that interest in this idea is through the roof -- one year later, just ten (mostly smaller) companies have signed up for AT&T's pilot. While Sponsored Data played a starring role at last year's AT&T Developer Summit, executives didn't mention the project once during this year's event. To hear AT&T tell it, there's still tremendous interest in the idea -- despite the fact there's clearly not tremendous interest in the idea:
"Nonetheless, AT&T CMO David Christopher told FierceWireless that the carrier is still "very bullish" on the program...What we said last year, and what we've continued to say, is Sponsored Data is a really unique, interesting capability that is going to take time for it to evolve into various business models," Christopher said in an interview. "We are seeing interest from a variety of developers and content owners in Sponsored Data."
While some companies aren't eager to court net neutrality controversy, others seem entirely oblivious to the threat such a model poses to innovation and smaller developers. Beyond just the obvious neutrality implications, the idea doesn't appear to be gaining traction with companies because new wireless shared data plans have most people signing up for significantly much more data than they need in order to avoid costly overages. In other words, when you have more cellular data than you need, and you're spending a lot of additional time using Wi-Fi, having a few apps or ads that don't impact your data allotment doesn't mean all that much in practice.
As such, it seems like only a matter of time before AT&T mutates the Sponsored Data idea into something notably more awful with a better sales pitch. As I've noted previously, while most of the net neutrality discussion focuses on outright blocking of websites or throttling of connections, the real danger zone is these kinds of "creative" pricing efforts where carriers try to use their gatekeeper power to desperately avoid being dumb pipe providers. It's here, under a glossy coat of PR paint where the real neutrality violations are going to occur, but as we've seen, it's difficult to craft neutrality rules that protect consumers from obnoxious shenanigans -- while allowing for real pricing and service experimentation (should that actually happen in the broadband sector someday).
In this case, we appear to be just lucky in that AT&T's implementation was just so bad most companies were bright enough to steer clear. That's not always going to be the case. As we've seen with the positive reaction to T-Mobile's decision to let the biggest music streaming services bypass its cap (which of course hinders smaller companies or nonprofits not big enough to get whitelisted), it's very clear it's possible to create new business models that tilt the playing field and screw smaller companies and consumers -- all while receiving thunderous applause for the effort.
Now that FCC boss Tom Wheeler has made it official that he's going to present rules to reclassify broadband under Title II for the purpose of implementing stronger net neutrality rules (details still to come...), the opponents to this effort have come out of the woodwork to insist, over and over again, that reclassifying is "treating the internet as a utility." The cable industry's main lobbyists, NCTA, decried "Wheeler's proposal to impose the heavy burden of Title II public utility regulation...." and AT&T screamed about how "these regulations that we're talking about are public-utility-style regulations..." Former Congressman Rick Boucher, who is now lobbying for AT&T whined that "subjecting broadband to public utility regulation under Title II is unnecessary."
Hell, even those who are merely reporting on the issue are calling it "treating internet as a utility." Here's the Wall Street Journal, NPR, CNET, Engadget and the Associated Press all claiming that the new rules "treat" or "regulate" the "internet as a public utility."
And they're all wrong. While there are some "utility" like aspects in Title II, Wheeler actually made it pretty clear he's not using those sections in the net neutrality rules that he's putting together (though, again, the details here will matter, and we haven't seen them yet). What he's doing here is just using Title II to be able to designate broadband as a common carrier, but just being a "common carrier" is not the same as being a "public utility" -- a point that John Bergmeyer at Public Knowledge makes nicely, by highlighting that there are lots of common carriers that aren't utilities:
Similarly, despite nearly-universal misapprehension on this point, net neutrality is not utility regulation. Net neutrality says that ISPs must, in part, act like common carriers--they must carry traffic in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory way. In some important ways net neutrality falls short of full common carriage, but for these purposes we can concede that net neutrality is common carrier regulation, because even full common carrier regulation is not identical to utility regulation. Lots of things are common carriers--buses, taxis, and delivery services, among other things. While the specifics vary, these services are required to operate in reasonable and nondiscriminatory ways. But no one suggests that the fact that because UPS is a common carrier, it is therefore a utility. Even net neutrality plus a number of the other things mentioned above (universal service, privacy, etc) do not add up to utility regulation.
This misapprehension comes about because the most prominent telecommunications common carriage service of the past--telephone service--also was regulated as a utility. But utility regulation typically carries with it a number of features not present in any current proposals for broadband--most notably, thorough price regulation and detailed local regulation of service quality, customer service responsiveness, and so forth. Public utilities are either publicly-owned, or private companies subject to such public oversight that the distinction between public and private is blurred.
The only reporter I've seen who has actually correctly made this distinction (though there could be others that I haven't seen) is Jon Brodkin at Ars Technica, who actually read what details the FCC did put up and noted that it's pretty damn clear that these are not "utility-style" regulations. Update: And Sam Gustin over at Vice Motherboard also made this point.
Yes, there are parts of Title II that can be used to regulate things as a utility, but Wheeler has made it clear that his plan is to avoid those. The court ruling from last year that tossed out the old net neutrality rules was pretty clear that if you wanted to treat broadband as a common carrier, you have to do so under Title II, but that doesn't mean that broadband becomes a utility in any sense of the word.
So, please, stop buying into the FUD (even from some supporters) that these new rules "treat broadband as a utility." It's not even close to true.
You'll of course recall that the FCC's original 2010 net neutrality rules didn't do much of anything and exempted wireless networks completely, in large part because they were written by Verizon and Google. As such, companies like AT&T and Comcast actually really liked the rules, because, from their perspective, they effectively "settled the conversation," but in the process didn't even cover the biggest emerging technology in the history of the Internet (wireless), and generally allowed all manner of shenanigans provided ISPs were just clever enough with the presentation (or blamed the network congestion bogeyman).
But Verizon couldn't help itself and sued the FCC anyway, much to the chagrin of AT&T and Comcast. Verizon had hoped to strike a killing blow to FCC authority for years to come, but instead is almost single-handedly responsible for the agency's emboldened decision to now go the Title II route. Not just for its lawsuit, but thanks to a long history of anti-competitive Verizon behavior (remember their attempts to block GPS? Bluetooth? Tethering? Google Wallet?) repeatedly highlighting that the Internet and consumers really do need some form of codified protection from big red's relentless but clumsy ambition.
So it's more than a little amusing to see Verizon pout over at the company's policy blog about the FCC's decision to pursue tougher Title II-based rules when it's largely thanks to Verizon's actions:
"Heavily regulating the Internet for the first time is unnecessary and counterproductive. It is unnecessary because all participants in the Internet ecosystem support an open Internet, and the FCC can address any harmful behavior without taking this radical step."
Except the FCC tried to do that, and Verizon responded by suing them. Like AT&T and Comcast, Verizon makes it clear it would really prefer it if the public supported the net neutrality rules being proposed by Senator John Thune and Representative Fred Upton, in large part because the broadband industry wrote them to ensure they don't do anything useful. Verizon hopes you'll believe it when the company says it really just want to settle the issue "once and for all":
"Moreover, Congress is working on legislation that would codify open Internet rules once and for all. It is counterproductive because heavy regulation of the Internet will create uncertainty and chill investment among the many players -- not just Internet service providers -- that now will need to consider FCC rules before launching new services."
So basically Verizon sued to overturn weak neutrality rules that most on the ISP side of the aisle were happy with. Now Verizon really wants everybody to support the same kind of flimsy rules it originally sued to destroy, or the company will sue. Verizon's position on the issue has veered well past good humor and into a sort of painful surrealism.
FCC boss Tom Wheeler today confirmed weeks of media leaks by proclaiming he will, in fact, be pushing for Title II based net neutrality rules to be voted on at the agency's meeting on February 26. In an editorial over at Wired, the FCC boss proclaims that the agency's new rules will be the "strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC." Given the FCC's history, this isn't saying much; in fact it's kind of like saying you're the best triathlete in a late-stage cancer hospice ward. Fortunately Wheeler also notes that, unlike the FCC's previous rules, these new rules will apply to wired and wireless networks alike.
You'll recall that, originally, Wheeler had been tinkering with the idea of "hybrid" net neutrality rules that left consumer broadband lines classified as is, but reclassified connections between ISPs and edge providers like Netflix under Title II. Most net neutrality advocates weren't impressed by the idea, noting that relying on the "commercial reasonableness" portion of the Telecom Act would only serve incumbent ISPs. Wheeler, prompted in part by the President's sudden surprise November support for Title II, appears to have realized this:
"Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers."
Wheeler proceeds to once again shoot down the broadband industry narrative that Title II is an industry investment killer, while insisting he has no intention to use Title II to impose broader price controls or force a return to local loop unbundling (aka open access):
"All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition."
While Twitter neutrality supporters quickly had a collective nerdgasm, it's worth reiterating that hard details are scarce, and this is just the beginning of another, very long chapter in the decade-old neutrality conversation. An FCC fact sheet offered up to the media this afternoon notes that the new rules will ban "paid prioritization," unfair throttling and blocking, while giving ISPs broad leeway to engage in "reasonable network management." As previous leaks suggested, the rules will also create a new grievance process to handle interconnection-related complaints and "take appropriate action if necessary," but what this precisely entails remains unclear.
Unmentioned by the FCC or Wheeler is the other major front on the net neutrality debate: usage caps or the "creative" ways carriers are using caps to violate neutrality (see: AT&T sponsored data or T-Mobile's Music Freedom). As always, the devil is going to be in the details, and the tougher wing of the consumer advocate community is going to be annoyed that the agency plans to steer clear of using Title II to apply downward pricing pressure or to crack open last mile networks to open access competition. Others will have questions regarding just how large of a loophole the MPAA has managed to carve out for itself in regards to the rules only applying to "lawful content."
None of this is to rain too hard on neutrality supporters parade. The fact that a former cable and wireless industry lobbyist has shrugged off industry input to head down the most contentious (but ultimately best available) path for consumers is nothing short of miraculous, and is, in large part, thanks to unprecedented grass roots activism. But there's a long road ahead of semantics, partisan hyperbole and legal wrangling that can undo all of these good intentions in the blink of an eye. If Wheeler's final rules contain too many loopholes, get beaten back by ISP lawsuit, or get gutted after an administration shift, net neutrality supporters can very quickly find themselves right back where they started if a full court press isn't maintained.
While Google was a major player in the net neutrality fight early on, the company performed a stark about-face on the issue sometime around 2010. Google was responsible for co-writing the FCC's original, wimpy net neutrality rules alongside AT&T and Verizon, which were jam-packed with loopholes and ensured that wireless networks and devices weren't covered at all. When called out on this, Google pretty feebly insisted they weren't being inconsistent, though it was clear to most folks that the company had shifted lobbying strategies in the hopes of fostering a better relationship across both sides of the political aisle.
As a result, when net neutrality supporters needed Google the most during the Title II debate, Google remained silent. Recently, when asked about net neutrality during press events, the company simply refused to comment.
Now that the Title II tide has shifted without Google's help, the company has re-entered the discussion to once again support meaningful net neutrality rules. We noted a few weeks ago that Google told the FCC in a filing that Title-II based rules could actually help their Google Fiber deployment by streamlining the utility pole attachment process. Now in a conversation with the Washington Post, Google has made its clearest public statement in years regarding support for Title II net neutrality rules:
"The sort of open Internet rules that the [Federal Communications Commission] is currently discussing aren't an impediment to those plans," Google said in a statement, "and they didn't impact our decision to invest in Fiber."
That's of course in contrast with AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, which continue to proclaim that if Title II neutrality rules are passed, they'll stop investing in broadband networks and people will lose their jobs. Of course, the fact is AT&T and Verizon were already dramatically cutting back on fixed-line broadband investment and cutting those jobs anyway, and in many of the areas Google is now looking at for Google Fiber deployments. Again, Title II is only a worry for ISPs interested in abusing their gatekeeper position to make an extra buck, and that's not Google Fiber's MO as a disruptive new market entry looking to make friends.
Regardless and whatever the motivation, it's nice to see Google join net neutrality supporters on the right side of the street again, even if it's a day late and a dollar short.
We've noted repeatedly that the broadband industry's claims that Title II reclassification will hurt broadband network investment just aren't supported by the facts. Title II, which governs the vocal components of wireless networks, certainly didn't hurt Verizon's effort to become the biggest, most profitable wireless carrier in the country, nor did it stop wireless carriers from spending $45 billion on spectrum at the latest FCC auction. It also certainly didn't hurt Verizon when it asked to have FiOS classified under Title II to nab tax breaks. Apparently forgetting there were other people around, Verizon CFO Fran Shammo was even quoted last December as stating Title II won't impact investment patterns in the slightest.
However, as anybody knows, when you're proven wrong time and time and time again, the only sensible thing to do is to dig a deeper hole and double down on your bluff. With billions in potential revenue thwarted by real net neutrality rules, Verizon appears to be doing just that.
Shammo apparently got the memo that admitting the truth is a big no no, so the CFO came out firing during the company's latest earnings conference call. Shammo now insists that everything he's said previously before Congress and in the media has been "misquoted," and Title II will most definitely hurt Verizon's network investment strategy:
"I would emphasize also that the approach in whole or in part on Title II is an extreme and risky path that will jeopardize our investment and the development of innovation in Broadband Internet and related services."
Except as Verizon's own history shows, there's really nothing risky about Title II with forbearance from heavier regulations, unless you're a company looking to use gatekeeper power to make an extra buck. Still, Shammo just can't help himself, and raises the ante further by insisting that this lack of investment will "trickle down" and hurt jobs:
"If we could curtail the investment of this industry, it will definitely trickle down to what we would consider middle-class jobs. And it’s because most of at least, for Verizon Wireless, a lot of our build are done by thousands of contractors across the United States, that will impact those small business and impact their employees."
Except again, if the "trickle down" claim didn't tip you off, that's a bluff. Verizon's not going to simply stop investing in its network with T-Mobile (and maybe even Google wireless) nipping at the company's heels, though I'm sure those companies wish it would. Shammo proceeded to proclaim that Title II-based neutrality rules would most certainly lead to lawsuits, which if you think about it is a truly Nostradamus-grade prediction when you're the one doing the suing. In short, Verizon's going to stick to its lie that Title II hurts puppies, causes tears in the time/space continuum, and is horribly unpatriotic -- whether we all like it or not.
Any book with a title like The Internet Is Not the Answer leads one to wonder what
the question is, and whether there's a "right" answer to it.
The book's author -- Internet entrepreneur, talk show host, and social critic Andrew
Keen – is a little dodgy on these details. What he gives us is a tour of the Internet
Age's problems – the loss of jobs, privacy, and copyright residuals. The central
question at which he seems to be driving is how to build a digital economy that does
not result in ruined lives and radical disparities in wealth and power, but the precise
question in Mr. Keen's book remains elusive.
So does the answer. The book does have a concluding chapter called "The Answer,"
and it is apparently "all of the above": more government oversight; "voluntary,
market-led solutions"; and an effort to get Internet slackers to accept a new "Bill of
Responsibilities that establishes a social contract for every member of networked
society." Keen does not, however, develop the specifics of such regulation, solutions,
or contract, or of a communitarian ethic which would inform them. More critically,
he seems little interested in positive solutions for information equity.
Keen is feted on the book jacket as "the Christopher Hitchens of the Internet"
(complete with British accent and rhetorical swagger), but what he's selling is more
entertainment than critical analysis. His book is chockablock with amusing and
sometimes telling anecdotes about the quirks and excesses of the new digital
mandarins – Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, et al. – but provides little
specificity about the problem as Keen himself frames it: "As we all step into this
brave new digital world, our challenge is to shape our networking tools before they
shape us."
The book is short – 226 pages, essentially a compilation of dystopian Internet
commentary over the last several years, with some original reporting – and skips
entirely the major skirmishes in this space. The seminal network neutrality battle
now coming to a head in Washington D.C. goes entirely undiscussed. He complains
about how the Internet has become "monetized," but fails to address the primary
drivers of that, including for example Comcast's extraction (extortion?) of extra fees
to carry those Netflix programs requested by Comcast broadband subscribers. And
while Keen devotes a chapter to online piracy and copyright, he omits any reference
to Congress' recent addition of 20 years onto the copyright term, making
information harder to find and more expensive to access, whether on the web or
elsewhere. Aside from snarky references to Wikipedia as the province of white
males with some sort of social adjustment disorder, there is scant attention paid to
other attempts to carve non-monetized spaces out of the Internet's bounty.
Keen is at his best when he essays something akin to objective reporting. His
chapter on the intellectual predecessors and development of the Internet is a quite
useful addition to the literature. His chapter on privacy ("Chrystal Man") is also
worthwhile, outlining the dark side of information utopia, how governments and
corporations vacuum up and aggregate data on individuals, with obligatory stops
along the way at Edward Snowden's NSA revelations and Facebook's emotion-
manipulation experiments. He quotes reports about data broker Acxiom, for
instance, which has "profiles of 75% of all Americans, each around five thousand
data points that can be constructed and deconstructed" for both marketing and
government surveillance purposes. What he does not do is indicate the sources of
this data – the key question posed by recent Senate, FTC, and GAO reports – the
phone and cable operators, credit card companies, and government agencies that
feed information into these huge databases.
At times, Keen is stunningly naïve. "Elected governments exist so that we can shape
the society in which we live," he writes, "There's no other alternative [sic] to
controlling technological change." Yes, Congress should get right on it, and elected
officials should lead. The only problem is that Congress is controlled by what Susan
Crawford rightly calls a "mosh pit" of special interests. The 1996 Telecom Act took
years to write, back when Congress still half-functioned, and the telco and cable
corporations filed suit against the Act's regulations before the ink was dry on the
Federal Register.
At no point does Keen give the reader a handle on the real-world issues along the
divide between open access information and architecture on the one hand, and a
"top down system that is concentrating wealth rather than spreading it" on the
other. What Keen offers is a critique of the Silicon Valley's reigning libertarian ethic
which is entertaining at times, but ultimately as facile and shallow as that ethic
itself.
Chris Witteman is a telecommunications attorney in San Francisco.
