Backwards Thinking on Net Neutrality

Ars Technica has a great article on the 15th anniversary of the World Wide Web:

In an article published to coincide with the Web’s 15th anniversary, James Boyle, law professor and co-founder of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain, points out that the web developed in a unique fashion, due to conditions unlikely to be repeated today. The idea of hypertext was not invented by Berners-Lee. Vannevar Bush proposed a hypertext-like linking system as early as 1945. A working model was built by the team led by Douglas Engelbart, the inventor of the mouse, in 1968. Computer activist Ted Nelson proposed a much more advanced form of the World Wide Web, called Xanadu, in his seminal work Computer Lib. Even Apple created a non-networked version of hypertext called Hypercard in 1987.

The main difference with Berners-Lee’s creation was that it was based on open standards, such as the TCP/IP networking protocol, and that anyone could create content for the World Wide Web with tools no more complex than a text editor. While most people remember the Web taking off with the initial release of a browser from the commercial company Netscape, the original WWW grew mainly out of academia, where source code was traded freely in the interest of promoting learning. The “View Source” feature, available in all browsers today, grew out of this environment.

What also isn’t commonly remembered today is that major commercial interests were trying their best to promote proprietary, closed-off online networks that the Web eventually replaced. Many of these networks ran on mainframes and had stiff hourly access charges, like CompuServe and GEnie. A graphical version, Prodigy, was run by IBM and Sears, and enjoyed some success with a flat-rate access model. The most popular service was America On-Line, which still exists today, albeit as a shadow of its former self. The days where television programs would advertise their “AOL keyword” are rapidly vanishing; today, almost everyone simply gives a URL instead. Ultimately, the larger range of sites provided by the World Wide Web won out over the more restricted and content-controlled private services.

Exactly right. As I’ve said before, I think that the current crop of proprietary music services (iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, et al) will look as anachronistic in 15 years as Compuserve and Prodigy do today. Open standards produce vibrant technology ecosystems. Proprietary ones produce sterile, stagnant technology platforms. It’s only a matter of town before some music publisher figures out that releasing music in an open format would be a dramatic competitive advantage over the crippled versions being offered by Apple and company.

On the other hand, I think the article’s final paragraph misses the boat:

The open WWW itself is coming under increasing legal threats. The furor caused by phone companies over technology like Voice-over-IP has developed into proposed legal action, threatening the fundamental principle of Network Neutrality (the idea that the network does not care what bits you send over it) that caused the World Wide Web to surge in popularity in the first place. Will powerful corporate interests end up undoing every digital freedom that has been won? Or will the momentum of the WWW carry its open foundations into a new age?

Broadband ISPs aren’t likely to succeed in shutting down VoIP, as most do face at least one competitor, and it would be quite easy for VoIP software to evade attempts by ISPs to squash them. What is a threat to the openness of the Internet is FCC regulation in the name of “net neutrality.” Putting the FCC in charge of telling ISPs how they may or may not run their networks is the first step toward politicizing network policies. Although initially the FCC might use that power to do some worthwhile things, in the long run, the FCC is likely to be captured by special interests and do things the Arsians wouldn’t like in the least.

SHARE: