[UPDATE 4/30/13: This article was subsequently published in Volume 65, Issues 2 of the Federal Communications Law Journal in April 2013. The links below now point to the final FCLJ version.]

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released a new paper by Brent Skorup and me entitled, “Uncreative Destruction: The War on Vertical Integration in the Information Economy.”  Brent, who is the research director for the Information Economy Project at the George Mason University School of Law, and I have been working on this paper since the Spring and we are looking forward to getting it published in a law review shortly. The paper focuses on Tim Wu’s “separations principle” for the digital economy, something I’ve spent some time critiquing here in the past. Here’s the introduction from the 44-page paper that Brent and I just released:

Are information sectors sufficiently different from other sectors of the economy such that more stringent antitrust standards should be applied to them preemptively? Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu responds in the affirmative in his book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. Having successfully pushed net-neutrality regulation into the policy spotlight, Wu has turned his attention to what he regards as excessive market concentration and threats to free speech throughout the entire information economy.To support his call for increased antitrust intervention, Wu explains his view of competition in the information economy—a view that deviates substantially from current mainstream antitrust theory. First, Wu contends that “information monopolies” are pervasive in the information economy. Wu’s “monopolists” include Facebook, Apple, Google, and even Twitter. In The Master Switch and essays like “In the Grip of the New Monopolists,” Wu argues that these so-called monopolies are increasing their market power and require more aggressive oversight and regulation.Second, Wu argues that traditional antitrust analysis is not sufficient for information systems because they carry speech. He claims, “Information industries… can never be properly understood as ‘normal’ industries,”and traditional forms of regulation, including antitrust enforcement, “are clearly inadequate for the regulation of information industries.”Wu believes that because information industries “traffic in forms of individual expression” and are “fundamental to democracy,” they should be subject to greater regulatory treatment.Third, in contrast to current competition law’s focus on horizontal relationships, Wu desires a reinvigorated regulatory enforcement that addresses “the corrupting effects of vertically integrated power” in the information sectors.He is particularly concerned about private threats to free speech arising from such vertical integration.The solution, he says, is preventing vertical mergers in the information economy and the mandatory divestiture of vertically integrated companies. To implement this, Wu proposes a Separations Principle for the information economy, which would segregate information providers into three buckets, which we have labeled information creators, information distributors, and hardware makers.This article outlines Wu’s separations proposal, explains why his fears regarding vertical relationships should be rejected by regulatory and antitrust policymakers, and illustrates the legal and practical problems his Separations Principle poses. Wu justifies his Separations Principle by citing monopolies and market power in the information economy. He also advocates using U.S. antitrust authorities to enforce his Principle. We argue that the antitrust harms he fears are not present, and we highlight scholarship on the accepted benefits of vertically integrated firms. We show that Wu’s remedies are policy preferences wrapped in the language of competition law. In fact, the information economy is largely competitive and does not warrant interventionist regulatory enforcement. Since much of American economic vitality flows from the information economy and technology, policymakers should reject a radical antitrust remedy like Wu’s preemptive Separations Principle.

The paper can be downloaded from the Mercatus website, SSRN, or Scribd.

In my work critiquing the Lessig-Zittrain-Wu school of thinking–which fears the decline and fall of online “openness” and digital  “generativity”–I have argued that, while there is no such thing as perfect “openness,” things are actually getting more open and generative all the time. All that really counts from my perspective is that we are witnessing healthy innovation across the generativity continuum.

Will some devices and platforms continue to be “closed”? Sure. Think Apple and cable set-top boxes. But (a) there’s a ton of innovation taking place on top of those supposedly “closed” platforms and (b) there are other options consumers can exercise if they don’t like those content /information delivery methods. [See this chapter from the Next Digital Decade book for my fuller critique.]

And, even if one adopts a rigid Zittrainian view of openness and generativity, each day seems to bring more good news. From that perspective it’s hard to find a better headline than this one: ” Smartphone Makers Bow to Demands for More Openness.” That’s from ArsTechnica today and it refers to the fact that smartphone giant HTC just announced it would no longer attempt to lock the bootloader on its smartphones, meaning geeks like me can root and hack their devices to their heart’s content. As the Ars story notes:

HTC has long been seen as a relatively modder-friendly phone manufacturer. Although many of their phones have had locked bootloaders, workarounds were easy enough for software developers to spot in order to gain superuser access to their phones. That changed recently, however, when modders discovered that two new Android phones—the HTC Sensation and Evo 3D—would come with software that prohibited bypassing locked bootloaders. “The system was locked but exploitable before,” Android enthusiast Irwin Proud told Wired.com in an interview. “Suddenly they required signature checks,” or digital verification of software that allows it to load. An Android activist, Proud has organized online campaigns to fight against locked-down phone releases. After hearing this, the modding community wasn’t happy. Users launched WakeUpHTC.com, a website which gave upset modders all of HTC’s contact info, encouraging them to bombard the company with requests for a change in its bootloader policy. On Thursday, the company relented.

Here’s specifically what HTC’s CEO Peter Chou had to say in a Facebook post:

“There has been overwhelmingly customer feedback that people want access to open bootloaders on HTC phones. I want you to know that we’ve listened. Today, I’m confirming we will no longer be locking the bootloaders on our devices. Thanks for your passion, support and patience.”

Now that’s what I call a Zittrainian success story! Markets and public pressure prevailed and led to more openness and generativity in the purest sense of the terms.

I suppose that some will still worry and retort that “well, the carriers might still try to lock down the devices.” That story might have been more believable five years ago but the new reality of the smartphone world today is that the OS and app makers now hold most of the cards. Carriers are practically giving away the store (literally!) as they rush to get the latest and greatest phones and operating systems from the likes of Apple, Google, Microsoft, HTC, Motorola, LG, and so on.  This is amazingly dynamic ecosystem with multiple layers of innovation and competition.

I don’t think there’s any way the generativity genie could be put back in the bottle at this point. Too many people want tinker-friendly devices and more “open” platforms.  Of course, it’s also true that some devices will remain somewhat more locked-down to ensure “stability” or simplicity for those users who desire it. But what’s wrong with that? Shouldn’t they have that choice? Again, it’s the innovation across the full range of devices and platforms that is so important and impressive in this case. That’s all we should really care about. Finally, if goes without saying that even the most heavily fortified security can be broken when determined people try hard enough.

I hope Zittrain, Wu, and Lessig appreciate this and that they and others acknowledge these beneficial developments so that we can avoid foolish calls to regulate this healthy information ecosystem. These guys should declare victory and pop the champagne. The vision they favor is prevailing.

On this week’s John Stossel show on Fox Business Network, I debated Internet privacy, advertising, and data collection issues with Michael Fertik of Reputation.com. In the few minutes we had for the segment, I tried to reiterate a couple of keep points that we’ve hammered repeatedly here in the past:

• There’s no free lunch. All the free sites and service we enjoy online today are powered by advertising and data collection. [see this op-ed]
• There is no clear harm in most cases, or what some argue is harm also can have many benefits that are rarely discussed. [see this paper.]
• There’s little acknowledgement of the trade-offs involved in having government create an information control regime for the Internet. [see this filing and these three essays: 1, 2, 3.]
• The ultimate code of “fair information practices” is the First Amendment, which favors free speech, openness, and transparency over secrecy and information control. [see this piece.]
• “Hands Off the Net” is a policy that has served us well. There are dangerous ramifications for our economy and long-term Internet freedoms if we continue down the road of “European-izing” privacy law here in the States. [see this essay and this filing.]
• At some point, personal responsibility needs to come into the equation. With so many privacy enhancing empowerment tools already on the market, it begs the question: If consumers don’t take steps to use those tools, why should government intervene and take action for them?

Anyway, here’s the 7-min video of the debate between Fertik and me:

This is the second of two essays making “The Case for Internet Optimism.” This essay was included in the book, The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet (2011), which was edited by Berin Szoka and Adam Marcus of TechFreedom. In my previous essay, which I discussed here yesterday, I examined the first variant of Internet pessimism: “Net Skeptics,” who are pessimistic about the Internet improving the lot of mankind. In this second essay, I take on a very different breed of Net pessimists:  “Net Lovers” who, though they embrace the Net and digital technologies, argue that they are “dying” due to a lack of sufficient care or collective oversight.  In particular, they fear that the “open” Internet and “generative” digital systems are giving way to closed, proprietary systems, typically run by villainous corporations out to erect walled gardens and quash our digital liberties.  Thus, they are pessimistic about the long-term survival of the Internet that we currently know and love.

Leading exponents of this theory include noted cyberlaw scholars Lawrence Lessig, Jonathan Zittrain, and Tim Wu.  I argue that these scholars tend to significantly overstate the severity of this problem (the supposed decline of openness or generativity, that is) and seem to have very little faith in the ability of such systems to win out in a free market. Moreover, there’s nothing wrong with a hybrid world in which some “closed” devices and platforms remain (or even thrive) alongside “open” ones. Importantly, “openness” is a highly subjective term, and a constantly evolving one.  And many “open” systems or devices are as perfectly open as these advocates suggest.

Finally, I argue that it’s likely that the “openness” advocated by these advocates will devolve into expanded government control of cyberspace and digital systems than that unregulated systems will become subject to “perfect control” by the private sector, as they fear.  Indeed, the implicit message in the work of all these hyper-pessimistic critics is that markets must be steered in a more sensible direction by those technocratic philosopher kings (although the details of their blueprint for digital salvation are often scarce).   Thus, I conclude that the dour, depressing “the-Net-is-about-to-die” fear that seems to fuel this worldview is almost completely unfounded and should be rejected before serious damage is done to the evolutionary Internet through misguided government action.

I’ve embedded the entire essay down below in Scribd reader, but it can also be found on TechFreedom’s Next Digital Decade book website and SSRN.

The Case for Internet Optimism Part 2 – Saving the Net From Its Supporters (Adam Thierer) http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

A group of regulatory advocates that includes Free Press, Media Access Project and the New America Foundation, have fired off a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting action against the nation’s #5 mobile provider, MetroPCS.  These regulatory groups claim that “new service plans being offered by mobile provider MetroPCS block and discriminate against Internet content, applications and websites.” Wired’s Ryan Singel summarizes what the fight is about:

At issue are new, tiered 4G data plans from the nation’s fifth largest mobile carrier, which specializes in pay-as-you-go mobile-phone service. The new plans offer “unlimited web usage” for all three tiers, which cost $40, $50 and $60 a month. But MetroPCS’s terms exclude video sites other than YouTube from “unlimited web usage,” and block the use of internet-telephony services such as Skype and Tango.  The terms of service also make it very unclear whether users would be allowed to use online-radio services such as Pandora.

The parties petitioning the FCC for regulatory intervention claim that “MetroPCS appears to be in violation of the Commission’s recently adopted open Internet rules” even though they note that “these rules have not yet taken effect.”

There are four things I find interesting about this hullabaloo:

(1) The ink isn’t even dry on the FCC’s Net neutrality order and yet it already has the inside-the-Beltway lobbying machine humming.  We’re just a few weeks into the FCC’s new “light touch” Net neutrality regulatory regime and yet we’re already seeing pleadings like this one.  If this foreshadows what the future holds, it’s a troubling sign of things to come.  If the agency’s new regulatory regime sticks, I think it’s safe to say that such requests for market meddling will only increase as time goes on and the Internet will quickly be wrapped in innovation-stifling red tape.  Meanwhile, countless lawyers and lobbyists around the Beltway are licking their chops in anticipation of the lobbying and litigation bonanza that awaits.

(2) Choice is largely irrelevant to the pro-regulation Net neutrality crowd.  It seemingly doesn’t matter to these regulatory advocates that they and other consumers are free to shop around for alternative mobile plans.  In the field of competition policy, the ability to exercise such choice is typically the end of the story and no further discussion / intervention is considered warranted. These advocates, however, seemingly want control over all terms of service for all market competitors, even for the distant #5 players in the field.  I mean, for God’s sake, we are talking about MetroPCS here!  Does anyone seriously believe that there’s just no escaping their evil clutches?

And apparently we can look forward to more of this sort of across-the-board, damn-the-consequences market meddling thanks to what Randy May of the Free State Foundation refers to as “Infamous No. 78” of the FCC’s Net neutrality order. That provision of the order essentially says that the FCC can dispense with the notion that a showing of actual monopoly power and actual consumer harm should be the litmus tests for regulatory intervention. Instead, May notes:

by disclaiming reliance only on anticompetitive injury and consumer harm (generally present only when an Internet provider possesses market power), the Commission leaves itself largely at sea in enforcing its rules. By “at sea,” I mean, of course, that the Commission, as it acknowledges, is leaving itself with nearly unbridled discretion in deciding which Internet provider practices will be permitted and which will not.

Welcome to our brave new world of ‘anything goes’ Internet regulation.

(3) For Net neutrality proponents, “fairness” always trumps competition / innovation, regardless of the costs.  The people who work at these organizations are, no doubt, well-meaning in their pleadings for regulation. They really think they can make communications and broadband market outcomes more “fair” through the application of Net neutrality regulations and other rules.

But regulation is not costless.  Micromanaging markets can lead to less innovation, less investment, and less consumer choice. It can also dampen price competition. After all, while the regulatory advocates want us to get hot and bothered about the terms of service in this particular case, we should not forget the fact that, with this latest move, MetroPCS is attempting to inject more competition, new innovation, and lower prices into the mobile marketplace.  To reiterate, the company is offering a $40 per month entry level price plan for a new 4G LTE service bundle.  Most people would call this innovation. But Free Press, Media Access Project and New America Foundation want us to believe it is a massive anti-consumer scandal. What an astonishing bit of hubris.

Moreover, let’s imagine that these regulatory advocates get their way and the FCC preemptively denies this innovative move, or that the agency micro-manages the terms of the offering. Those regulatory groups would like us to believe that MetroPCS can absorb the cost of such meddling and that everything will be just fine and dandy.  Back in the real world, however, if you ask just about any serious investment analyst or market expert who monitors mobile markets what they think, most of them would first convey their shock that MetroPCS has even been able to last as long as they have given the cut-throat competition in this arena. Then they’ll tell you that the sort of price and service competition that MetroPCS is pursuing here could kill them. Finally they’d tell you that an increased regulatory burden on the company at this time is could very well result in one less competitor in the long run.

So, while the regulatory advocates will shower us with talk of how they are looking out for our best interests to ensure carriers play “fair,” from a consumer perspective, an additional competitor and more price competition is likely of more importance than a perfectly “neutral” mobile service offering.

(4) Net neutrality regulatory proponents seemingly have very little faith in “openness” prospering organically, even though it has. As I’ve noted before, no one disagrees that the Internet’s openness is what made it great, or that consumers benefit from the free flow of traffic and applications over broadband networks.  But the regulatory advocates assume that only sweeping controls on broadband networks will make that a reality. The fact is, the Internet has never been more “open” than it is today. There’s a simple reason for that: It’s what most people demand. It’s also smart business.  No company ever got rich in this space by blocking traffic.

Having said all that, it may be the case that not everyone cares as much about perfect openness as others do. [See my essay from last year on the many flavors of “openness” and how defining the term is challenging.] As noted above, many consumers would be happier with cheaper price plans and more varied service options. (I bet that is particularly true of many MetroPCS customers since the company seems to target that market niche).  And guess what technophiles… not everyone out there is dying to have Skype or Pandora at their fingertips.  Personally, I couldn’t live with out either of those services and would never own a smartphone or calling plan that disallowed them for any reason.  But I am not so arrogant as to assume that everyone else has the same values as me or that I should make this trade-off for the rest of the world.  If some consumers want to trade functionality off against an affordable entry-level 4G plan, who is to say they should not have that option?  Apparently Free Press, Media Access Project and New America Foundation, that’s who.

I’m always entertained by the talk among the Twitterati — especially those who seem to permanently reside in the #NetNeutrality and #FCC hashtags — about how the Internet’s “openness” is at risk, and that steps must be taken to preserve it.  Regulatory regimes are often birthed by myths, and this one is no different.  Contrary to what the regulation-happy worry-warts suggest, the Internet has never been more “open” than it is today. After all, as Geert Lovink reminded us in his 2008 critique of Jonathan Zittrain’s thinking about the decline of online openness:

[In] [t]he first decades[,] the Internet was a closed world, only accessible to (Western) academics and the U.S. military. In order to access the Internet one had to be an academic computer scientist or a physicist. Until the early nineties it was not possible for ordinary citizens, artists, business[es] or activists, in the USA or elsewhere, to obtain an email address and make use of the rudimentary UNIX-based applications. … It was a network of networks—but still a closed one.

And even though it will probably make the folks at Free Press and Public Knowledge have an aneurysm, it’s abundantly clear what shook-up this sleepy, closed model: commercialization.  That’s right, those evil folks who had the audacity to want to make a dollar online were the ones who brought us the “open” Internet we know and love today! 

Ironically, it was only because the so-called “walled garden” providers of that era — AOL and CompuServe, for example — came along that many average folk were even able to experience and enjoy this strange new world called the Internet. “The fact that millions of Americans for the first time experienced the Internet through services like AOL (and continue to do so) is a reality that Zittrain simply overlooks,” notes Lovink.

It’s true, of course, that services like AOL and CompuServe held our hands to some extent and gave many new Netizens a guided tour of cyberspace. Thus, many would push back against the suggestion that those companies actually helped promote “openness.”  Regardless, that’s all ancient history now because the walls around those particular gardens came crashing down after users became more comfortable navigating the Internet on their own. As a result, CompuServe faded from the scene and AOL lost all 25 million of its $20/month-paying subscribers as they were overtaken by the search and social networking paradigms they never saw coming.

But commercialization promoted openness in a more profound way with the rise of online commerce and the need to expand markets for goods and services, attract audiences, and grow advertising budgets. “Closed” business models just haven’t had much luck online.  Businesses of all flavors aren’t going to make more money online by “blocking” or foreclosing opportunities.

So, getting back to Net neutrality.. should we trust the claims of those who say the FCC will give us a more “open” Internet through a top-down regulatory regime?  I’ll let the brilliant Jack Shafer of Slate answer that question:

So the basic question here is who will set the Internet’s priorities, the government or the providers. That I have an innate distrust for government should surprise no regular readers. Traditionally, the state censors and marginalizes voices while private businesses tend to remain tolerant. Even at the height of the rebellions of the 1960s and early 1970s, political radicals and social radicals could always find printers to publish their most sordid, seditious, and sensational material. But that’s only because there was no FCC control over who could own and operate a printing press, no control over what prices they could charge for their services, and no state commandment that they had to accept any print job. The only times the FCC has spurred debate and commentary have been when it has stepped out of the way.

The FCC’s track record of encouraging innovation or “openness” has just not been a pretty one. Regulatory capture is one culprit here, obviously, but even when the agency’s heart is in the right spot, bureaucratic bungling usually derails the best of intentions with mounds of red tape and years of legal wrangling.

Again, the good news is that almost all signs point in the direction of things growing even more open over time — so long, that is, as the FCC doesn’t screw things up.

[ p.s. I will have much more to say about my views on “openness” and Net optimism in a chapter for Berin Szoka’s terrific upcoming book, The Next Digital Decade.  I built my chapter around this Concurring Opinions debate I had with Jonathan Zittrain earlier this year.]

Tim Wu was kind enough to comment on my general overview and critique of his new book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.  That essay will be the first of many I plan to pen about Wu’s important book.  I appreciate Prof. Wu being willing to engage me in a debate over some of these issues since I’m sure he has better things to do with his time. Some of the points he raised in his comment will be addressed in subsequent posts.

In this post, I want to respond briefly to his assertion that I was “missing the point of the book” which is “to describe the world we live in.” He says that his book, “suggests that we tend to go through open and closed cycles in the Information Industries, and that, roughly, both have their strengths and weaknesses, and both become popular at different times for various reasons.”  But he fears there are “greater risks in the closed periods.”

Contrary to what he suggests, I certainly understand that’s the point of his book, it’s just that I don’t fully agree with his analysis or conclusions. Let me be clear about a crucial point, however: I accept that almost every industry goes through “cycles” of some sort and that, typically, after a “Wild West” period of greater “openness” and more atomistic competition, some degree of “consolidation” or more “closed” (or proprietary) models often sets in.  (A somewhat different and far more descriptive interpretation of such cycles can be found in Deborah Spar’s 2001 book, Ruling the Waves: Cycles of Discovery, Chaos, and Wealth from Compass to the Internet. She outlines a more refined 4-part cycle of: Innovation, Commercialization, Creative Anarchy, and Rules.)

My primary beef with Prof. Wu is that, contrary to his assertion yesterday in commenting on my post, his book seems to regard the progression of “the Cycle” as mostly linear and one-directional: straight down toward a perfectly closed, corporate-controlled, anti-consumer Hell.  By my reading of his book – much like Lessig and Zittrain’s work – Wu is painting an overly pessimistic portrait of technologies being subjected to the “perfect control” of largely unfettered markets.

I believe history – especially recent history — teaches us something very different.  While information technology markets certainly go through cycles, they tend to oscillate between open and closed more fluidly than Wu suggests – and that dynamic is accelerating today.  Moreover, during periods which Wu regards as more “closed,” things aren’t always as closed as he suggests.  Or, more importantly, the “closed” models typically spawn more innovation than Wu and others bother acknowledging. It’s during what some regard as a market’s darkest hour when some of the most exciting forms of disruptive technologies and innovation are developing.  Finally, to the extent some markets are completely locked-down for a time, it’s more often than not due to public policies that facilitate that lockdown or the “closing” of systems.

I spent a great deal of time making these points in the second essay I submitted to the recent Concurring Opinions symposium about Jonathan Zittrain’s The Future of the Internet. In my essay, “On Defining Generativity, Openness, and Code Failure,” I argued that what separates our worldviews primarily comes down to the more static (or “stasis”) mindset that Lessig, Zittrain, and Wu adopt in their work.  They take static snapshots of markets at what seems to be their darkest hour and then suggest there’s little chance of escaping that Hell.

Of course, how one defines Hell is important. What Wu does in his book, following the lead set by Lessig and Zittrain, is to “define-down” market failure.  If you regard proprietary business models, property rights, or the success of a small handful of companies as the enemy of “openness” and innovation, then it’s easy to see why you might buy into the notion that market failure is ubiquitous and that “steps must be taken” to correct it.   If, on the other hand, you understand that markets are in a constant state of flux, and that those other variables listed above are not necessarily at odds with openness and innovation, then, like me, you’re more cautious about calling in the Code Cops to steer markets and outcomes in other directions.

But the really important point here is that markets evolve. Moreover, that evolution takes place at a much faster clip in the digital arena than it does in other markets. Innovators don’t sit still. People innovate around “failure.” Indeed, “market failure” is really just the glass-is-half-empty view of a golden opportunity for innovation. Markets evolve. New ideas, innovations, and companies are born.  And things generally change for the better—and do so rapidly.

Consider my two favorite case studies from recent times: the AOL-Time Warner merger and the supposed Microsoft monopoly.

The AOL Case Study

When Lessig penned Code a decade ago, it was AOL that was set to become the corporate enslaver of cyberspace. For a time, it was easy to see why Lessig and others might have been worried.  25 million subscribers were willing to pay $20 per month to get a guided tour of AOL’s walled garden version of the Internet.  Then AOL and Time Warner announced a historic mega-merger that had some predicting the rise of “new totalitarianisms” and corporate “Big Brother.”

But the deal quickly went off the rails. By April 2002, just two years after the deal was struck, AOL-Time Warner had already reported a staggering $54 billion loss. By January 2003, losses had grown to $99 billion. By September 2003, Time Warner decided to drop AOL from its name altogether and the deal continued to slowly unravel from there.  In a 2006 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Time Warner President Jeffrey Bewkes famously declared the death of “synergy” and went so far as to call synergy “bullsh*t”!  In early 2008, Time Warner decided to shed AOL’s dial-up service and then to spin off AOL entirely.  Looking back at the deal, Fortune magazine senior editor at large Allan Sloan called it the “turkey of the decade.” The formal divorce between the two firms took place in 2008. Further deconsolidation followed for Time Warner, which spun off its cable TV unit and various other properties.

(The hysteria about AOL’s looming monopolization of instant messaging—and with it, the rest of the web—seems particularly silly: Today, anyone can download a free chat client like Digsby or Adium to manage multiple IM services from AOL, Yahoo!, Google, Facebook and just about anyone else, all within a single interface, essentially making it irrelevant which chat service your friends use.)

In the larger scheme of things, AOL’s story has already become an afterthought in our chaotic cyber-history. But we shouldn’t let those old critics forget about their lugubrious lamentations.  To recap: the big, bad corporate villain of Lessig’s Code attempted to construct the largest walled garden ever, and partner with a titan of the media sector in doing so—and this dastardly plot failed miserably.

To Wu’s credit, he acknowledges that AOL-Time Warner was “a surprising wreck” and that “AOL was [a] dinosaur limping into the new age” before the mass Internet. (p. 262-3) [Of course, there’s no mention in the book of the dire prognostications some of his academic compatriots made a decade ago about AOL or its deal with Time Warner.]  Surprisingly, however, Wu suggests that what ultimately undermined the deal was Net neutrality! He argues that, in order for the merger to achieve the perfect Hell of a giant corporate walled garden, AOL Time Warner would have needed to “subdue Google, Yahoo! and their many cousins. In short, to be viable, the firm would have needed to overturn the net neutrality principles at the core of the Internet’s design.” (p. 267)

Now, isn’t that interesting since, quite obviously, there have been no Net neutrality laws on the books despite the fact that critics like Wu have been hollering for their supposed need!  In a similar vein, Wu recently told Forbes magazine “If there were no net neutrality, Skype would have already been suppressed.”  Again, there is no formal Net neutrality law in place today, so what Wu is essentially saying is that market norms, not regulatory edicts, ensured that new applications came online and that market power was checked.

Even more interesting is the fact that Wu continues on to essentially make the libertarian case against formal Net neutrality regulation when he argues:

The only entity that has so far really succeeded in such a mission [of overturning the net neutrality principles at the core of the Internet’s design] is the government of mainland China, as we saw in 2010, when it drove an exasperated Google out of its sovereign territory by demanding extensive control over what Google let users find.  Indeed, the feat requires such power and resources as belong uniquely to the state: access to the very choke points of a nation’s communications infrastructure, its Master Switch. AOL Time Warner, however vast, did not have police power—it could not imprison Google’s executives for failing to block Wikipedia or Disney content. (p. 267)

Exactly right; it really does come down to that profound difference between who has coercive police power (the State) and who does not (corporations).  It’s not just a difference of degree but a difference of kind.   So, welcome to libertarian movement, Tim Wu!  I plan on citing that block quote in every paper I write from now on regarding why we don’t need preemptive Net neutrality regulation!

The Microsoft Case Study

I want to also briefly mention the Microsoft case study since it is quite instructive in this regard.

It’s suddenly quite easy to forget just how much hand-wringing took place in the late 1990s and early 2000s over Microsoft’s dominance of the web browser market.  Dour predictions of perpetual Internet Explorer lock-in followed.  For a short time, there was some truth to this.  But, yet again, innovators weren’t just sitting still; exciting things were happening.  In particular, the seeds were being planted for the rise of Firefox and Chrome as robust challengers to IE’s dominance—not to mention mobile browsers.

Of course, it’s true that roughly half of all websurfers still use a version of IE today.  But IE’s share of the market is falling rapidly as viable, impressive alternatives now exist and innovation among these competitors is more vibrant than ever.  That’s all that counts. The world changed, and for the better, despite all the doomsday predictions we heard less than a decade ago about Microsoft’s potential dominance of cyberspace.  Moreover, all the innovation taking place at the browser layer today certainly undercuts the gloomy “death of the Net” or “death of openness” thesis set forth by Zittrain and Wu.

Indeed, as Tim O’Reilly argues, this case study illustrates the power of markets to evolve and “route around” market failure or excessively closed systems even during what appears to be a certain sector’s darkest hour:

Just as Microsoft appeared to have everything locked down in the PC industry, the open Internet restarted the game, away from what everyone thought was the main action. I guarantee that if anyone gets a lock on the mobile Internet, the same thing will happen. We’ll be surprised by the innovation that starts happening somewhere else, out on the free edges. And that free edge will eventually become the new center, because open is where innovation happens. […] it’s far too early to call the open web dead, just because some big media companies are excited about the app ecosystem. I predict that those same big media companies are going to get their clocks cleaned by small innovators, just as they did on the web.

Lessons Learned – Or Ignored?

From these case studies, one would hope that the Openness Evangelicals would have gained a newfound appreciation for the evolutionary and dynamic nature of markets and come to understand that, especially in markets built upon information and digital code, the pace and nature of change is unrelenting and utterly unpredictable.  Indeed, contra Lessig’s lament in Code that “Left to itself, cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control,” cyberspace has proven far more difficult to “control” or regulate than any of us ever imagined.  The volume and pace of technological innovation we have witnessed in information sectors over the past decade has been nothing short of stunning.

Critics like Zittrain and Wu, however, wants to keep beating the cyber-sourpuss drum.  So, the face of corporate evil has to change. Today, Steve Jobs has become the supposed apotheosis of all this closed-system evil instead of AOL.  Jobs serves as a prime villain in the books of Zittrain and Wu and in many of the essays they and other Openness Evangelicals pen. But their enemies list is growing longer.  Today, according to the narratives in Zittrain and Wu’s books, it’s not just one of two corporate titans we need to worry about, but just about every major player in the high-tech ecosystem—telcos, cable companies, wireless operators, entertainment providers, Facebook, and others.

Even Google — Silicon Valley’s supposed savior of Internet openness — is not spared their scorn.  “Google is the Internet’s switch,” Wu argues. “In fact, it’s the world’s most popular Internet switch, and as such, it might even be described as the current custodian of the Master Switch.” More ominously, he warns, “it is the switch that transformed mere communications into networking—that ultimately decides who reached what or whom.” (p. 280)

It seems, then, that the face of “closed” evil is constantly morphing.  But shouldn’t that tell us something about how dynamic these markets are?!  I look forward to reading the next edition of Tim’s book to see who the new villains are and whether he’s drawn any lessons from the constantly changing cast of characters.

Conclusion

In sum, history counsels patience and humility instead of Chicken Little-ism and incessant calls for preemptive regulation to serve some amorphous, politically-defined “public interest.”  More generally, history counsels what we might call “technological agnosticism.” In particular, we should avoid declaring “openness” – especially of the mandated variety — a sacrosanct principle and making everything else subservient to it without regard to cost or consumer desires.  As Wired’s Chris Anderson notes, “there are many Web triumphalists who still believe that there is only One True Way, and will fight to the death to preserve the open, searchable common platform that the Web represented for most of its first two decades (before Apple and Facebook, to name two, decided that there were Other Ways).”  The better position is one based on a general agnosticism regarding the nature of technological platforms and change.  In this view, the spontaneous evolution of markets has value in its own right, and continued experimentation with new models—be they “open” or “closed,” “generative” or “tethered”—should be permitted.

Importantly, one need not believe that the markets are “perfectly competitive” to accept that they are “competitive enough” compared to the alternatives—especially those re-shaped by the sort of regulation Wu and others advocate.  “Market failures” or “code failures” are ultimately better addressed by voluntary, spontaneous, bottom-up, marketplace responses than by coerced, top-down, governmental solutions.  Moreover, the decisive advantage of the market-driven, evolutionary approach lies in the rapidity and nimbleness of those responses compared to regulatory alternatives.

Thus, in closing, Tim Wu’s assertion yesterday that I was “missing the point of the book… [which is] to describe the world we live in,” is based on his belief that he has accurately described our world, its history, and the forces that move it.  As I’ve suggested here, there’s a very different way of looking at things.  In my opinion, Wu’s Master Switch is just too hung up on the static snapshot mindset and a bit too obsessed with the supposed One True Way of doing things.

[ Note: In the next installment, I will address Wu’s mistaken claim that purely free markets have guided America’s communications and media sectors over the past century and his assertion that “the purely economic laissez-faire approach… is no longer feasible.”]

Tim Wu’s new book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, will be released next week and it promises to make quite a splash in cyberlaw circles.  It will almost certainly go down as one of the most important info-tech policy books of 2010 and will probably win the top slot in my next end-of-year list.

Of course, that doesn’t mean I agree with everything in it.  In fact, I disagree vehemently with Wu’s general worldview and recommendations, and even much of his retelling of the history of information sectors and policy.  Nonetheless, for reasons I will discuss in this first of many critiques, the book’s impact will be significant because Wu is a rock star in this academic arena as well as a committed activist in his role as chair of the radical regulatory activist group, Free Press. Through his work at Free Press as well as the New America Foundation, Professor Wu is attempting to craft a plan of action to reshape the Internet and cyberspace.

I stand in opposition to almost everything that Wu and those groups stand for, thus, I will be spending quite a bit of time addressing his perspectives and proposals here in coming months, just as I did when Jonathan Zittrain’s hugely important The Future of the Internet & How to Stop It was released two years ago (my first review is here and my latest critique is here).  In today’s essay, I’ll provide a general overview and foreshadow my critiques to come.  (Note: Tim was kind enough to have his publisher send me an advance uncorrected proof of the book a few months ago, so I’ll be using that version to construct these critiques. Please consult the final version for cited material and page numbers.)

The Master Switch & the Cyber-Collectivist Trilogy of Terror

As I noted in my essay on “Two Schools of Internet Pessimism,” what I find most lamentable about the state of cyberlaw and high-tech policy debates today is the foreboding sense of gloom and doom that haunts so many narratives.  To crack open most Net policy books these days is to step into a world of corporate conspiracies, nefarious industry schemers, closed systems, “kill switches,” squashed consumer rights, and so on.  Let’s face it, Chicken Little doesn’t need an agent; pessimism sells. The world loves a good tale of villainy and misery, and that’s exactly what Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu delivers in his new book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.

Wu’s book is important if for no other reason than he is considered one of the intellectual godfathers of modern cyberlaw and The Master Switch is best understood as the final installment in an important trilogy that began with the publication of Lawrence Lessig’s seminal 1999 book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace and then was continued on in Jonathan Zittrain’s much-discussed 2008 book, The Future of the Internet & How to Stop It.

To better understand where Wu wants to take us in The Master Switch, we must first return to the central tenant of Lessig’s Code:  “Left to itself,” Lessig predicted, “cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control.” (pg 5-6)  Code quickly became a sort of cyber-collectivist Bible and today Lessig’s many disciples in academia and a wide variety of public policy regulatory advocacy organizations continue to preach this gloomy gospel of impending digital doom and “perfect control.”  Zittrain and Wu are Lessig’s most notable intellectual descendants; the Peter and Paul of the Church of Cyber-Doom that he founded.  And despite their insistence that they really aren’t all that pessimistic—or, more humorously, that they are actually libertarians in disguise—this crew persists with frightful tales and lugubrious warnings that unless someone or something—quite often, the State—intervenes to set us on a better course or protect those things that they regard as sacred.

Zittrain’s Future of the Internet, for example, brought Lessig’s Code up date by giving us a fresh set of villains.  Gone was Lessig’s old foil AOL and its worrisome walled gardens. Instead, the new face of evil became Apple, Facebook, and TiVo.  Zittrain worries about “sterile and tethered” digital “appliances” that foreclose digital generativity and the rise of “a handful of gated cloud communities whose proprietors control the availability of new code.”

Wu simply extends this narrative in The Master Switch when he ominously warns that there are “forces threatening the Internet as we know it” (p. 7) and then goes on to craft an enemies list that reads like a “Who’s Who” of high-tech corporate America. No one, it seems, can be trusted—at least not if that someone has a “.com” behind their name.  Wu hopes to convince us that history proves that concentrations of private power in information industries are inevitably follow a period of openness and competition.  He refers to this as “The Cycle.” Thus, he trots out the old collectivist saw that freedom is really slavery — slavery to The Man:

If the stories in this book tell us anything… it is that the free market can also lead to situations of reduced freedom. Markets are born free, yet no sooner are they born than some would-be emperor is forging chains.  Paradoxically, it sometimes happens that the only way to preserve freedom is through judicious controls on the exercise of private power.  If we believe in liberty, it must be freedom from both private and public coercion. (p. 310)

This is the heart of Wu’s critique in The Master Switch: The real threat is not Big Brother but Big Corporate Brother. It’s certainly not a new critique. Wu is simply steering the Lessig-ite, cyber-collectivism school of cyberlaw in line with traditional “progressive” perspectives and recommendations.  Indeed, although he and other so-called progressives don’t always come right out and say it, they often suggest that private power – however defined – is so insidious and threatening that greatly amplified State power to counter it becomes essential, even a good.

The cyber-collectivist movement that Lessig began with Code and Zittrain and Wu continue in their books, is fueled by that dour, depressing “the-Net-is-about-to-die” fear. Again and again their message comes down to this: “Enjoy the good old days of the open Internet while you can, because any minute now it will be crushed and closed-off by corporate marauders!”  This crowd want us to believe that the corporate big boys are — someday very soon — going to toss the proverbial “master switch,” suffocating Internet innovation and digital freedom, and making us all cyber-slaves within their commercialized walled gardens.

We might think of this fear as “The Great Closing,” or the notion that, unless radical interventions are pursued — usually of a regulatory nature – a veritable Digital Dark Age of Closed Systems will soon unfold, complete with myriad AOL-like walled gardens, “sterile and tethered devices,” corporate censorship, and consumer gouging. Again, it’s really just a restatement of the old Lessig vision of an unfettered cyberspace leading to “perfect (corporate) control.”  In other words, most information systems, networks and devices will be bottled up by corporate “gatekeepers” if markets aren’t steered in a better direction by wise philosopher-regulators.  And these “Openness Evangelicals,” as I will call them, believe they are the sagacious chosen few who will serve as the self-appointed janissary of the supposed dying order of openness.

My critique of this cyber-collectivist thinking and “Great Closing” thesis was more fully developed in these two essays [1, 2] and will be more robustly developed in a chapter for an upcoming book that will be published shortly.  Much of what I’ll have to say in response to Wu’s new book will be drawn from those essays as well as my two-part exchange [1, 2] with Lessig upon the 10^th anniversary of the publication of Code. Basically, I do not buy – not for one minute – the notion that “the Internet is dying” or that “openness” is evaporating.  The Internet has never been more vibrant or open.  Again, please read those previous essays for my completely response.  I’ll be teasing out some of those themes in future essays here.

More specifically, my response to Wu’s new book comes down to this:

1. Rarely is there any discussion of the nature of the respective forms of “power” or the coercive nature of State power, in particular.  The fact that the State has a monopoly on force in society and, thus, can penalize or even imprison, is either ignored or treated as irrelevant compared to the supposed “power” of private actors.
2. Rarely in their analysis — and never in Wu’s book — is there a serious cost-benefit analysis of the trade-off associated with an aggrandizement of State power in the name of countering the supposed evils of private power.  The solutions offered – to the extent they rise above amorphous calls to “do something” – are presented as cost-free options.
3. There isn’t enough focus on the dangers of “regulatory capture” or the massive inefficiencies associated with the sort of regulatory regimes that progressives and modern cyber-collectivists like Wu would substitute for market mechanisms.

In my next installment, I’ll take on Wu’s critique of the fictional “purely economic laissez-faire approach” he derides – an approach that has never existed in American communications or media markets.  In a forthcoming installment, I’ll also be challenging Tim to a Simon-Ehrlich wager on this front and ask him to put his money where his mouth is to see just how serious he is about his dour worldview and extreme technological pessimism!  So, stay tuned.

[Jump to Part 2 in the series.]

[I am currently helping Berin Szoka edit a collection of essays from various Internet policy scholars for a new PFF book called “The Next Digital Decade: Essays about the Internet’s Future.”  I plan on including two chapters of my own in the book responding to the two distinct flavors of Internet pessimism that I increasingly find are dominating discussions about Internet policy. Below you will see how the first of these two chapters begins. I welcome input as I refine this draft. ]

Surveying the prevailing mood surrounding cyberlaw and Internet policy circa 2010, one is struck by the overwhelming sense of pessimism about our long-term prospects for a better future.   “Internet pessimism,” however, comes in two very distinct flavors:

1. Net Skeptics, Pessimistic about the Internet Improving the Lot of Mankind: The first variant of Internet pessimism is rooted in general skepticism regarding the supposed benefits of cyberspace, digital technologies, and information abundance. The proponents of this pessimistic view often wax nostalgic about some supposed “good ‘ol days” when life was much better (although they can’t seem to agree when those were). At a minimum, they want us to slow down and think twice about life in the Information Age and how it is personally affecting each of us.  Other times, however, their pessimism borders on neo-Ludditism, with proponents recommending steps be taken to curtail what they feel is the destructive impact of the Net or digital technologies on culture or the economy. Leading proponents of this variant of Internet pessimism include:  Neil Postman (Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology), Andrew Keen, (The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing our Culture), Lee Siegel, (Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob), Mark Helprin, (Digital Barbarism) and, to a lesser degree, Jaron Lanier (You Are Not a Gadget) and Nicholas Carr (The Big Switch and The Shallows).
2. Net Lovers, Pessimistic about the Future of Openness: A different type of Internet pessimism is on display in the work of many leading cyberlaw scholars today.  Noted academics such as Lawrence Lessig, (Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace), Jonathan Zittrain (The Future of the Internet & How to Stop It), and Tim Wu (The Master Switch The Rise and Fall of Information Empires), embrace the Internet and digital technologies, but argue that they are “dying” due to a lack of sufficient care or collective oversight.  In particular, they fear that the “open” Internet and “generative” digital systems are giving way to closed, proprietary systems, typically run by villainous corporations out to erect walled gardens and quash our digital liberties.  Thus, they are pessimistic about the long-term survival of the wondrous Internet that we currently know and love.

Despite their different concerns, two things unite these two schools of techno-pessimism.  First, there is an elitist air to their pronouncements; a veritable “the-rest-of-you-just-don’t-get-it” attitude pervades their work.  In the case of the Net Skeptics, it’s the supposed decline of culture, tradition, and economy that the rest of us are supposedly blind to, but which they see perfectly—and know how to rectify.  For the Net Loving Pessimists, by contrast, we see this attitude on display when they imply that a Digital Dark Age of Closed Systems is unfolding since nefarious schemers in high-tech corporate America are out to suffocate Internet innovation and digital freedom more generally.  The Net Loving Pessimists apparently see this plot unfolding, but paint the rest of us out to be robotic sheep being led to the cyber-slaughter since we are unwittingly using services (AOL in the old days; Facebook today) or devices (the iPhone and iPad) that play right into the hands of those corporate schemers who are out to erect high and tight walled gardens all around us.

Unsurprisingly, this elitist attitude leads to the second thing uniting these two variants of Net pessimism: An underlying belief that someone or something—most often, the State—must intervene to set us on a better course or protect those things that they regard as sacred.  They either fancy themselves as the philosopher kings who can set things back on a better course, or they imagine that such creatures exist in government today and can be tapped to save us from our impending digital doom—whatever it may be.

In both cases, I will argue that today’s Internet pessimists have over-stated the severity of the respective problems they have identified.  In doing so, I will argue that they both have failed to appreciate the benefits of evolutionary dynamism.  I borrow the term dynamism from Virginia Postrel, who contrasted the conflicting worldviews of dynamism and stasis so eloquently in her 1998 masterpiece, The Future and Its Enemies.  Postrel argued that:

The future we face at the dawn of the twenty-first century is, like all futures left to themselves, “emergent, complex messiness.” Its “messiness” lies not in disorder, but in an order that is unpredictable, spontaneous, and ever shifting, a pattern created by millions of uncoordinated, independent decisions.

However, because “these actions shape a future no one can see, a future that is dynamic and inherently unstable,” Postrel noted.  But that inherent instability and the uncomfortable realization that the future is, by its very nature, unknowable, leads to exactly the sort of anxieties we see on display in the works of both varieties of Internet pessimists today.  Postrel contrasts the two visions of stasis and dynamism and makes the case for embracing dynamism as follows:

How we feel about the evolving future tells us who we are as individuals and as a civilization: Do we search for stasis—a regulated, engineered world? Or do we embrace dynamism—a world of constant creation, discovery, and competition? Do we value stability and control, or evolution and learning? Do we declare with [Tim] Appelo that “we’re scared of the future” and join [Judith ] Adams in decrying technology as “a killing thing”? Or do we see technology as an expression of human creativity and the future as inviting? Do we think that progress requires a central blueprint, or do we see it as a decentralized, evolutionary process? Do we consider mistakes permanent disasters, or the correctable by-products of experimentation? Do we crave predictability, or relish surprise?  These two poles, stasis and dynamism, increasingly define our political, intellectual, and cultural landscape. The central question of our time is what to do about the future.  And that question creates a deep divide.

Indeed it does, and that divide is growing deeper as the two schools of Internet pessimism—unwittingly, of course—work together to concoct a lugubrious narrative of impending techno-apocalypse.  It makes little difference whether the two schools agree on the root cause(s) of all our problems; in the end, it’s their unified call for a more “regulated, engineered world” that makes them both suffer from the same stasis sickness.

In this chapter, I will take on the first variant of Internet pessimism (the Net Skeptics) and make the dynamist case for what I call “pragmatic optimism.”  I will argue that the Internet and digital technologies are reshaping our culture, economy and society in most ways for the better, but not without some serious heartburn along the way.  My bottom line comes down to a simple cost-benefit analysis: Were we really better off in the scarcity era when we were collectively suffering from information poverty? Generally speaking, I’ll take information overload over information poverty any day.  But we should not underestimate or belittle the disruptive impacts associated with the Information Revolution.  We need to find ways to better cope with those changes in a dynamist fashion instead of embracing the stasis notion that we can roll back the clock on progress and recapture “the good ‘ol days”—which actually weren’t all that good.

In another chapter in the book, I will address the second variant of Internet pessimism (the Net Loving Pessimists) and show how reports of the Internet’s death have been greatly exaggerated.  Although the Net Loving Pessimists will likely recoil at the suggestion that they are not dynamists, the reality is that their attitudes and recommendations are decided stasisist in nature. They fret about a cyber-future in which the Internet might not as closely resemble its opening epoch.  Worse yet, many of them agree with what Lawrence Lessig said in his seminal—by highly pessimistic—1999 book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, that “Left to itself, cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control.”  Lessig and his intellectual disciples—especially Zittrain and Wu—have continued to forecast a gloomy digital future unless something is done to address the Great Digital Closing we are supposedly experiencing.  I will argue that while many of us share their appreciation of the Internet’s current nature and its early history, their embrace of the stasis mentality is unfortunate since it forecloses the spontaneous evolution of cyberspace and invites government intervention to create a more “regulated, engineered world” that will, ironically, undermine much of what they hope to preserve about the current Internet.

[ I’ll then go on to finish this chapter, basically by finally completing my essay, “ Are You An Internet Optimist or Pessimist? The Great Debate over Technology’s Impact on Society.” In the second chapter addressing the pessimism of the “Net Lovers,” I will build on my review of Zittrain’s “Future of the Internet,” my two–part debate with Lawrence Lessig on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of “ Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace,” and my forthcoming review of Tim Wu’s soon-to-be-released book, “The Master Switch The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.”  I will then eagerly await the hate mail from all the affected parties.]

It may be possible to wring consistency from the “open” manifesto Google SVP of Product Management Jonathan Rosenberg published earlier this week, but I can’t.

He correctly extols the virtues of openness in technology and data for its pro-competitive effects. Closed systems may be profitable in the short run, but they are weak innovation engines:

[A] well-managed closed system can deliver plenty of profits. They can also deliver well-designed products in the short run — the iPod and iPhone being the obvious examples — but eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best (is a four blade razor really that much better than a three blade one?) because the whole point is to preserve the status quo. Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system. If you don’t have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won’t.

But his paean to openness draws a tight line around Google’s profitable products:

While we are committed to opening the code for our developer tools, not all Google products are open source. Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in. In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users. The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in. Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to “game” our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for everyone.

This is a fascinating exhibition of self-focus. Rosenberg finds that the benefits of openness cut off just exactly where Google’s profitability kicks in (credit: Rob Beschizza on BoingBoing).

If Google were to open its search algorithm, torments would befall users, he says—but much moreso torment would befall Google because their competitive edge in search and ad placement would shrink. Their competition would have a real chance to catch up and lower the premium Google could charge advertisers.

Now, would opening the algorithm allow gaming? Yes. And a new burst of competition and creativity would further improve search and ad serving across the entire Internet—exactly the kind of improvement Rosenberg says Google strives to produce.

Rosenberg’s attempt to strip Google down to a coherent philosophy of openness fails—search and ad-serving are a codpiece staring you right in the face. Or, if you prefer, Google’s heart is closed…

SVPs of product management are free to be wrong about philosophy, of course. It doesn’t matter at all—except when Google tries to impose its philosophy on others. And in the debate over ‘net neutrality regulation it has done exactly that.

Two years ago, Google sought and got “openness” conditions from the Federal Communication Commission on the 700MHz spectrum auction. Purchasers of it can’t use it as they see fit. For fear that it will cede profits to providers of transport, Google supports public utility-style regulation for network operators. Google thinks that “openness” rules to protect its profitability are ‘good for the Internet’. But they are just seeking competitive advantage through regulation.

This extraordinary self-focus—projecting one’s own interests onto others—is mirrored in the intellectual debate about openness versus proprietary systems. As I wrote in a 2007 book review, property rights and openness advocates both think their theories “explain the world.”

In fact, Google (and the Internet) benefit from openness some of the time and “closedness” some of the time. Open is not an organizing theory for Google, and it’s not an organizing theory for the Internet—just for parts of each.

Rosenberg’s myopia—thinking that what is good for Google is good for everyone—is the same as the myopia that politicians acquire after years in office. Fawned over by special pleaders and staff, they come to believe that their interests are the public interest. They honestly—but wrongly—believe that their defeat in an election would harm the country. So it is with Google’s support for net neutrality. L’Internet, c’est moi.

If Jonathan Rosenberg and the nice folks at Google were self-aware, it would be fair to call them hypocrites. But they are unlikely to see Google’s self-serving openness ideology as simply that. In Washington, D.C. we see all the time how hard it is to get a fish to talk about water.

Well, here we go again. Harvard’s Jonathan Zittrain has penned another gloomy essay about how “freedom is at risk in the cloud” and the future of the Internet is in peril because nefarious digital schemers like Apple, Facebook, and Google are supposedly out to lock you into their services and take away your digital rights.  And so, as I have done here many times before (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 + video!), I will offer a response arguing that Jonathan’s cyber-Chicken Little-ism is largely unwarranted.

Zittrain’s latest piece is entitled “Lost in the Cloud” and it appears in today’s New York Times.  It closely tracks the arguments he has set forth in his book The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It, which I named the most important technology policy book of 2008, but not because I agreed with its central thesis.  Zittrain’s book and his new NYT essay are the ultimate exposition of Lessigite technological pessimism.  I don’t know what they put in the water up at the Berkman Center to make these guys so remarkably cranky and despondent about the future of of the Internet, but starting with Lawrence Lessig’s Code in 1999 and running through to Zittrain’s Future of the Internet we have been forced to endure endless Tales of the Coming Techno-Apocalypse from these guys.  Back in the late 90s, Prof. Lessig warned us that AOL and some other companies would soon take over the new digital frontier since “Left to itself, cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control.”  Ah yes, how was it that we threw off the chains of our techno-oppressors and freed ourselves from that wicked walled garden hell?  Oh yeah, we clicked our mouses and left! And that was pretty much the end of AOL’s “perfect control” fantasies. [See my recent debate with Prof. Lessig over at Cato Unbound for more about this “illusion of perfect control,” as I have labeled it.]

But Zittrain is the equivalent of the St. Peter upon which the Church of Lessigism has been built and, like any good disciple, he’s still vociferously preaching to the unconverted and using fire and brimstone sermons to warn of our impending digital damnation. In fact, he’s taken it to all new extremes. In Future of the Internet, Jonathan argues that we run the risk of seeing the glorious days of the generative, open Net and digital devices give way to more “sterile, tethered devices” and closed networks. The future that he hopes to “stop” is one in which Apple, TiVo, Facebook, and Google — the central villains in his drama — are supposedly ceded too much authority over our daily lives because of a combination of (a) their wicked ways and (b) our ignorant ones.

First, let’s talk about those corporate wicked ways. Jonathan waxes nostalgic about a mythical time not long ago when technologies were supposedly far more “open and generative” than they are now. In Jonathan’s revisionist history of the digital olden times, we are told that the early PC era was somehow the model for openness and generativity.  That’s damn peculiar to an old-timer like me because all I remember from those days is the tall stacks of proprietary programs sitting on my desk + a keyboard and other peripherals that were all hard-wired to the monitor + a guy named Bill Gates who was typically likened to the Darth Vader of openness.  In Zittrain’s retelling of things, however, those Digital Dark Ages have suddenly become the good ol’ days!  The real threat to openness and digital freedom, however, is now right before us.. or just over our head it seems. It’s up there in the cloud, he tells us. The freedom that “tinkerers and hackers” once enjoyed in those glorious good ‘ol days “is at risk in the cloud, where the vendor of a platform has much more control over whether and how to let others write new software,” Zittrain says.

Excuse me? Why would it be the case that generativity is now somehow more at risk today than it was in the era where we had to wake up every morning and wait for a C:\ prompt before loading an operating system or $50 spreadsheet software via three different 5.25 floppy disks?  [Seriously, does anybody else besides me remember how much those days sucked?]  Well, it turns out that the answer to that question goes back to the ignorant ways of the digital hoi polloi that I mentioned above.  You see, we are all sheep who just don’t know what’s good for us. Or here’s how Jonathan puts it, albeit spinning it in such a way to make his elitist pronouncements somewhat easier to swallow:

The market is churning through these issues. […] But the dynamics here are complicated. When we vest our activities and identities in one place in the cloud, it takes a lot of dissatisfaction for us to move. And many software developers who once would have been writing whatever they wanted for PCs are simply developing less adventurous, less subversive, less game-changing code under the watchful eyes of Facebook and Apple.

Ooooo.. spooky!  Beware ye naive Netizens, for “the watchful eyes of Facebook and Apple” are upon you!

No, seriously, what the hell does all that mean and what the heck is the problem here? By no conceivable stretch of the imagination can one paint a portrait of the Digital Dark Ages for me that makes that era look better than the Digital Renaissance we are now living through. There’s never been a better time to be tinkerers, hackers, or just regular citizen-consumers in cyberspace.

So, what gives?  Why is it that two smart guys like Lessig and Zittrain always seem to fear to worst even in the midst of a cornucopia of cyber-choices?  It comes back to the hyper-pessimism and remarkable short-sightedness of the Lessig-Zittrain worldview. In terms of their myopia, here’s how I put it in that recent debate with Lessig:

Lessig failed to appreciate that markets are evolutionary and dynamic, and when those markets are built upon code, the pace and nature of change becomes unrelenting and utterly unpredictable. …  a largely unfettered cyberspace has left digital denizens better off in terms of the information they can access as well as the goods and services from which they can choose. Oh, and did I mention it’s all pretty much free-of-charge? Say what you want about our cyber-existence, but you can’t argue with the price!

But there’s something else which drives their reasoning, and for lack of a softer term I will just label it what I think it really is: Elitism. At the end of the day, if we are to believe the scary tales that Zittrain and Lessig try to weave in their work we have to accept the notion that neither companies not consumers can really be trusted to make sensible decisions.  Basically, cyber-companies are only out to screw us and we’re just too stupid to realize it. Luckily for us, however, the fine folks up at Berkman know what’s best for us and, guess what, it’s not Facebook, Apple, TiVo, or Google!  These companies are apparently guilty of the heinous crime of giving consumers too much of what they want, and we can’t allow that because “it takes a lot of dissatisfaction for us to move.”  Or as Jonathan noted in an earlier essay:

I think we can get locked into these platforms as we (rightly, unfortunately) fear the wildness of the open Internet and general purpose PC, and as we shift and accumulate more and more of our data and relationships there. After the markets coalesce to these tamer gated communities, governments can later come along and insist that these platforms be tuned towards surveillance and control far more successfully than the wilder Internet that preceded them.

In other words, we’re lazy fools. Or perhaps maybe — just maybe — we’re reasonably happy with the choices we have been given and don’t have a good reason to flee some of our current favorite providers. My God, could it be that markets work!  No, no, no, Zittrain tells us, for these “tamer gated communities” (tamer than what?) have lulled us into a sleep as they concoct a plan to “tame” the Net, quash software innovation, and then invite the government in to take all our info or property.

So, we’re right back at Lessig’s AOL horror story from 1999, except now it’s Facebook, Apple, and Google staring in the role of our corporate captors — again, even though they offer us constantly improving services and constantly falling prices (and are completely free of charge in the case of Facebook and Google).  Regardless, the fear of lock-in and what Lessig and Zittrain refer to as the “regulability” of some of these services and platforms, leads them to argue that something ominous lurks around every cyber-corner.  Consequently, just as Lessig counseled a fair degree of government oversight and intervention back in ’99 to deal with the AOL era (non-)problem of walled gardens, a decade later, Zittrain is ready to call in the code cops to correct for our foolish allegiances to the latest crop of popular software providers or media platforms:

If the market settles into a handful of gated cloud communities whose proprietors control the availability of new code, the time may come to ensure that their platforms do not discriminate. Such a demand could take many forms, from an outright regulatory requirement to a more subtle set of incentives — tax breaks or liability relief — that nudge companies to maintain the kind of openness that earlier allowed them a level playing field on which they could lure users from competing, mighty incumbents. We’ve only just begun to measure this problem, even as we fly directly into the cloud. That’s not a reason to turn around. But we must make sure the cloud does not hinder the creation of revolutionary software that, like the Web itself, can seem esoteric at first but utterly necessary later.

Sorry, but where is the evidence warranting this sort of techno-pessimism?  I just can’t buy into the story that Zittrain spins: That some folks in the cloud are currently “hinder[ing] the creation of revolutionary software” or that one day soon we’ll all wake up and find our digital lives and property completely controlled by cloud-based companies and we will be utterly without recourse.  Honestly, is Google locking you down? Did someone make you sign up for all their free services? Any reason you can’t use a second e-mail service or a different search provider?  Likewise, did Steve Jobs force you to buy an iPod or an iPhone?  I would think we should be celebrating the fact that in just one year’s time there has been 1.5 Billion downloads of over 65,000 free and paid apps by consumers in 77 countries.  I call that progress — and I don’t even own an iPhone!  Again, nothing is stopping consumers from exercising their right to choose from many other products besides Apple, Google, and Facebook, just as I have.

Now, do companies make mistakes? Of course they do. All the time, in fact. Amazon’s bone-headed book deletion this week is the latest exhibit. But people learn from these things. And companies do as well. Things evolve. Companies correct their mistakes or people bolt. AOL lost 20 million paying customers and billions in market share in the span of just a few years. Time Warner is still cursing the day they made that deal and has now spun it off entirely. Last time I checked, the old AOL model wasn’t a favorite among most web vendors. Moreover, does anyone really think there’s a future for Amazon if they make it a habit of deleting digital books on people’s Kindles?  Frankly, if you want more competition in the digital book market, you should be inviting Amazon to play such silly reindeer games. It would be the best incentive ever for people to switch! But the fact remains, that’s the exception to the rule. Locking down customers or playing games with their digital goodies isn’t a viable long-term business model that I see many firms adopting these days. And if they do, they are screwing themselves.

This same principle applies to Facebook and the fear that they will hold onto customers or their data.  When they get too heavy-handed, people respond. Does anyone remember the Beacon incident or the flare-up of Facebook’s changing Terms of Service?  People got pissed, and the company listened. That’s a healthy sign that consumers have real power in the social networking market.  Moreover, how hard is it to escape from Facebook Land? It’s not a maximum security data prison. I went there for all of about a day, found it wasn’t for me, and then deleted everything and set up camp over at LinkedIn instead.  (Yes, that’s right, I do NOT have a Facebook account.  Somehow the sky hasn’t fallen on me.  People still find me just fine.)

So what about those solutions that Zittrain recommends for these new non-problems? In Future of the Net, he was surprisingly short on specific solutions. But in today’s NYT editorial he gets a bit more concrete with that suggestion “the time may come to ensure that their platforms do not discriminate,” possibly through regulation or other Sunstein-ian “nudges.” Here we have the truly frightening prospect of a handful of faceless bureaucrats becoming Facebook’s overlords.  I’m not even sure what it means to have the government “ensure they do not discriminate,” but I really don’t want to find out.  For Google it’s a lot easier to figure out what Zittrain’s medicine will taste like: Can you say “Right of Reply Mandates & a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet?”  Frank Pasquale and Oren Bracha can and they’ve already sketched the blueprint for what a new Federal Search Commission might look like to address “search bias.” [See Berin’s critique here. ]  And for Apple, non-discrimination at the device level would take the form of forced commoditization of the iPhone.  They’d be required to give it to any carrier that wanted it on government-approved terms and the iPhone Store would be regulated like grain elevator and subjected to common carrier rules.  You know, because that model worked soooo well in other contexts.  And then, just for good measure, we would layer on a bunch of restrictions on all these companies in the form of online advertising regulations.  We can’t have the mindless sheep of the Internet being subjected to more targeted ads, after all!   To be clear, Zittrain hasn’t recommended these specific regulatory remedies yet, but this is where his logic is taking us. The old regulatory playbook will become the new regulatory playbook.

OK, now that I have been so snarky and dismissive of most of what Jonathan says in his editorial today and in his book, let me close by noting where I (partially) agree with him and Lessig. Are some digital technologies “regulable” such that our government could coerce them to divulge data or personal information?  Yes, this is true.  But here’s how I addressed that concern in my recent Cato Unbound debate with Lessig:

[cyber-libertarians] are in league with Lessig [and Zittrain] when it comes to the forcible surrender of personal information or technological capabilities to government officials. When the Department of Justice comes knocking on Google’s door asking for records of our search histories to see who’s looking for online porn (or anything else), that’s a problem. The “deputization of the middleman” has long been a legitimate fear because, with the threat of liability hanging over their necks, online intermediaries could be coerced into giving the state information that leads to fines, imprisonment, censorship, or some other type of government harassment. However, this is a problem we should handle by putting more constraints on our government(s), not by imposing more regulations on code or coders. While, as a general principle, I think it wise for companies to minimize the amount of data they collect about consumers or websurfers, we need not force that by law. And we should certainly hold companies to high standards when it comes to data security and breach. But, again, the way to deal with the “regulability” threat that Lessig and Zittrain raise is to tightly limit the powers of government to access private information through intermediaries in the first place. Most obviously, we could start by tightening up the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other laws that limit government data access. More subtly, we must continue to defend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields intermediaries from liability for information posted or published by users of their systems, because (among many things) such liability would make online intermediaries more susceptible to the kind of back-room coercion that concerns Lessig. If we’re going to be legislating about the Internet, we need more laws like that, not those of the “middleman deputization” model.

But that is the extent of my agreement with Lessig and Zittrain. All this techno-pessimism emanating out of Berkman and their books is largely unwarranted.  I suppose one could argue that they are just sounding alarms in the hope of preemptively checking bone-headed corporate moves, but the problem is that they increasingly back up their pessimism with large doses of heavy-handed political prescriptions to keep the Net “healthy.”  Instead, they’ll just poison the wonderfully free waters of cyberspace with the same regulatory nonsense that has strangled traditional media markets for decades. And unless your idea of cyber-nirvana resembles the broadcast marketplace, you have to think that won’t benefit consumers one bit.

Signed,

An Unrepentant Techno-Optimist

If you happen to be in the New York city area next Tuesday, April 21, stop by Cardozo Law school for what promises to be a great event starting at 11:15:

The Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal is pleased to present a symposium on Internet openness, net neutrality, content diversity and competition.  What is the new definition of net neutrality and what are the developing mandates?  How do policymakers promote or harm the richness and diversity online content/media? Join the lively debate with speakers including Sascha Meinrath (New America Foundation); Berin Szoka (Progress & Freedom Foundation); John Morris (Center for Democracy & Technology); Matthew Lasar (Ars Technica); Fred Benenson (Creative Commons); Jonathan Askin (Brooklyn Law School).

During the 11:30-1 pm panel, I’ll be talking about “Unrecognized to Internet Openness: Regulatory Mandates & Increased Liability”—explaining how the work Adam Thierer & I have been doing about privacy regulation, online advertising, Section 230, age verification mandates, etc. are all fundamentally issues of “openness.”  As we noted in our recent response (PDF) to the FTC’s self-regulatory guidelines:

We stand at an important crossroads in the debate over the online marketplace and the future of a “free and open” Internet. Many of those who celebrate that goal focus on concepts like “net neutrality” at the distribution layer, but what really keeps the Internet so “free and open” is the economic engine of online advertising at the applications and content layers. If misguided government regulation chokes off the Internet’s growth or evolution, we would be killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Conversations about how the Internet can be used to increase the openness and accountability of government usually focuses on the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal government.  But on this week’s episode of Technology Policy Weekly, I hosted a discussion of the equally vital issue of public access to court records, joined by:

• The TLF’s own Tim Lee,  who’s written about the problems with PACER , the arcane and expensive system by which court documents are currently made publicly available—with a separate system for each of the 100+ Federal courts!
• James Grimmelmann of New York Law School, who wrote Copyright, Technology, and Access to the Law: An Opinionated Primer.
• Steve Schultze, of Harvard’s Berkman Center, who’s  been writing about these issues on his own blog, especially about Sen. Lieberman’s recent laudable efforts.  Also check out a talk he gave recently on “Selling the Law: The Business of Public Access to Court Records.”

We discussed a wide range of issues, including:

• Why lay people should care—this is ultimately about reducing the legal profession’s monopoly over access to the courts!
• The philosophical reasons why better access to court records is important – little things like democracy, fairness, consistency, equality, the rule of law, etc.
• The copyrightability of legal records
• The history of the problem & what can be done about it

There are several ways to listen to the TLF Podcast. You can press play on the player below to listen right now, or download the MP3 file. You can also subscribe to the podcast by clicking on the button for your preferred service. And do us a favor, Digg this podcast!

[display_podcast]

I’ve been catching up on Radio Berkman, the podcast produced by our friends at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and a great companion to the TLF’s own Tech Policy Weekly Podcast.  There’s been a lot of talk about government transparency on the TLF lately, including TPW 40: Obama, e-Government & Transparency.  But that conversation has been mainly focused on how to make “public” records accessible.

The most recent Radio Berkman episode, “Can you Keep a Secret?” explores the thorny questions about what should be deemed public in the first place, and what should be classified:

The government keeps secrets. We take that for granted. But should we? Some speculate that intelligence agencies and elected officials are a little bit trigger happy with the “Top Secret” stamp, and that society would benefit from greater openness. With the government classifying millions of pages of documents per year – in a recent year the U.S. classified about five times the number of pages added to the Library of Congress – a great deal of useful human knowledge gets put under lock and key. But some argue that secrecy is still crucial to our national security. Radio Berkman pokes its head into a recent talkback with the directors of the film  Secrecy, Harvard University professors Peter Galison and Robb Moss. They are joined by Harvard Law School professors Jonathan Zittrain, Martha Minow, and Jack Goldsmith.

I look forward to seeing the film (when it comes out on Netflix).  

What I found most interesting was the discussion of the essential trade-off in the relationship between the media and the state has always been between the media’s “independence” and its “responsibility” (~33:30 in).  Even the staunchest critics of the national security state would probably accept that there are some stories in the media shouldn’t publish because they’d jeopardize the safety of Americans.  But we all want the media to blow the whistle on the bad stuff that goes on behind a veil of secrecy.  Drawing that line is a terribly difficult task.  But it becomes even more complicated with the decline of traditional professional investigative journalism and the rise of blog/amateur journalism.  

I’m generally not very sympathetic to the chicken-littleism of those who bemoan the fact that journalism is being forced to evolve and innovate by technological change, but on this point, it does indeed seem more likely that the increasingly diffuse media will act less “responsibly” by running stories that really shouldn’t be run.  As one of the panelists points out, the problem is not so much that journalists (of whatever kind) don’t want to be responsible; it’s that they can’t possibly know enough about the context of their story to appreciate why publishing the story might be damaging in surprising ways (such as exposing the capability of U.S. spy satellites by publishing a photo of a Soviet tank).  In the “good” old days of media scarcity, the small number journalists whose beat touched on national security had the luxury of being able to think through their stories and having personal relationships with someone inside the government who could be relied on to tell them whether the story really shouldn’t be run or, even more importantly, which particular aspect of a story truly deserved secrecy.  

The panelists also touched on a separate danger:  the “independence” of media will suffer from economic dependence on the government.  Would a newspaper sucking at the teet of government bail-outs really have run photos of American soldiers torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, for example?  Herein lies a secondary danger of the rise of Internet journalism—that traditional media will become less effective watchdogs as their bottom line suffers and government starts to supplement income once provided by advertising revenue.  Were classified ads the very thing that kept newspapers independent?  What will happen if newspapers cannot shed their physical distribution costs, or find new sources of revenue in the form of smarter advertising, subscriptions, micro-payments or donations?  Adam Thierer has discussed these tough questions and others.

Other interesting points:

• Protective orders no longer offer an effective safety valve by which certain parties can gain access to classified materials because the ease of Internet publishing means that such orders too often lead to disclosure.
• 80% of leaks of classified documents are made by persons inside the Executive branch for political purposes (usually in order to advance a pet policy).  If that’s true, then maybe the “problem” (to the extent that leaks really are a problem, as some leaks certainly are) is more on the “supply” side (at the leaks’ source) and less on the “demand” side (investigative journalism).  If so, perhaps the ethics of journalistic responsibility matter less than we might think. 

Jason Kuznicki of the Cato Institute is asking some very sharp questions about Jonathan Zittrain’s book The Future of the Internet and How to Stop. He’s echoing a lot of the same concerns and criticisms I have raised here many times before about how overblown Zittrain’s fears are regarding the supposed death of digital generativity and online openness. Kuznicki argues:

First, the example he uses is far from perfect. The Internet abounds with descriptions of iPhone hacks, many of them well-documented and remarkably successful. The menacing control exists, but it’s often a paper tiger. And although Apple didn’t originally publish an iPhone software development kit, it does now. So which one is it? Is the iPhone still not hacky enough? Or should we find another, better example? But the hacking community delights in finding supposedly uncrackable devices, and in cracking them — often within days of release. Offhand, I can’t think of a single recently released Internet-enabled device that someone hasn’t hacked. (Another of Zittrain’s purported bad examples, the Xbox 360, supports an avid hacking community, albeit with far less support from Microsoft. It isn’t a community for everyone, but then, hacking isn’t for everyone. Neither is macrame.)

Second, it seems pretty obvious that there’s room, and demand, for both kinds of devices, relatively secure and relatively open. It’s not got to be an all-or-nothing proposition. It’s not like “the Internet” is ever only going to be one thing. We can’t expect every user of every new device to master the very steep learning curves entailed by the wide-open do-it-yourself user interfaces that Zittrain clearly favors.

Some products will sell to some markets because they are relatively secure, common-sense, and uniform. Other products will sell to other markets because they are open to change, because they require high-level knowledge, and because with that knowledge comes the power to extensively modify the device itself, often at your own risk. So much the better — let everyone take their choice. Indeed, the very same person may want devices at opposite ends of the continuum. … We need not be afraid of any of this.

Amen. Read the whole thing. Zittrain’s book may be the most important of 2008, but his thesis is fatally flawed. Generativity is alive and well.

As Berin and I have noted here before (here and here), there seems to be no shortage of competition and innovation in the mobile operating system (OS) space. We’ve got:

1. Apple’s iPhone platform,
2. Microsoft’s Windows Mobile,
3. Symbian,
4. Google’s Android,
5. BlackBerry,
6. Palm OS (+ Palm’s new WebOS),
7. the LiMo platform, and
8. OpenMoko.

I am missing any? I don’t think so. Even if I have, this is really an astonishing degree of platform competition for a network-based industry. Network industries are typically characterized by platform consolidation over time as both application developers and consumers flock to just a couple of standards — and sometimes just one — while others gradually fade away. But that has not yet been the case for mobile operating systems.  I just can’t see it lasting, however. As I argued in my essay on “Too Much Platform Competition?,” I would think that many application providers would be clamoring for consolidation to make it easier to develop and roll out new services.  Some are, and yet we still have more than a half-dozen mobile OS platforms on the market.

Regardless, the currently level of platform competition also seems to run counter to the thesis set forth by Jonathan Zittrain and others who fear the impending decline or death of digital “generativity.” That is, technologies or networks that invite or allow tinkering and all sorts of creative uses are supposedly “dying” or on the decline because companies are trying to exert more control over proprietary or closed systems. You will recall that in his book The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, Zittrain casts the iPhone as the enemy of generativity and suggests that more and more devices will look like it in the future. (Ignore the fact that the iPhone becomes more open to 3rd party apps with each passing day and that Apple’s latest iPhone OS was cracked in a matter of hours after release). Zittrain and many others have been beating this gloomy ‘generativity-is-dying’ drum now for awhile, so you would think that they would have some substantive evidence to point to in defense of their thesis.

But today’s mobile OS market certainly doesn’t seem to help them make their case — whether we are talking about OS-level competition or innovation at the applications level by third parties. Indeed, take a look at the latest PC World magazine in which Harry McCracken conducts a “Smart Phone OS Smackdown” to see how the the current mobile operating systems stack up and what they offer consumers in terms of both built-in functionality and third-party add-ons. It’s the third-party stuff that is most of interest to our inquiry here regarding the Zittrain-ian fear of declining mobile generativity. Here’s what PC World reports about the third-party apps available for 5 major mobile OS platforms:

Apple iPhone: “Just months after Apple opened up the iPhone to other developers, thousands of programs are available, and downloading them directly via the App Store is a cakewalk.”

Windows Mobile: “The best thing about this OS is the sheer variety of available applications in every category. Utilities such as Lakeridge Software’s WisBar Advance let you tweak the interface’s look, feel, and functionality, compensating for some of its deficiencies. But you get no built-in app store à la iPhone OS and Android.”

Google Android: “Developers are just beginning to hop on the Android bandwagon. The iPhone-like Market service lets you download apps directly to the phone from Google; unlike with the iPhone, you can also snag programs from third-party merchants such as Handango. …   Android’s potential is gigantic, especially if it winds up on scads of phones.”

BlackBerry: “Once upon a time, users didn’t have many BlackBerry programs to choose from, but recently the market has boomed–thousands, from productivity apps to games, are available now. Windows Mobile and S60 have even more bountiful selections, though. Currently BlackBerry has no over-the-air storefront comparable to Apple’s App Store or Android Market. RIM’s BlackBerry storefront is expected to launch in March 2009.”

Symbian: “A profusion of useful S60-compatible applications is available at sites such as Handango–one of the deepest libraries for any platform, thanks to Symbian’s long life span and wide usage.”

Importantly, McCracken didn’t even take a look at the Palm OS or Palm’s aftermarket offerings, and he failed to mention the significant “home brew” market for hacks and add-ons that countless people like me take advantage of through sites like PPC Geeks and Howard’s Forums. Regardless, as the PC World article illustrates, there’s lots of innovation and generativity out there in the mobile space today. Of course, it’s true that Apple’s iPhone isn’t quite as open as the rest of the platforms out there.  As McCracken notes of the iPhone:

But the limitations that Apple puts on third-party apps–they can’t run in the background or access data other than their own–place major obstacles in the way of everything from instant messengers to office suites. And Apple, the sole distributor of iPhone software, has declined to make available some useful applications that developers have submitted.

But as I have said before, there is a simple solution to that: Just buy a different phone!!  No one has any sort of God-given right to a perfectly “open” OS. You know what you’re getting when you buy an iPhone and realize that it may not be perfectly open to all third-party apps or hacks. But hey, it’s still a pretty damn spectacular phone. Apparently it’s even good enough for the generativity-worshiping Jonathan Zittrain, who I outed at this New America Foundation debate as an iPhone user himself!

Bottom line: Generativity in the mobile marketplace is alive and well. And, contrary to what worrywarts like Zittrain and other critics claim, the trend is clearly in the direction of MORE openness and generativity over time, not less.

Update: I just caught Tim Lee’s post on “The Perpetual Peril of Open Platforms” over at Freedom to Tinker. Worth reading if you are interested in more on this subject.

In early December, Jerry Brito asked whether Obama’s proposal to create the post of  Chief Technology Officer (CTO) should be feared or welcomed:

I think the question turns on whether this person will be CTO of the United States or CTO of the U.S. Federal Government. While I personally believe the former should be feared, the latter should be welcomed.

I agree completely—and it now seems that this is in fact where the incoming Administration is heading.  BusinessWeek reports that the Obama Administration has narrowed its choices down to two Indian-American CTOs:

• Vivek Kundra, D.C.’s CTO
• Padmasree Warrior, Cisco’s CTO

Judging by BusinessWeek’s short descriptions, both candidates sound terrifically well-qualified to lead implementation of Obama’s oft-repeated promises to bring the United States government into the Web 2.0 era.  More importantly, the fact that the two likely candidates are CTOs—rather than, say, advocates of any particular technology policy agenda—strongly suggests that the Obama administration isn’t contemplating giving the CTO authority to set technology policy outside the Federal government.  

Whomever Obama chooses in the end will have his or her work cut out for them.  While free marketeers may indeed have much to fear from Obama’s technology policy agenda in terms of over-regulation, increased government control and market-distorting subsidies, e-government is one area where we ought to be able to cheer the new President on:   The Federal government could be made much more transparent and democratically accountable if Federal agencies simply adopted some of the tools users take for granted on private websites-such as RSS feeds and standardized data. 

Let’s just hope that Obama makes it very clear in creating the CTO post that its responsibilities are indeed strictly limited directing adoption of information technology inside the Federal government, so that the position doesn’t mushroom into the more powerful “Technology Czar” some rightly fear.

Today’s event on “open” and “participatory” government at Google’s DC office was interesting, if inconclusive. We all agreed that making government more transparent and ready for participation by the citizenry was good. But I left not knowing what it all really means. Tech reporter Grant Gross has a good report, and here’s what I got out of it:

• Disclosure — At a minimum, opening up government requires more disclosure. Any and all data, transcripts, reports, etc. should be put up on the web.
• Format — Don’t just disclose, but make sure the information is formatted for ease of access and finding information. Funneling information will be really important. The spigot could pour out information, but if there’s no ability for citizens to find and understand issues that affect them, there’s only a partial benefit to being open. Opportunities for private sector here.
• Participation — what this means, I’m still not entirely sure, but seems to be the notion that “we the people” should be more involved in government and tech can help us. It could mean regular comments from affected parties on agency and committee websites, not just the occasional responses to proposed rulemakings. However, flooding the process with “white noise” could be a problem, as could be self-selection for those who post comments (so there should be caution when gauging public opinion writ-large).

Someone on the panel mentioned mySociety, which is a nonprofit org in the UK that designed a website service called FixMyStreet. The site acts as a middleman between residents that want to report potholes and the proper authorities to fix them. This is an interesting private sector approach for using technology to help us participate at the local government level. Likewise, Jim Harper’s WashingtonWatch helps track legislation in Congress, and provides opportunities for comments.

Ultimately, no matter what technologies exist and how many private sector initiatives there are, we need buy-in from government. Technology will help, but it’ll take behavioral changes by the powers-that-be to really use and implement web 2.0 tools.  Government 2.0 will hopefully result in better decision-making and increased accountability.

By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer

As we noted in our intro to this ongoing series, Google’s tenth anniversary has passed with Googlephobia reaching new heights of hysteria.

But is Google really too big and dangerous, or are people just too lazy to find other alternatives to each of the wonderful services that Google offers?  If one is truly paranoid about the firm’s supposed dominance, it doesn’t take much effort to live a Google-free life. To prove it, we set out to find alternatives to each of the services that Google provides.  After awhile, we got a little tired of compiling alternatives in each category and just provided links for the additional choices at your disposal.  It’s tough to see what the fuss is about with the cornucopia of choices at our disposal.  If you don’t like Google, then just don’t use it or any of its services.  The choice is yours.

In each case, we’ve listed Google first, even though Google may not be the market leader ( e.g., Google’s relatively unknown social network Orkut).

Search Engines

• Google
• Microsoft Live Search
• Yahoo!
• Ask.com
• AltaVista
• Cuil
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines

eMail

• Google Gmail
• MSN Hotmail
• Apple .Mac/MobileMe
• Yahoo!
• AOL
• others: www.emailaddresses.com/email_web.htm

Encyclopedia

• Knol (Google)
• Wikipedia
• Citizendium
• Microsoft Encarta
• Britannica Online
• World Book Online
• others: www.surfnetkids.com/encyclopedia.htm

Instant Messaging

• Google Talk
• Yahoo Messenger
• Windows Live Messenger (Microsoft)
• AOL AIM
• Jabber
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging#User_base

Web Browsers

• Chrome (Google)
• Firefox (Mozilla Foundation)
• Internet Explorer (Microsoft)
• Safari (Apple)
• Opera
• Flock
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers

Social Networks

• Orkut (Google) – (not popular in the U.S.)
• Facebook
• Myspace
• Bebo
• LinkedIn
• Friendster
• LiveJournal
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Social_network_service

Mapping

• Google Maps
• Microsoft Live Search Maps
• MapQuest
• WikiMapia
• Google Earth
• Virtual Earth (Microsoft)
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_map_services

Mobile Search / Portal Services

• Google mobile
• Yahoo! mobile
• Microsoft Windows mobile & Mobile Live Search
• AOL Mobile

Video Hosting

• YouTube (Google)
• Google Video
• Flickr (Yahoo!)
• Yahoo Video
• Vimeo
• Photobucket
• BlipTV
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_sharing_websites

Photohosting

• Picasa (Google)
• Flickr (Yahoo!)
• Apple .Mac/MobileMe
• Photobucket
• Snapfish
• Shutterfly
• Imageshack
• AOL Pictures
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_sharing#Online_photo_sharing_websites

Document / Spreadsheet Creation

• Google Docs
• Microsoft Office
• OpenOffice
• ThinkFree Office
• EditGrid
• NumSum
• Zoho Sheet
• Zoho Writer
• ajaxWrite
• Glide Write
• others: www.editgrid.com/user/siulung/Web-based_Spreadsheets_Comparison_Matrix

Online File Storage

• Google Docs
• Windows Live SkyDrive (Microsoft)
• Apple .Mac/MobileMe
• Mozy
• Buzzword (Adobe)
• Xdrive
• Box.net
• others: http://www.listible.com/list/online-file-storage

Blog hosting services

• Blogger (Google)
• Wordpress
• Windows Live Spaces (Microsoft)
• Skyrock (based in France, but bigger than WordPress and almost as big as Blogger)
• LiveJournal
• Note: many social networking services also have a blogging component
• others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog_hosting_service#Developer-hosted

RSS blog feed aggregators

• Google Reader
• My MSN
• My Yahoo!
• NewsGator Online
• Bloglines
• FeedBucket
• others: dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Internet/Clients/WWW/Feed_Readers/Web_Based
• others: www.newsonfeeds.com/faq/aggregators

WebClipping Services

• Google Notebook
• Digg
• Del.icio.us (Yahoo)
• Reddit
• Clipmarks
• Zotero
• WebResearch
• ScrapBook
• Diigo

News Aggregators

• Google News
• Yahoo News
• MSN News & MSNBC (Microsoft)
• News Directory.com
• Reuters
• CNN.com
• Digg
• Topix
• others: news.nettop20.com
• others: newsonfeeds.com/faq/aggregators

Calendar Services

• Google Calendar
• Microsoft Outlook
• Lotus Notes
• Lightning/Sunbird (Mozilla Foundation)
• Apple .Mac/MobileMe
• others: www.calendarzone.com

By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer as part of an ongoing series

With Google celebrating its 10th anniversary this week, many panicky pundits are using the occasion to claim that Google has become the Great “Satan” of the Internet.  Nick Carr wonders what the future holds for “The OmniGoogle.” The normally level-headed Mike Malone worries that Google is “turning into Big Brother.”  And Washington Post’s Rob Dubbin says that he can’t escape Google’s “tentacles,” even for just 24 hours.  Meanwhile, speculation abounds that the Justice Department is preparing a major antitrust lawsuit against Google concerning its advertising partnership with Yahoo! or perhaps even a broader suit concerning Google’s “dominance” of online advertising generally.

Carr quotes Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s now-famous 2003 interview:

I think people tend to exaggerate Google’s significance in both directions.  Some say Google is God.  Others say Google is Satan.  But if they think Google is too powerful, remember that with search engines, unlike other companies, all it takes is a single click to go to another search engine. People come to Google because they choose to.  We don’t trick them.

In the last five years, Google has become far more than just a search engine.  As Google’s suite of suite of complementary products continues to grow, so too does the specter of Google as an all-knowing and therefore all-powerful economic colossus.  Yet Google isn’t even close to being the sort of nefarious monopolist out to destroy user privacy at every turn, as some seem to imply—if not exclaim.  Indeed, in our view, the Net is overall a far better place because of the existence of Google and the many free services it provides consumers.

Our point is not that Google should be immune from criticism.  Indeed, healthy criticism of corporate actions plays a vital role in the free market by disciplining corporate policies and behavior—often thus providing an effective alternative to government regulation.  This is particularly important in the area of consumer privacy protection, as demonstrated by Google’s quick response to public concern about its Chrome EULA.

We hold no brief for Google and our aim is not to be Google apologists.  In fact, we’ve had more than a few run-ins with Google on many important policy issues in the past ( e.g., on net neutrality, spectrum policy, and the need for “baseline Federal privacy legislation”) and will likely continue to do so in the future.  We are always willing to engage serious, rational discussions about other policy issues involving Google, such as concerns about its alleged market power, but it seems to us that the hysteria about Google’s supposed dominance of the Internet is clouding rational discussion of the policy issues raised by Google, its innovations and its success.  Indeed, the creeping paranoia about all things Google-related that is most evident throughout the blogosphere (but that reaches far beyond it) has produced an environment that resembles nothing so much as a lynch mob:  Angry, short-tempered, out for corporate blood, and unwilling to engage in reasoned discussion.

The specter of Google’s market power driving—and confusing—so many of today’s Internet policy debates is reminiscent of the previous generation of conspiracy theories about how Microsoft, like the Borg (perhaps sci-fi’s scariest villains), would assimilate all in its path—forever controlling the digital revolution.  We don’t want Google to become the victim of the same regulatory & antitrust ordeal that Microsoft has endured over the past decade, with the kind of hysterical claims of Chicken Little-ism that drove a ten-year crusade against Microsoft.  Short-sighted, heavy-handed government intervention can cripple a creative company while doing little to actually benefit consumers because regulators cannot keep pace with technological change—perhaps the only constant fact in the every-changing digital world.

Of course, like all temporal things, Microsoft’s seemingly permanent “monopoly” has faded, and the bulk of the criticism it once faced has shifted focus to Google.  Microsoft continues to be the subject of many unfair attacks because of its success (a/k/a “dominance”) in the OS, office product, and browser markets.  Other companies have experienced similar attacks on a smaller scale:  Facebook and the once-angelic Apple have both been subject to increasing criticism for their success in certain sectors of the digital economy, customer complaints about openness ( e.g., “locked” devices or portability of social networking data) and privacy policies.  The hysteria surrounding Google is not unique in kind, yet it is clear that the mantle of “Great (digital) Satan” has clearly passed from Microsoft to Google.

Thus, we have decided to start a new series of essays on “Googlephobia” (a term that seems to have taken off in the spring of 2005, when the French government seriously proposed creating its own alternative to the Google search engine).  We’ve already penned a few essays on the topic here (as have a number of our TLF colleagues) and, therefore, our next installment in the series will be #5—in which we will outline the many competitors to Google’s many products.

But here are a few of our past essays on the topic, which clearly belong on the list even though they weren’t part of a series at the time:

• Market Forces At Work: The PR Backlash Against Google Chrome’s EULA, by Berin Szoka, September 4, 2008.
• “Cry [Censorship] and Let Slip the Dogs of [Regulation]!” – A Lesson in the Dangers of Googlephobia, by Berin Szoka, July 14, 2008.
• Google, California’s Privacy Policy Law & Our Sci-Fi Future, by Berin Szoka, June 4, 2008
• Is Google Evil? The Never-Ending Search for High-Tech Villainy, by Adam Thierer, June 30, 2005.

And here’s an oldie on the same topic:

• “Google as a Public Utility? No Results in This Search for Monopoly,” by Adam Thierer and Wayne Crews, November 14, 2003.

[Note: You might want to first read my review of Jonathan Zittrain’s book to give this essay some context.]

Jonathan Zittrain must have been smiling as he read Leander Kahney’s excellent Wired cover story this month, “How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong.” In a sense, the article vindicates Zittrain’s thesis in The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It. Again, in his provocative book, Zittrain argues that, for a variety of reasons, the glorious days of the generative, open Internet and general-purpose PCs are supposedly giving way to closed networks and a world of what he contemptuously calls “sterile, tethered devices.” And Apple products such as the iPhone, the iPod, and iTunes serve as prime examples of the troubling world that await us. And Kahney’s article confirms that Apple is every bit as closed and insular as Zittrain suggests. Kahney nicely contrasts Apple with Google, a company that “embraces openness,” trusts “the wisdom of crowds,” and has its famous “Don’t be evil” philosophy:

It’s ironic, then, that one of the Valley’s most successful companies ignored all of these tenets. Google and Apple may have a friendly relationship — Google CEO Eric Schmidt sits on Apple’s board, after all — but by Google’s definition, Apple is irredeemably evil, behaving more like an old-fashioned industrial titan than a different-thinking business of the future. Apple operates with a level of secrecy that makes Thomas Pynchon look like Paris Hilton. It locks consumers into a proprietary ecosystem. And as for treating employees like gods? Yeah, Apple doesn’t do that either.

On the other hand, Kahney’s article serves as vindication of my response to Zittrain’s book since the article illustrates how, despite breaking all the typical rules of Silicon Valley, the company is more successful than ever and has legions of happy customers. Again, in my review of his book, I argued that there is no reason that we can’t have the best of both worlds. Much of the time, “open” systems produce the best results. Other times, more closed, proprietary models give rise to great products. Today’s digital marketplace is full of wonderful devices and services of both flavors. Apple’s success proves that point, as Kahney’s Wired article shows:

by deliberately flouting the Google mantra, Apple has thrived. When Jobs retook the helm in 1997, the company was struggling to survive. Today it has a market cap of $105 billion, placing it ahead of Dell and behind Intel. Its iPod commands 70 percent of the MP3 player market. Four billion songs have been purchased from iTunes. The iPhone is reshaping the entire wireless industry. Even the underdog Mac operating system has begun to nibble into Windows’ once-unassailable dominance; last year, its share of the US market topped 6 percent, more than double its portion in 2003. It’s hard to see how any of this would have happened had Jobs hewed to the standard touchy-feely philosophies of Silicon Valley. Apple creates must-have products the old-fashioned way: by locking the doors and sweating and bleeding until something emerges perfectly formed. It’s hard to see the Mac OS and the iPhone coming out of the same design-by-committee process that produced Microsoft Vista or Dell’s Pocket DJ music player. Likewise, had Apple opened its iTunes-iPod juggernaut to outside developers, the company would have risked turning its uniquely integrated service into a hodgepodge of independent applications — kind of like the rest of the Internet, come to think of it.

Importantly, it’s not just that Apple has thrived, it’s that consumers have loved their products to the point that there is a sort of “cult of Apple” out there. I should make clear that I am no Apple fanboy. As my TLF colleagues Tim Lee and Jerry Brito can attest, I am constantly making fun of them for their love of Apple products. I am willing to deal with the warts associated with the PC environment because I love the more open-ended nature of it. That being said, there are times when I have to swallow my pride and admit to Tim and Jerry that, in many ways, their Apple products are superior to my PC and Windows-based toys. It’s impossible to spend a few minutes with the iPhone or the latest iPods and Macs and not fall in love with those devices and their interfaces. They are truly spectacular. Thus, as Kahney’s article makes clear, whether you love him or hate him, you have to admit that Jobs is on to something:

No other company has proven as adept at giving customers what they want before they know they want it. Undoubtedly, this is due to Jobs’ unique creative vision. But it’s also a function of his management practices. By exerting unrelenting control over his employees, his image, and even his customers, Jobs exerts unrelenting control over his products and how they’re used. And in a consumer-focused tech industry, the products are what matter.

Indeed they are. And even though Zittrain labels Apple’s products “sterile and tethered,” there is no doubt that the company’s approach has produced some wonderful results. Personally, they are not for me since I prefer all those “general purpose” devices that Zittrain lionizes. But, again, we can have both. Let Steve Jobs be a control freak and keep those walls around Apple’s digital garden high and tight if he wants. There are plenty of other wide open gardens for the rest of us to play in.