"Broadband" refers to high-speed Internet connections that allow for transfers of information at rates far faster than those of dial-up modems.
The basic ground rules for the broadband revolution are much too important to leave to a handful of media conglomerates to determine. For the deployment of the new, high-speed, "last-mile" connections will largely shape the ways in which we'll communicate in the twenty-first century.
In the interest of advancing the discussion of the broadband future beyond the industry's bullish pronouncements, here are five basic questions that will have to be addressed if the public interest is served in the broadband era:
1. Traffic Management: While it is necessary to arbitrate among competing claims on network resources, will some transport-management schemes artificially favor certain types of content or services at the expense of others (in order to gain a market advantage, for example). What happens to the principle of "common carriage" if the carriage in question grants premium service to some data while relegating others to third-class transit?
2. Screen Real-estate: Will menus and other navigational aids, including the placement of content on the screen and the prominence of certain links, be used in a discriminatory manner, favoring some programming over others? Will there be opportunities for users to select and/or customize their own start pages and hot lists?
3. Proprietary Content: Will the "branding" of content and services that has become increasingly common on the World Wide Web, in which various products and services are "bundled" according to their corporate affiliations (and content is cached locally to expedite delivery), serve to limit rather than expand our online options? How much incentive will users have to venture beyond corporate portals, and how much freedom will they have to go wherever they want in their online travels?
4. Inter-passivity: The illusion of participation that today's multimedia diversions often create has been aptly described as inter-passive, in contrast to more robust forms of recreation of the past (from sports to storytelling to song and dance). Will the impending era of "interactive television," marrying broadcast and digital technologies, pose similar illusions? In an environment in which even the broadest array of programmatic, promotional, and mercantile choices are in fact constrained by an intricate, if invisible, network of corporate alliances, is consumer choice itself an illusion?
5. The Set-Top Box: Often described as the most valuable square foot of real-estate in the world, the set-top box is about to become even more valuable in the broadband era, as the centerpiece of a new system of interactive television, e-commerce, and Internet services. And yet the set-top is also largely a black box, seemingly beyond the control of Washington to regulate and certainly beyond the ability of most consumers to understand. Can we afford to cede so much control to network operators, who, literally left to their own devices, will transform the intelligent set-top box into a vending machine for proprietary content and closely monitored transactions?
Neither Worldly nor Wide:
How Broadband Systems will Narrow the Net
There is nothing in the architecture of the broadband Internet (i.e., high-speed transmission via cable, DSL, satellite, or wireless systems) that is inherently restrictive. Indeed, the increase in transmission speeds alone--theoretically up to 100 times that of standard dial-up modems--should usher in an era of expanded online service, with streaming audio and video becoming as common as static text and graphics are today.
Unfortunately, in the absence of public-interest safeguards, the promise of broadband may never be realized in practice, for three basic reasons:
Data Management: the use of type-of-service (TOS) and quality-of-service (QOS) provisions of the Internet protocol (IP) to favor some data traffic over others. Thus instead of resolving disputes between competing claims on network resources in an evenhanded, equitable fashion, policy-based routing might be employed to expedite the delivery of content affiliated with the network owner, while relegating competing content to slower lanes of traffic.
Proprietary Content: Network owners will use a variety of enhancements (e.g., local caching, navigational aids, menus, program guides, start screens) to highlight their own and affiliated content at the expense of other fare (including noncommercial programming), which will be excluded from on-screen menus and program guides. Even when such enhancements are made available to other programmers, the cost involved may be prohibitive for most nonprofits.
Differentiated Service: The broadband environment will be characterized by tiered levels of service, subscription and pay-per-click programming, and a general distinction between the "haves" and the "have mores." In this context, without the kind of allowances that it has received in the analog world (e.g., spectrum set-asides, e-rate subsidies) the nonprofit sector will suffer.
Especially as it migrates to the television and set-top box in various ITV implementations, the Internet faces a critical trade-off that may forever change its character. For what we gain in speed and simplicity of online access in the new broadband systems, we stand to lose in depth and diversity. The real danger is not that the Internet will become ever more commercialized as it makes this transition into the mainstream media. For that trend, which began with the privatization of the Internet in the early 1990s, is inevitable in any case. The real danger is that in adapting itself for the streamlined, menu-driven interface of ITV, and for the small screens of various wireless portable devices (including phones and PDAs), the Internet will be reduced to a small subset of featured Web sites. Within the broadband context, in other words, the World Wide Web will be neither worldly nor wide.
Part of the reason for this narrowing of the Net is technological. The Web, in its present configuration, with its graphically rich, often complex pages (over 2 billion in all), is not well suited to either television screens (which lack the resolution of computer monitors) or to small, wireless devices (which lack the requisite display size). While pages can be translated into versions that conform to either the ITV or the Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) format, the expense and complexity of maintaining multiple sets of pages is beyond the reach of all but the largest, most well funded sites.
But another part of the broadband Internet problem (and the part that may prove insurmountable, absent regulation) is purely economic. Seeking to extend to the online world the same near-monopoly status that it enjoys with video programming in most markets, the cable industry is designing and deploying ITV systems that offer only the illusion of online choice. Dubbed "walled gardens" by supporters and skeptics alike, cable's new "managed-content areas" amount to proprietary versions of "Internet Lite."
While it remains to be seen how the wireless and satellite broadband networks will be deployed, the world of DSL, only marginally more competitive than cable in its accommodation of competitive ISPs, poses many of the same risks as cable to the future openness and diversity of the Internet. In a thoroughly commercialized environment (regardless of the platform involved), the survival of noncommercial programmers, and thus of the public interest, is at risk.
What is Broadband?
"Broadband" refers to high-speed Internet connections that allow for transfers of information at rates far faster than those of dial-up modems. While the Internet has often been jokingly referred to as the "World Wide Wait" on account of slow downloads, Broadband connections allow people to view streaming media at speeds closer to what might be associated with television, rather than the herky-jerky experience that characterizes dial-up modems. Transfer speeds for Broadband are up to 50 times faster than via dial-up modems, creating the opportunity for people to download mp3s (compressed digital audio files) or films without having to wait for hours.
Broadband connections are offered on a variety of platforms, including DSL (Digital Subscriber Line), cable, satellite, and wireless.
Will Broadband become the norm any time soon?
According to JD Power and Associates, "High-speed ISP subscriptions account for 13 percent of all residential ISP subscriptions in the United States. This penetration increased significantly from 5 percent in 2000. Among current dial-up subscribers, 10 percent state that they are 'extremely' or 'very likely' to switch to a DSL and/or cable modem connection in the next six months." Analysts believe that the number of Broadband users will rise dramatically between 2001 and 2004, estimating over 60 million users in the United States (source: eMarketer). Within 5 to 10 years, Broadband will replace dial-up modems as the standard means of Internet connection.
What does "Common Carriage" refer to?
Dial-up modems allow for the transfer of information over phone lines, and are thus governed by a set of nondiscrimination rules applying to telephone networks. Mirroring the US policy for the public highways, the telephone industry has been required to serve consumers as "Common Carriers." The policies of common carriage--particularly the requirement that phone companies not discriminate against information by halting, slowing, or otherwise tampering with the transfer of data--have been central to the growth of the Internet into a diverse, competitive medium. Common carriage permitted the development of the Internet Service Provider (ISP) marketplace, affording users the opportunity to go online via one of the more than 7,000 companies that compete with such giants as AOL and Microsoft.
What does "Open Access" refer to?
Open Access is the principle that has governed the Internet since its inception. It is synonymous with the idea of open architecture. The Internet was originally designed as a pipeline that would treat all information in a nondiscriminatory fashion, a design referred to as "end-to-end" because no gatekeeper could control how the data would be treated. The common carrier rules governing telephone networks contributed to the Net's open access design.
Why is Open Access such an important issue?
Since Broadband will become a dominant method of Internet connection, the lack of common carriage protection and open architecture safeguards pose a threat to all Net users. Cable and satellite companies, for example, are not required to operate as open access networks when providing high-speed Net service. And local phone companies are lobbying to remove or weaken their open access requirements when they provide consumers with high-speed DSL services.
Without open access safeguards there is a tremendous potential for large Internet service providers (ISPs), such as AOL-Time Warner or Verizon, to control the flow of information. For example, without a nondiscrimination rule, there is nothing to stop these large ISPs from providing their own content first class treatment and the highest download speeds, while nonaffiliated content would be forced into the online "economy" (or even slower) class. For the many groups that will not be able to afford the ISPs prices for first class treatment (including nonprofit groups, independent artists, and others), this likely would severely limit their Web presence. For without open access, the rules of Internet commerce and communications will be determined by the telecom giants, rather than the public.
What does "convergence" refer to?
Convergence refers to the merging of previously distinct media into one product or service. various home recreational technologies into one marketable whole. For instance, several companies are creating boxes for deployment that include gaming capabilities (e.g., Sony's Playstation 2) as well as high-speed Internet capabilities. The media and entertainment industries believe that the creation and deployment of a product that combines television, home stereo, telephone, gaming systems, the Internet, and other technologies will be an extraordinarily marketable good. As AOL-Time Warner CEO Steve Case said in a recent keynote address, "Every decade has some word associated with it. In the '80s, it was the PC. In the '90s, it was the Internet. For the rest of this decade, the key word is going to be convergence."
What is "Interactive Television?"
Interactive TV (ITV) represents the merging of television and Internet capabilities, and is being created in various forms. Some will allow for viewers to watch TV while "chatting" online or sending IMs (instant messages); some have personal video recording (PVR) capabilities that allow users to set preferences in order for the set-top box to automatically record not only their favorite shows and movies, but other shows and movies that the box might "suggest." Others allow the user to click on parts of the screen during a show or commercial to find out more about that object, a feature that ad-makers expect to help create a huge market of interactive consumers.
However, the same concerns that consumer groups have regarding Open Access also apply to ITV, which is expected to be in nearly 40 million US households by 2004. Additionally, there are significant privacy threats that are being embedded into the architecture of ITV-an industry being built around the premise of data collection. CDD's report, "TV that Watches You: The Prying Eyes of Interactive Television," details the extensive data collection practices of the ITV industry.
6 April 2004
The continuing battle over whether broadband will be a democratic and competitive medium was the subject of two recent federal court decisions. But what both cases illustrate is that the nation’s telephone and cable industries want to extend their monopolistic business models onto the Internet.
In a blow to community control over broadband, the U.S. Supreme Court on 24 March 2004 ruled that states can prohibit municipal governments from operating their own telecommunications networks. In siding with the telephone industry, the court’s 8-1 decision favors the huge corporate interests that have waged a campaign against community ownership of telecommunications, including broadband. The court’s ruling came in the consolidated cases of Nixon v.Missouri Municipal League, FCC v. Missouri Municipal League, and Southwestern Bell Telephone v. Missouri Municipal League.
Telephone companies have gone state to state to pressure too-often compliant state legislators into passing legislation that prohibits communities from establishing their own telecommunications service. Municipal networks, as they are sometimes called, can provide their communities with enhanced service at lower costs. The focus of the Supreme Court’s review was on the interpretation of the wording in a provision of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and whether that act permitted states to preempt municipal provision of telephone and broadband services.
But the nation’s telephone lobby—including SBC, Verizon, Bell South and the United States Telephone Association—were not interested in legal definitions. Rather, they were concerned with preventing the emergence of community-controlled broadband. For example, in its court brief, SBC decried the idea that a small town in Missouri actually wanted to use some fiber capacity to serve its own telecommunications needs (thus giving the city more control over its voice and data network and offering its citizens cost savings over the phone company’s residential rates).
The case began in 1996 when Missouri passed a law prohibiting local governments from offering telecommunications services. The Missouri Municipal League, representing local governments, asked the FCC to intervene, citing the 1996 Telecommunications Act’s encouragement of all entities, presumably including cities, to compete in the telecom market. The FCC, unfortunately, failed to support the cities. The telephone industry, meanwhile, has been steadily lobbying state lawmakers to pass similar bills. So far there are restrictions on municipal networks in Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.
State bills and this new federal court decision are designed to prevent or weaken a community’s ability to provide broadband and other telecom or cable services. They aim to undermine or prevent broadband from emerging as a public utility, offering the benefits of the Internet to all in a cost-effective and democratic fashion. The cable industry is also pursuing a political campaign against such community networks. Recently, Comcast joined with SBC in a well-funded ad campaign that undermined public support for a community network serving three small towns in Illinois. According to the Tri-City Broadband Coalition, both Comcast and SBC distorted the record. Cities and their supporters will now be turning to Congress for legislation that can restore community ownership of broadband.
Meanwhile, in a separate court decision, the cable industry’s lobbying effort to undermine the Internet’s open architecture (by denying Internet service providers access to cable networks) was temporarily derailed on 1 April 2004. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a decision by one its panels that ruled against a recent FCC policy backed by the cable lobby. By refusing to review the case, the Ninth Circuit upheld a decision ruling that the FCC should regulate cable broadband with the same safeguards required of DSL networks, including choice of ISP and nondiscriminatory service. The cable industry has been threatened by the Internet since the development of the World Wide Web, recognizing that cable’s monopoly business model of controlling both conduit and content would be challenged if any user/viewer could easily download all forms of multimedia content. Cable found a valuable ally in FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who declared in 2002 that cable would not be required to operate in the “end-to-end” open network tradition of the dial-up Internet. ISPs and public interest groups, including CDD, took the commission to court. The Media Access Project represented CDD, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumers Union in what was called the “Brand X” case (the name of the Santa Monica-based ISP calling for the FCC rule to be overturned). The cable lobby is now pressuring the FCC to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
The cable television industry in the United States has stated that its overarching goal is to transform from traditional multichannel video program providers to full service telecommunications providers, able to offer to consumers a full range of services, including video, local and long distance telephony, and high-speed Internet access services. AT&T is the exemplar: it has embarked on a massive program to deliver a bundle of telecommunications and advanced information services to U.S. residences. In the past year, AT&T has catapulted to become the nation’s largest cable operator through its acquisition of TCI and its proposed acquisition of Media One. Moreover, through a series of joint ventures with most of the other large cable providers, AT&T is positioned to deliver local phone service over cable to a substantial portion of the homes passed by cable in the U.S.
The Internet at Risk: Broadband Networks and Narrow Visions
At first glance, the recent debate over competitive access to the emerging broadband cable networks-the Internet delivery platform of choice in the coming years-seemed like just another corporate squabble. Initially, AOL challenged AT&T over access to the latter's growing cable holdings. Once it became a cable landlord itself, however, with its acquisition of Time Warner (the nation's second-largest cable provider, behind AT&T), AOL quickly retreated from the broadband battles. Instead of standing by its call for open-access regulations, AOL now claimed that the marketplace would provide a solution to the open-access puzzle.
That may well be the case, but a market-based solution, negotiated in the back rooms of corporate America, is not likely to be one that will serve the public interest. And the basic ground rules for the broadband revolution are much too important to leave to a handful of media conglomerates to determine. For the deployment of the new, high-speed, "last-mile" connections will largely shape the ways in which we'll communicate in the twenty-first century. These broadband networks will affect both the nature and range of the news and entertainment we receive, as well as the extent to which we will be able to exchange information and share our views with others. In particular, a cable-controlled broadband system threatens to undermine the basic open, democratic character of the Internet:
Access: Under the cable industry's closed model, all but a handful of the nation's 6,000-plus ISPs will be excluded from the new broadband networks.
Diversity: Content owned by or affiliated with the reigning cable providers will receive preferential service, relegating competitive and nonprofit material to the slower lanes.
Democracy: Tiered levels of service, priced according to the ability of both producers and consumers to pay for premium service, will erode the concept of Universal Service, limiting the access of many Americans to online services.
Choice: Far fewer ISPs, differentiated levels of service, and the closed cable model all add up to severely reduced choice for American consumers.
Industry's gain, in other words, will be society's loss. At stake, then, is the potential for an open, democratic network, one that combines the ease and ubiquity of television with the variety and interactivity of the Internet. This may be our last, best chance, in fact, to establish the electronic "civic sector" that has proven so elusive in an increasingly market-driven media system. "In a field where exaggeration is common," concludes Andrew J. Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, in a front-page New York Times story, "it is fair to say that this issue is regarded as the most important public policy question in telecommunications for the decade."
Unfortunately, no one in Washington, under heavy pressure from industry lobbyists, appears ready to answer that question. FCC Chairman William E. Kennard, for example, has adopted a timid, wait-and-see posture at a time when a firm public-interest response is needed. "... [W]ith competition and deregulation as our touchstones," Kennard explains, "the FCC has taken a hands-off deregulatory approach to the broadband market. We approved the AT&T-TCI deal without imposing conditions that they open their network." Such a policy, however, subjects the Internet to the same closed, cable-TV model that has limited programming diversity and consumer choice alike over the past two decades. Instead of establishing a framework in which ISPs are granted nondiscriminatory access to the new cable networks (not free access, but simply access under the same terms and conditions that the cable companies extend to their affiliated ISPs) the FCC chairman has lent his support to AT&T's monopolistic control of its extensive cable broadband holdings.
More ominous still is the new network architecture that cable operators are in the process of deploying, a system that will alter the very nature of online access for millions of Americans. A chilling glimpse of the broadband future was offered recently in a series of "white papers" released by Cisco Systems, one of the leading suppliers of broadband hardware and software. By Cisco's own admission, the new architecture will be rich in opportunities for cable operators to "optimize service profits," by granting preferential treatment to certain kinds of content, by limiting access to competitive traffic, and by "...segmenting the market and charging what the market will bear within each market segment."
Under such a system of monitored and preferential service, the Internet will no longer be the open, democratic system that we enjoy today. It will become, instead, much more of a "branded" environment, with premium service for certain products and certain customers, leaving others with second- and third-class transport (or possibly no carriage at all, for those who cannot afford even the lowest tier of sliding-scale fees). That's the kind of environment, moreover, that will only exacerbate the problem of spiraling campaign costs, as the "digital divide," affecting all segments of society, becomes more subtle and more pernicious than ever.
Among those likely to find themselves on the wrong side of that divide are nonprofit organizations, who will face even more obstacles in their attempts to address various public-interest issues online. So, too, will small businesses find it even more difficult to compete successfully in an environment in which the large media conglomerates exert even more control over online traffic. A number of Wall Street analysts, in fact, predict that a closed broadband Internet will threaten the future growth of our economy. The possibilities for democratic discourse, for educational opportunities, and for cultural expression will be greatly reduced in a delivery system that favors big business over small, e-commerce over e-democracy, and public relations over public service.
Free of such market-based constraints, on the other hand, the new broadband networks could bring a vast array of new programming to the home, at once extending the reach of the Internet (which currently serves only a third of the nation's households) and enhancing its content (much of which is currently constrained by the bandwidth limitations of dial-up modems). But this public-interest potential will not be realized without concerted action on a variety of fronts:
To educate the public about the nature of the emerging broadband landscape.
To support civic, educational, and cultural uses of the new media.
To evaluate the network architecture of the new system to prevent discriminatory handling of competitive or noncommercial content.
Only in this manner, with a systematic, cooperative assessment of the new broadband networks, can public-interest advocates hope to be heard amidst the towering voices of the telecommunications giants.