Manage updates with the Download App
- Related Stories
-
Will computing flow like electricity?
June 17, 2005 -
Utility, commodity: IT to follow electricity?
March 11, 2005 -
Is broadband set to make power lines sing?
February 24, 2004
No fatalities, minor damage. Work and play for some Internet users was interrupted or disrupted. A short inconvenience, but then normal life resumed.
This was not due to a natural disaster or even to hackers but rather to business considerations and competition. Didn't you feel like shouting? "Hey, it's not your Internet--no matter what company you are."
Two questions remain: Who owns the Internet? Is competition the best or only way to determine that ownership?
Some of the terms that have stuck to the Internet in its first decade as a commercial and public system are misleading. "New media" may be the most pernicious.
Sure, the Internet is a great way to deliver content. We do that here at CNET News.com. But the Internet is not simply a new medium. It's also a marketplace. A global system for private communication. An art gallery without walls, an archive without shelves, the planet's largest collection of sound and music.
The list of Internet-based services is daunting. That scope means that the Internet is far more important than mere media. Daily, local newspapers are disappearing in America, and almost nobody is noticing. If certain TV or radio programs were to disappear for a day or a month, we'd all find substitutes. But take away the Internet?
The Internet is a utility, without which our daily lives cannot be productive or interesting. Governments, companies and institutions now need it to function. So do you and I.
Once upon a time in America, toll roads through the forests and canals were dug using private money. Both were owned by private companies. That didn't work. Public highways did. In 1956, President Eisenhower and Congress created the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.
As did political talk about the original Internet, some of the rhetoric explaining why the highway system needed to be made was based on what we now call "homeland security." See "defense" in the title? Well, you could picture National Guard units trucking back and forth on the weekends.
But the Interstate's real supporters and winners were car, rubber, steel and gas companies, motels and drive-in restaurants, shopping centers and vacationing families. It was federally funded, and it worked. Anybody want to sell I-5 to a private company? Picture this sign: "Sorry, you cannot exit onto Highway 63 because it belongs to our competition."
Even the most progovernment politician knows that you'd wait a long time before BigRoads Inc. put a highway into some small farming town of 600 people. No profit. If you want highway ubiquity, government has to do it.
A similar process put electricity into the less populated and poorer areas of America. Where I grew up, in the Missouri Ozarks, our electricity came from a federally supported co-op. No private company could turn a profit stringing copper wire up and down those thinly populated hills.
We already have our highway system and our electricity. Time has come for our broadband. It's a utility. We now need broadband to live, work, recreate and even make a profit. Whether in Palo Alto, Calif., or Cavalier, N.D., we need our broadband. Many local areas of America are attacking the need for broadband ubiquity, but perhaps it's time for a national program.
Fiber, cable or wireless--many areas of America are not going to run a profit for any broadband service provider. It's time for the National System of Interstate and Homeland Defense Broadband. Private companies will make billions building the system, as with the interstate highways. Once it's done, we'll all profit.
Biography
Harry Fuller is an executive editor at CNET News.com.
20 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
whoever else in the world runs their respective countries but the
internet is a global work and play space and getting one agency
or country or select group of agencies isn't particularily going to
work because then there would be some big squabble and then
soon enough China will start making their own network and
perhaps the whole EU then we start isolating countries and it's
not going to be good just because there will be clashback if the
internet is no long perceived as a publicly owned entity, that is
everyone gets their fair chance of a piece of pie. Morever where
there's Uncle Sam comes Big Brother, and while we're very aware
that Big Brother's already looking over us, at least on the
internet, it's another item that'll disuade many people from
using the internet if they thing Big Brother has bigger eyes on
the net and they'll create their own infrastructure. Besides the
internet is way too big for the governments to just suddenly take
over. These clashes between two network companies will occur
but I think rather than control the government, just fine the heck
of the two companies who seriously disrupt this essential
service. It's bad enough Vonage doesn't offer real 911, now
imagine your call is not able to be routed at all. My two cents.
This is not a role of the federal government, anymore than erecting museums or sponsoring broadcast, newspaper, or radio media.
The government already meddles enough in the communications infrastructure with verbose FCC rulings that are often anticompetitive in nature. How would we respond to an FCC ruling restricting internet trade?
The author refers to the highway infrastructure as a parallel; although one would have a hard time arguing that this was unnecessary, we only have to look at the most recent "highway bill" to see how internet commerce might be affected by federal intervention.
Oh Really!
Get a life you people.
You are absolutely correct that the Internet is a citizen "right" derivative from public ownership of the airwaves. And while not established in law, the airwaves are the public property of the US citizenry, as they should be.
We need further reinforcement of the citizenry's ownershp of communnications, with management rights delegated to government agencies chartered for this purpose, and responsible only to the public's approval of policy designed to allow everyone to partipate.
This may mean American ownership of the Internet within our "electronic " borders; if other countries want to own their Internet, or give it to the UN, that's their perogative. but I CAN'T IMAGINE MOST OTHER COUNTRY'S CITIZENS TOLERATING FOR A MINUTE BEING "FROZEN OUT" OF THE US COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE, KNOWN AS THE INTERNET.
I certainly can't imagineUS consumers and businesses allowing ANY interference with their free, unfettered, regulated for public good,enjoyment of the Internet and all it's permutations, from information research, to entertainment, to communications.
And elected or appointed officials who attempt in any way to politicize, or overlay foreign policy considerations on this resource are headed for a citizen's lynching party.
You are absolutely correct that the Internet is a citizen "right," derivative from public ownership of the airwaves. And while not firmly established in law, the airwaves are the public property of the US citizenry, as they should be.
We need further reinforcement of the citizenry's ownership of communnications, with management rights delegated to government agencies chartered for this purpose, and responsible only to the public's approval of policy designed to allow everyone to participate.
This may mean American ownership of the Internet within our "electronic " borders; if other countries want to own their Internet, or give it to the UN, that's their perogative. but I CAN'T IMAGINE MOST OTHER COUNTRY'S CITIZENS TOLERATING FOR A MINUTE BEING "FROZEN OUT" OF THE US COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE, KNOWN AS THE INTERNET.
I certainly can't imagine US consumers and businesses allowing ANY interference with their free, unfettered, and regulated for public good enjoyment of the Internet and all it's permutations, from information research, to entertainment, to communications.
And elected or appointed officials who attempt in any way to politicize, or overlay foreign policy considerations on this resource are headed for a citizen's lynching party.
Barry Dennis
Columbia, Maryland
To continue the very apt analogy to roads and power, let's do what works and start at the metro level. San Francisco wants ubiquitous wireless, but they should also be running their own Internet Exchange, requiring all licensed IP carriers to peer multilaterally at that exchange, ensuring that data sent from one city business to another doesn't have to leave the city nor enrich foreign corporations. What works for bike messengers WILL also work for Internet packets. Other cities should follow this same path, and will be forced to in order to stay competitive.
Once this is a done deal for the NFL cities, the die will be cast. If someday we have a Rural Broadbandification Project, federally funded, then it will be because people in the hinterlands lack what everybody in the cities already has. Everything has to start somewhere. The hook for ubiquitous broadband is in the cities, just as it was for roads and power.
arbitrate arguments such as the one that is going on between
Level 3 and Cogent.
Mr. Fuller feels that if the Internet was nationalized there just
wouldn't be these types of arguments or loss of services. That
certainly was the argument for the phone system monopoly. It's
true it "worked" for a while. Everyone got a phone, or most
anyway. The only people troubled by this system were the
people with better ideas.
I don't know if Mr. Fuller is aware of this, but in the days of our
wonderful egalitarian phone system - if one had a better idea -
say a Microwave dish on a couple of hills to help communication
to truckers - one had PROVE that there was a need for any new
idea to a government committee. Of course the phone oligopoly
objected to anything like this. A new idea, pish pash!
Those pesky risk takers and thinkers. If it weren't Jack Goeken
(MCI) in 1968 and going to war over this the Internet would
never have existed.
Mr. Fuller doesn't seem to realize that the beautiful thing about
the free market and competition is that it brings so many
perspectives to bear. Whereas Mr. Fuller and others might see a
mess believe me someone else is looking at this as an
opportunity.
If Cogents model is not all it is cracked up to be then they will
fail ( as should be!) and their customers will move off and find
someone who will properly support them.
Mr. Fullers ideas are well intentioned anyone can see that. Every
oligopoly and monopoly starts out with that premise. Good
intentions are not enough to keep out the ill effects of
centralized control.
--Wes Zuber
The Internet is capable of so much that wasn't obvious at first - certainly companies like Yahoo and Google are proving that. And I'm sure there is much more to come just leveraging existing technology. But when fiber comes into the home and business, the world will change again. It will enable a whole need breed of software architectures which will help fuel both business and education.
I don't know if the government should own this infrastructure, but they certainly need to promote it. This country is filled with innovation and creativity - let's waste no time in providing the light speed canvas to express ourselves on!
understand the basics of network installation and maintenance
costs. That 'anyone' includes the US government, who has never
found a boondoogle that it didn't want to fund. This would be
more pork than Congress could ever dream of.
But for now, it's also a very foolish idea. Broadband services are
for those who can pay for them. Simple economics, and if you
don't like the outcome where you're at, then move or quit
complaining.
As for the US Government taking over the Internet itself (as
implied by the headline), that is beyond idiocy. The Internet
works so well because NO ONE owns it or controls it, except for
communication protocols. To get anyone involved as a control
point would be the absolute height of folly. It's an idea that no
sane person would propose.
Despite the headline, control of the internet is NOT the point of
Mr. Fuller's article.He does focus on broadband access, and the
need to extend it as far as financially feasible. Current Cable and
Telco programs will do must of that expansion without
prompting - it's a competition thing. On the other hand, if you're
at the far end of fifty miles of phone wire with no cable access,
there's not much anybody can do or should do for you.
You do have Directway as an option - it's better than nothing.
But whatever you get, you're going to have to pay for it. That is,
until some politician decides to buy more votes with more pork
barrel project. And that will make the Boston Big Dig into a
penny ante project.
The government has much less incentive to provide good service. If their internet service goes down for a day, so what? Are they going to lose customers? You're already forced to pay them taxes, unlike a private business which has to EARN your money.
This is the reason why projects like the big dig take 5 years longer than they're supposed to and cost billions more. Why would the government do better than private companies in high-tech? They've already shown they can't even handle something as low-tech as building roads well.
Finally, if the government produces "free" broadband, poorer and less-educated families are going to end up paying disproportionately more for the service, which they are less likely to use. Someone saving to send their kids to college right now has a choice not to pay for super fast internet service, instead investing in a college fund and (gasp!) physical books for their children. If the government runs the internet, everone gets taxed no matter how much they use it.
And what good does free internet access do someone who doesn't have a computer?
all over the planet. At least nobody argued we should tear out the street and roads in poor areas because those
slackers dont pay enough taxes. I can only point out many people and nations are not poor by choice, and that's
especially true of humans under the age of sixteen. For them poverty and lack or food and other services like
broadband is the result of chance, or god's will if you choose to believe that. Children growing up without computer
& Internet access are increasingly ill-equipped for today's world.
Perhaps an easier to accept metaphor: mail and package delivery. We have Fed Ex, DSL, UPS, bike messengers
and national postal services that agree to international co-operation.
Harry Fuller
Executive Editor, CNET News.com
work in a territory acquired by our mastery of weapons
technology, among other important qualities, or, we can be
realistic about highly segregated societies, hierarchies of
information, (how often does TOP SECRET get used against
American Citizens?) and do our best to level all virtually non-
destructive platforms for social evolution. One of my favorite
authors had to smuggle all his books out of Cuba just to get
them published, his LIFE was protected by the international
attention he received. Yes, internet access is a right, if only
because it conserves resources through minimizing travel for
problem solving. It's just another kind of highway, the three
dimensional layout of the earth makes more desireable locations
more expensive, in our current system, but, how much weaselly
elements have had their say in who owns what? This is the gift
of mathematics to the human mind, houses cost over half a
million in my town, while I'm out paying for a place to stay,
people are claiming to represent you and me, and making
decisions. I have the right to know what is being done with my
name on it, as do we all, THERE IS NO PHYSICAL MEDIUM THAT
GUARANTEES HUMAN FREEDOM THAT CAN MATCH THE
PHYSICAL MEDIUMS THAT GUARANTEE WE ARE ENDANGERED.
Might as well keep infinity open.