At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, it seems that, as a nation (and, for that matter, as a planet), we’ve begun a transition with the potential to revitalize our economy, our civic and political culture, and our education and healthcare systems.
The course of this transition (which bears some risks and has some ugly potentials as well) is closely tied to the evolution of the Internet and our media and telecom industries. In other words, the tech policy debate is not only about Web 2.0, Television 2.0 and Business 2.0, its also about the potential for Democracy 2.0, Education 2.0, Healthcare 2.0, Public Safety 2.0 and maybe even War & Peace 2.0…not to mention the scary prospect of Terrorism 2.0.
Admittedly, I may be overstating things a bit. During the past week I’ve been immersed in writing a report with Cynthia entitled Television 2.0, and have read, among other things, Bob Frankston’s essay “Connectivity is a Utility,” the recent WSJ piece about port-blocking and deep packet inspection (and Cynthia’s 10/25 post from USTA), and a Slate piece entitled “The Fight Over Wireless: Will we get Internet access from big government or big business?” I’ve also been keeping up on political, national and international news, where a whole lot of things don’t seem to be going very well.
Though I don’t claim to have digested all of Frankston’s essay, his vision of universal high-bandwidth IP connectivity—which resonates with David Isenberg’s “stupid network” arguments and the “layered” regulatory model—strikes me as compelling. And while there may be much to argue with in Frankston’s essay, it seems to me that the fundamental goal he sets forth of open, ubiquitous, low-cost access should have a place very near the center of any debate on a rewrite of the Telecom Act.
The fact is that there’s a lot more at stake in today’s Internet, telecom and media policy debates than any particular company or sector gaining or losing a few points of margin, market share or stock price. Regardless of whether we work in a corporate boardroom, a garage-based startup, a school, a clinic, a WiFi coffeehouse, on Capitol Hill, or writing a blog at our kitchen table, we’re all citizens of this country and inhabitants of the same increasingly connected planet.
And, whether we like it or not, our expanding web of interconnection tends to intensify our interactions and the feedback loops they generate, whether they be cooperative, collaborative and mutually respectful, or full of conflict, mutual contempt and even violence. Increasingly, we live in a win-win or lose-lose world.
An effort to rewrite the Telecom Act will likely have significant impacts on virtually every area of our society, including the workings of our democracy. And, to some extent, the way we as a society manage this landmark legislative effort will set the tone and direction for the future evolution (or devolution) of our democracy. It seems reasonable to assume that an open, honest, fair, creative and respectful public debate can help create laws that embody these same values, strike a healthy balance among competing interests, and help define and promote the public good.
After 9-11, there was a brief but intense period of unity, mutual respect, shared values and common purpose in this country and much of the world. Though that unity has since been buried by media-fed images of red-state vs. blue-state polarization, its seed, I believe, remains intact.
My hope is that we can revive that spirit of shared destiny and purpose in response to great national opportunity rather than wait for the next great national disaster to remind us of our common humanity. Given what’s potentially at stake in a rewrite of the Telecom Act—and the development of next-generation Internet policy in general—perhaps that rewrite offers us one such opportunity…think of it as a beta test of Democracy 2.0.
Mitch Shapiro at 10:19 PM|Comments(0)
Blogs We Read
