|
Commercial interests lust for
cyberspace
By JOHN L. ALLEN
JR. NCR Staff Boston
While the Justice Department's ongoing battle with Microsoft grabs
the headlines, behind the scenes in Washington a strong consensus has emerged
about the role government should play in relation to the Internet, and it can
be summed up in three words: Leave it alone. The technology is too complex, the
argument goes, and is changing too fast to do anything else.
Conventional wisdom therefore holds that other than enforcing
contracts and antitrust laws, government should leave businesses alone to
exploit this new technology for their own profit. Ira Magaziner, President
Clinton's senior adviser on the Internet, came to Boston to praise this
laissez-faire philosophy -- and ran into passionate calls to bury it.
Magaziner appeared at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as
part of a conference on "Democracy and Digital Media" May 8 and 9. The meeting
brought together scholars, media professionals and a handful of activists and
students to talk about what consequences the "digital revolution" -- the
predicted convergence of television, computer, cable and telephone technologies
-- might have for democratic government.
Two questions coursed through the MIT event: Should the commercial
sector dominate the new media -- in other words, is what's best for the likes
of Disney and Microsoft what's best for all? Or is there some role for public
debate and political action to support noncommercial activity?
Noting that his bias is to "promote economic growth," Magaziner
argued that supply and demand should govern the evolution of digital media to
the ultimate benefit of consumers.
He said the core policies to ensure a hands-off environment for
the Internet will be in place within "the next couple of months." They include
a national moratorium on Internet taxation, a global agreement to treat
cyberspace as a duty-free zone and a plan for privatizing the technical
administration of the Internet. (Magaziner's Internet policy papers are
available at www.ecommerce.gov)
Benjamin Barber, scholar and author of the highly touted Jihad
Versus McWorld (Ballantine, 1995) led the charge against this approach.
"Perhaps Magaziner is right that we don't know where these technologies are
heading, but that's all the more reason not to turn them over to a marketplace
whose motives and biases we do know well enough," Barber said.
Noting that Magaziner had stressed "caution" as a hallmark of the
Clinton approach, he said, "The notion that we should surrender knowledge and
the media to communicate it to the market, allowing shareholders to be the sole
determiners of what happens to them and think that in so doing we're being
cautious, strikes me as a kind of lunacy."
"It's time for this administration, it's time for Ira Magaziner,
to take a course in democracy," Barber said. "Then they'll be in a position to
talk to us about the role of this technology."
While many said privately -- and one, American Prospect
editor Paul Starr, said publicly -- that Barber's rhetoric was over the
top, few in the MIT crowd seemed to reject his core premise: There should be
public deliberation about how these technologies will transform society.
The trend toward commercial dominance of the new digital media is
apparent in a number of ways, according to participants:
- The vast majority of Web users now begin their Internet
experience with one of a handful of so-called "portals" -- homepages such as
Yahoo! and Microsoft. The companies that own these sites can direct users
toward commercially oriented destinations. Currently, there are no widely used
nonprofit "portals." Yahoo! alone attracts visitors from more than 30 million
households in the United States who spend more than 503 million hours monthly
at the site, according to Internet ratings services.
- The increasing cost of Web site design, driven by graphics and
interactivity, makes it difficult for nonprofit groups and individual citizens
to compete for public attention.
- As "push" technologies (those, like television, that require
little effort on the part of the user) become more widespread, the dominant
mode of Internet usage may become sitting in front of the television screen,
selecting from among commercially oriented sites, rather than in front of a
computer screen actively seeking information. This trend will be accelerated by
industry plans to provide more bandwidth (the capacity to transmit data) for
"downloading," or piping content into people's homes, but not for "uploading,"
sending content out of homes.
- There is little political appetite for challenging the massive
media/telecommunications lobby. Congress voted in 1996, for example, to double
the electromagnetic spectrum allocation for broadcasters and charge them
nothing for it, resources worth an estimated $70 billion. Activists charge that
some of that spectrum, to be used for new digital channels, should have been
reserved for public use.
According to Lawrence Grossman, former president of PBS and NBC
news, the situation is "eerily reminiscent" of the early days of radio, "when
everyone thought this was going to be a citizen's medium," Grossman said. "Then
the commercial broadcasters took over when they figured out how to make money
off of it."
Magaziner held his ground, arguing that as the Internet and
broadcast media come together, the broadcast components should be deregulated.
To try to regulate the new converged environment as television, telephones and
radio have traditionally been regulated, he said, would be to "allow the old
world to capture the new."
David Winston, technology adviser to House Speaker Newt Gingrich,
echoed the call for an unregulated and privatized Internet, arguing that the
technology will produce a "new age of reason" and a "new era of individual
freedom."
Barber blasted those notions. "If we live in a society colonized
by commerce," he said, "where we're malled and theme-parked to death, it's
hardly a surprise that this brave new technology is becoming only one more
commercial tool. But for those of us who believe it has civic, educational and
democratic promise, why would we think this technology will look any different
if it's as basely commercial as the rest of the culture?
"The big boys are taking over," Barber said, "and our government
is putting out the welcome mat."
Others echoed Barber's criticism. "I sat in the audience and
really wanted to give Magaziner a chance," said Doug Schuler, who teaches at
Evergreen State College in Washington state and is a cofounder of the Seattle
Community Network, an effort to build a civic, nonprofit zone in cyberspace.
"But I have to say he confirmed all my worst fears.
"A lot of people have forgotten this, but the Internet was built
and paid for by the American taxpayer," Schuler said. He was referring to the
fact that government agencies such as the Defense Advanced Projects Research
Agency built the computer networks that became the Internet, "and then one fine
day the government said, `We're not interested in this anymore.' "
Nolan Bowie, a public interest lawyer and visiting professor at
Harvard said, "We've got the freedom to choose a wide variety of products in
the marketplace, but not the freedom to choose a wide variety of ideas moving
us toward democratic goals." He said that laissez-faire technology policies are
moving the country toward "electronic feudalism."
Magaziner conceded that making sure the Internet does not
exacerbate the gap between rich and poor is one area where government action
may be needed, pointing to the Clinton initiative to hardwire all of America's
schools as one solution. Several participants suggested, however, that if the
Internet becomes saturated with commercial content, piping it into schools will
be of questionable value.
Despite worries about commercializing cyberspace, most at the MIT
gathering seemed equally skeptical of anything a government bureaucracy might
do. Interest focused, therefore, on the "third sector" -- private, nonprofit
groups and institutions. One model of how to apply their resources to the new
media was offered by Grossman, author of The Electronic Republic
(Viking, 1995).
Grossman argued for a new national telecommunications policy that
would build a "parallel public system" alongside the commercial sector. The
idea is to allocate public dollars to nonprofit groups, such as universities,
libraries, museums and schools, to build content -- Web sites, TV shows, radio
programs, multimedia computer applications -- that would be "high-quality,
well-promoted and well-marketed," Grossman said.
"The marketplace must not be sole determiner of how we use
information technology," Grossman said. "In the digital era, it would be
shameful not to deliver to every household, school and institution the
critically needed, well-produced public interest materials we're capable of
creating."
Grossman suggested that taxing spectrum auctions -- when
broadcasters pay for the slice of the electromagnetic spectrum along which
their signal travels -- and transaction taxes on telecommunications mergers
would produce the revenue necessary to make his proposal work on a national
scale. He compared the suggestion to the Land Grant Act of 1862, when the U.S.
government auctioned off public lands in order to finance the construction of
public universities. "We've accepted the need for public spaces in other areas
of our national life, and now we need to do it in telecommunications," he said.
In an interview with NCR, Grossman said that while
including religious and church groups in his plan might pose some issues of
church/state separation, he was "all for it" if the potential legal hurdles
could be overcome.
Others at the conference argued that Grossman's vision was too
centralized and grandiose, preferring a more local and grassroots solution.
Schuler offered his Seattle Community Network as an example.
The network -- funded through donations and staffed by volunteers
-- offers free computer access to anyone in the Seattle area who wants it,
including free e-mail, Web sites, and bulletin board access. They offer
training and resources to anyone, individual or group, who wants to build a Web
site and link it to the SCN home page (www.scn.org). Launched in 1992,
the network has 14,000 users and gives voice to a host of community, civic and
activist groups.
"What we're doing is supporting democratic uses of electronic
technology," Schuler said. "The idea is to use this technology to build up,
rather than erode, our commitment to our local community." Schuler said
governments at all levels should be supporting similar alternatives.
Barber believes the core issue is whether there will be any public
debate at all over what to do. "I'd feel much better if after a national debate
America in effect said, We want this privatized, we've heard the arguments and
we still feel better off with the private sector than the public sector ... but
this debate is not held," he said. "For those of us who care about the struggle
for democracy and social justice, that's the most basic question of all."
National Catholic Reporter, May 22,
1998
|
|