Mitch Kapor's Keynote at The Networked Economy USA Conference

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

Subject: Mitch Kapor's Keynote at The Networked Economy USA Conference
From: rjk () telcomlaw win net (Robert J. Keller)




Yesterday I was fortunate to be at the morning session of The
Networked Economy USA conference here in Washington, DC, at least long
enough to hear Mitch Kapor's keynote address.  The theme of the day
was some version of "The Information Highay" buzzword that is
currently in vogue here inside the Beltway.  Here is a brief summory
of Kapor's remarks:


DISCLAIMER 1: The following is my interpretation of what I think I
heard Mitch Kapor say, based on my notes and my own imperfect memory.


DISCLAIMER 2: I am a fairly good typist, but I am a lousy speller and
I have fat fingers.  If the particular mailer I am using now has a
spell-checker, I have not yet discovered how to access it.


Enjoy!


        1.  We do face a significant policy issue of who will provide
the investment to build the so-called Information Highway: the
government or the private sector.  Kapor favors the private sector,
but realizes that it raises many issues and concerns.


        2.  Policy makers concerned with the public interest
ramifications of the IH have historic reason to be skeptical and even
cynical.  Each major telcommunications technological advancement
(telephone, radio, TV, cable television) has emerged amid great
promise of social benefits that have often never materialized.  (E.g.,
cable's promise of wide-spread public access, local programming, more
varied fare, etc.).  The IH may end up being the same ... great
promise now, but eventually just giga-version of the current CATV
system.


        3.  Policy makers must understand that many of the public
interest concnerns are significantly affected by technological
factors.  For example, if the IH is to acheive its current promise, it
must be a truly two-way system (as opposed to the current CATV system
which is essentially one-way.)  For effective business applications as
well as consumre-level interactivity, there has to be subtantial
capacity and capability in _both_ directions.  While this is an
important policy objective, it depends on technology.  The policy can
not be implemented later if now we simply build a system that consists
of eight lane highways going out, with only foot-paths coming back.
That will allow little more than enhanced CATV and home-shopping.  We
have to engineer the system now to aovid this pitfall.  (He talked in
terms of as much as a half to a full gigabyte of two-way bandwidth per
end user.)


        4.  There are cetain groups that are understandably excited
and enthusiastic about the promise of the IH, but at the same time
seriously concerned about what the ultimate policy regarding it will
be.  Two examples:


         -  Publishers, producesrs, etc.:  the IH promises
         a less restrictive ability to reach broad public
         audiences without the need for substantial
         investment or ceding an interest to a TV network
         or a publisher.  But will this promise be realized
         if the investor/builder/owner of the IH is the
         private sector?


         -  Internet Pioneers:  they are used to a very
         decentralized, unregulated or self-regulated, open
         access system.  Will this environment survive in a
         business-oriented, private sector IH?


        5.  In addressing these various issues, we must move away from
a "channel" of communications concept (which grew out of the world of
spectrum scarcity) and move instead to a "capacity" or "switched
digital system" (which is possible because of things like fiber optics
and digital communications).  Spectrum scarcity need no longer drive
the policy and regulatory issues.  Thus, the IH is less analogous to
the current CATV system (in which large amounts of centrally
controlled information is distributed to users) and much more
analogous to the current PSTN (in which any user can directly connect
to any other user).  It is also less analogous to broadcasting (in
which programming is geared to the common denominator and broadly
disseminated) and more analogous to print media (in which I can go
into a bookstore or library and choose a narrowly focused book).


        6.  Universal Service!  How do we achieve the old concept of
univarsal service in the IH without re-creating or perpetuating
outdated and counter-productive regulatory beaurocracies?  In the
truly open access system (universally available) the IH capacity
provider acts as a common carrier.  It makes the access available to
whomever wants it, without regard to the content of the information.
But if the private sector is putting up the investment to build and
operate the IH, can we tell them they can not control content?  Is
that fair?


        7, This is NOT a Solomon's Choice!  According to Kapor, we are
no longer in a world of spectrum scarcity, so we don't have to decide
between the public benefits of open accsess and the fundamental
fairness of private sector control. We can build the IH with enough
capacity to satisfy two different regulatory approaches: private and
common carrier. The IH would be divided between the two, not on a
"channelization" basis, but on a "capacity" basis. Part of the
capacity would be used by the IH provider on a private basis, and the
IH provider would have control over content.  But part of the capacity
would also have to made available on a common carrier, full open
access basis, in which the IH provider would have absolutely no
control over content.




Bob Keller (KY3R)       Tel +1 202.939.7918
rjk () telcomlaw win net   Fax +1 202.745.0916
rjk () access digex net    CIS 76100,3333