The Tube-ernet Is Getting Fuller
by Peter Bradwell
More seriously, some are suggesting that we should jeopardise net ‘neutrality’ by creating a two-tier access framework, with privileged access for those heavy-users willing and able to pay extra.
It seems there are some basic principles at stake. The ideal of universal and equal access to the incredible information and layers of creativity available through the internet is a cherished ideology of the information age. We aren’t there yet – but to treat that explosion of creativity and equality of access as a hindrance to increased commerce and ‘serious’ information trading – surely the implication and consequence of a two-tier model – seems odd, and counter to the prevailing principles of progressive economic, cultural and policy thinking.
I’ve been reading the excellent ‘Splintering Urbanism’ recently. It’s a fascinating look at how the infrastructures of the built environment structure our lives – and how the splintering of this infrastructure creates enclaves or ‘assemblages’ that help determine people’s potential and aspirations. Contra the notion of the city as an egalitarian forum for exchange and a place of fluid mobility, people’s experiences are mediated according to their relation to sources of light, water, energy – and, increasingly, information.
We're a networked world, the ideology of which speaks of dynamic fluidity and a flattening of inequality. So it's worth constantly bearing in mind how these networks can feature complex knots of permissions and exclusions.
Andy Polaine
Apart from it being worrying that US Senators are such idiots, it's also another example of the work ethic (the 'serious information trading') desperately trying to hang on to the power in the last gasps of its life. Understanding why people are more interested in personalising their media, communication with each other, uploading their videos and images, in short, playing, is crucial if we're to escape the kind of nonsense that Sen. Stevens just came out with and understand the self-organising nature of contemporary societies.See Pat Kane's The Play Ethic for an excellent treatise on this subject.
Molly Webb
It's not surprising that we try to take the 'net' and make it more like our built environment. To what extent we succeed will bring (and already does) all kinds of controversy. But I don't know if I'm any more worried about loss of net neutrality than our general love of creating tiers, no matter what the medium. Lessig's free culture (the presentation) -- the history of copyright -- shows how the gradual codifying of creativity has only sped up in recent years. We have to restrict the past to protect the future.If we see the internet move away from neutrality, what spaces will we create next for our egalitarian ideals to be played out? Long live "Rip mix and burn"
Andy Polaine
I'm hoping that the 'net, as the accidental offspring of the military and hippy counter-culture, has grown into enough of an amorphous being that it is beyond this kind of control/interference. I know that's optimistic and possibly even naive, but with some many people working away and working around things there always seems to be some solution to attempts at control. One only has to look at the futile digital rights management battle for a clear example.More problematic, in my view, is the mobile/wireless space because it seems more prone to control by the telcos that other services. But then wireless, ubiquitous broadband looks set to kill of current models of billing in any case.
Andy Polaine
p.s. This story gets better. Lost Remote reports a story about a guy who wrote a song based on the Senator's gaff only to have his MySpace account shut down and then re-instated when Wired reported his story. I'm glad to hear that as it validates my point above (a little).
Hannah Robinson
Continuing on from this debate, Diana Coyle, Founder of Enlightenment Economics, is also of the opinion that technology ought to open up the world of information and creativity, and that, if it clamps down on itself, it will be at the expense of restricting some of its positive potential: http://www.futureagenda.org/?cat=10
Paul Miller
John Naughton gives more background to net neutrality in this piece for the Observer. It is deeply worrying. Also worth checking out Geoff Mulgan's piece for Network Logic on why networks can entrench existing power structures.