Luke Skywalker
Super Moderator
{vb:raw ozzmodz_postquote}:
i i
hide captionSusan Crawford says that in cities like Seoul and Stockholm, high-speed, high-capacity networks are taken for granted. "It really is astonishing what's going on in America," she says. "We're falling way behind in the pack of developed nations when it comes to high-speed Internet access, capacity and prices."
iStockphoto
Susan Crawford says that in cities like Seoul and Stockholm, high-speed, high-capacity networks are taken for granted. "It really is astonishing what's going on in America," she says. "We're falling way behind in the pack of developed nations when it comes to high-speed Internet access, capacity and prices."
iStockphoto
For an increasing number of Americans, access to high-speed Internet has become an essential part of our lives. We do work, email friends, find restaurants, watch videos and movies, and check the weather. And the Internet is increasingly used for important services, like video medical consults and online education, and is relied upon by businesses for critical operations.
Under a recent court decision, Internet service providers, primarily cable companies, aren't required to treat all websites equally. They can make deals to provide faster service to some, or slow down sites that refuse to pay them extra fees. Law professor Susan Crawford says you may be experiencing the effects of this — without realizing it.
Why, for example, do you have to wait for YouTube videos to buffer? Crawford explains: "You may think it's the YouTube application. You may think there is something wrong with your computer. It's probably the network provider making life unpleasant for YouTube because YouTube has refused to pay in order to cross its wires to reach you. And we'll be seeing much more of that kind of activity in the future."
Crawford, author of Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the Gilded Age, explains how we got to this point. "The [Federal Communications Commission] in the early 2000s really thought that competition would do the job of regulatory oversight — that that would protect Americans," she tells Fresh Air's Dave Davies. The idea was that cable, telephone and wireless companies would battle it out, which would yield low prices for American consumers. "As it turns out, they were wrong and we've come into an era where these markets have consolidated and for most Americans, their only choice for high-speed, high-capacity Internet connection is their local cable monopoly."
Crawford says that American Internet service is falling behind other nations because cable companies have such dominance in many markets, and that will undermine our ability to compete in a global economy. She warns: "Unless somebody in the system has industrial policy in mind, a long-term picture of where the United States needs to be and has the political power to act on it, we'll be a third-world country when it comes to communications."
[h=3]Interview Highlights[/h] On how the Internet is like the railroad
For every part of our modern lives we depend on information flows coming into our houses and our businesses. They're just like the railroad in that if you were a farmer in the 1890s [when] the only way to get your goods to market would be to work through the railroad. ... We just can't operate without it. They're also like them in that they're expensive businesses to build in the first place — it's very hard to come in and compete against one of these guys once they've built one of these giant networks. They're also like the railroad in that it takes intentional policy to make them stretch all the way across the United States. We wouldn't have had the transcontinental railroad without Lincoln; we wouldn't have had the federal highway system without Eisenhower, because markets, left alone, don't provide this kind of universal access.
On why communications access shouldn't be treated as a luxury
“ We seem to have forgotten that when it comes to these utility basic services, we can't create a level playing field for all Americans or indeed compete on the world stage without having some form of government involvement.
- Susan Crawford, telecommunications policy expert
I think the problem is actually much more profound than mere discrimination by a few cable actors when it comes to high-speed Internet access. We seem to currently assume that communications access is a luxury, something that should be entirely left to the private market unconstrained by any form of oversight. The problem is that it's just not true in the modern era. You can't get a job, you can't get access to adequate health care, you can't educate your children, we can't keep up with other countries in the developed world without having very high-capacity, very high-speed access for everybody in the country. And the only way you get there is through government involvement in this market. That's how we did it for the telephone, that's how we did it for the federal highway system and we seem to have forgotten that when it comes to these utility basic services, we can't create a level playing field for all Americans or indeed compete on the world stage without having some form of government involvement.
On the recent lawsuit between Verizon and the FCC
Verizon was irritated at the December 2010 open Internet rules that had been adopted by the FCC and came before the D.C. Circuit [court] saying, "Look, we'd like to be able to charge actors like Netflix and Google additional amounts to cross our wires to reach our subscribers and to pick subscribers to charge more, too, depending on how much bandwidth they're using." And what they said was, "Look, you can't allow the FCC to deregulate with one hand, as they had done in the early 2000s and then impose this open Internet rule, which essentially treats us like a common carrier with the other." And the D.C. circuit agreed.
hide captionWaiting to watch a video on YouTube? Susan Crawford recommends this Ars Technica article called