Caribbean media producers need paid prioritization

In his 2015 open internet order, former Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler argued for a seamless internet that promotes a virtuous cycle of innovation.  This seamless internet ecosystem would include every point on the internet between the end user sitting at his laptop or on his smartphone and the website from whence the end user is attempting to download information. To ensure this seamless experience, Mr Wheeler invoked the four open internet principles of transparency; no paid prioritization; no throttling of a website’s traffic; and no blocking an end user’s attempt to access the website of her choosing.

As of 11 June 2018, Mr Wheeler’s rules are no more, repealed and replaced by the Restoring Internet Freedom order issued by the Commission in December 2017.  While the Restoring Internet Freedom order kept language from the open internet order that addressed transparency i.e. the public disclosure of accurate information regarding network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of service, etc., it repealed language addressing throttling of traffic from website, paid prioritization creating faster lanes for content providers, and blocking consumer access to legal websites.

The 2017 order addresses throttling, blocking, and paid prioritization concerns by providing language defining reasonable network practices. A network management practice is reasonable if it takes into account a legitimate business goal, the network’s architecture, and the technology of the broadband service. But critics of the Restoring Internet Freedom order are interpreting the repeal as authorizing ISPs to block or throttle internet traffic or allow large content providers to pay ISPS for the privilege of faster data lanes to their subscribers.

Critics can also be found in state legislatures where, according to data compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures, 65 pieces of legislation were offered in state legislatures that put the FCC’s 2015 rules on net neutrality into state law. Eight of these states (California, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have metropolitan areas where significant Caribbean populations are located.  None of these states have enacted net neutrality legislation yet. Net neutrality legislation has already failed to pass in three of these states: Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia.

I understand the idea of transparency because of the importance it plays in negotiating for broadband access services. I never understood, however, why so-called proponents of net neutrality rules were against voluntary strategic partnerships between ISPs and content providers.  For example, the Caribbean has an emerging entertainment industry, one that recognizes the benefits of digitization. In the 21st century artists have to leverage the internet to get to an audience that is viewing more video traffic via mobile. Getting in front of a sizeable Caribbean immigrant audience in the United States may mean leveraging paid prioritization in order to ensure the availability of bandwidth necessary to stream video and music.

The FCC’s decision to repeal paid prioritization may benefit entertainment producers from the Caribbean in the long run.  Attempts by the states to balkanize communications regulation should not be allowed.

The court in AT&T-Time Warner produces a rule that is overall positive for Caribbean media consumers

Tom Wheeler, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, told C-SPAN’s Peter Slen on last Monday’s segment of The Communicators that the absence of open internet rules tells content providing internet service providers that they can discriminate and favor their own content.  Mr Wheeler also opined that on 11 June 2018, major local monopolies will be told that it is fair to discriminate. Over time we will see internet services discriminate in a way that benefits their bottom line. Mr Wheeler believed that an AT&T-Time Warner tie-up would present consumers that type of anti-competitive dilemma.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia disagreed with the former Commission chairman, issuing an opinion yesterday in United States of America v. AT&T, Inc., that says that AT&T Inc.’s acquisition of the media giant did not violate anti-trust law.  Vertical mergers rarely get denied by the courts. Given that AT&T and Time Warner do not play in each other’s space, in my opinion, finding the acquisition to be harmful to consumers would have been a bit much. What I always find fascinating is the expression of entitlement by consumers of media services; as if media consumption and the digital means by which content is consumed is a right.

Take for example the reaction to the merger by a leading member of the Fake Left, Senator Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts:

“This ruling is an assault on consumers, choice, and innovation,” said Senator Markey.  “The telecommunications market needs more competition, not more consolidation. We need a telecommunications market where pay-TV gatekeepers don’t favor their own content providers, but allow minority, diverse, and independent programmers to reach Americans’ screens. I fear this decision will only further fuel merger mania in the telecommunications and other markets.” 

“Today’s decision underscores the need to restore robust net neutrality rules, so broadband providers like AT&T cannot use their gatekeeper role to harm competing services and content. Without net neutrality protections in place, AT&T will be free to block, slowdown, or charge fees to competitors like Netflix and Hulu to favor their own DirecTV Now streaming service and HBO content. Speaker Ryan should schedule an immediate vote on my CRA resolution to restore the FCC’s net neutrality rules.”

Both Mr Wheeler and Mr Markey come around and paint yesterday’s court ruling with the net neutrality brush while at the same time, unwittingly, making the court’s argument: that there should be a showing that this vertical merger would substantially erode competition. Bear in mind that United States of America v. AT&T, Inc. has nothing to do with net neutrality per se, but Mr Wheeler and Mr Markey have opened the conflation door by arguing that application of Title II-based net neutrality rules would mitigate AT&T’s gatekeeper role. This is speculation and fades further when you compare their speculation with the court’s description of how the industry works.

While I found the first 30 or so pages of the opinion to read like a script proposal for a Netflix docu-drama, the court’s description of how the video distribution industry works makes Mr Wheeler and Mr Markey’s assessments sound like paranoia. AT&T has no incentive to hoard content. On the contrary, part of the company’s reason for acquiring Time Warner is to create another stream of revenue: advertising fees. As more consumers cut or shave the cord at home and go mobile, AT&T’s lost subscriber fees must be recovered from other sources. AT&T decided to chase advertisement revenue. Time Warner’s content is traction for advertisement revenue. It is more efficient to get this new content on to as many distributor platforms as possible in order to maximize revenues. This means licensing content to a Netflix or Hulu or even using Time Warner’s production capacity to create content for these other platforms. Blocking or slowing down access to Netflix or Hulu would make no sense because AT&T would risk degrading the value of the content it provides to these platforms as a result of licensing or sales agreements.

Would Title II-based net neutrality rules increase competition in the production and delivery of content? No. Netflix and Hulu were spawned in a light touch, Title II free regulatory zone. They didn’t need permission to create the applications necessary for accessing content. They didn’t need permission to place those applications on the internet. The demand for content comes from consumers and the data on consumer tastes allows Netflix and Hulu to create even better more engaging content. A socialist-style, government approach to dictating how consumers access content and transmit their preferences about content is not what the consumer needs.

This is why the decision in United States of America v. AT&T, Inc., costs me nothing. I am not being compelled to buy content I don’t need because the light touch environment that went back into effect on Monday means that over the top platforms like Hulu and Netflix and the new AT&T will provide me with even more enticing offers to view the edgier content I suspect that will be spawned from competition. Consumers have put content providers and distribution platforms on notice that they can choose providers and distributors at the swipe of a smart phone screen and by allowing vertical mergers and the convergence it spawns, those screens will carry more interesting and diverse content.

If you needed the internet that bad, you would have created it yourself

Monday 11 June 2018. We will see a repeat of the weeping and wailing that Hillary Clinton’s supporters did as they witnessed what they thought was impossible: an electoral loss to Donald Trump. Advocates for the treatment of broadband access as a telecommunications service will weep and wail not because of the loss of internet service, but because they will be out of bullets when the scare tactics imposed on millions of consumers do not come to fruition. As June goes into July into August into election season into Kwanzaa, another argument for attracting anti-Trump voters will fade away.  As the tyrannical Fake Left jump onto social media and create new forums and hashtags for the next rally, they will soon take for granted that the internet still works after all.

What I find disconcerting is the emotion attached to internet access. “If everyone is not connected, we will all sink into the pits of Hades.” “If I am not online, I am inconsequential.” “The internet is crucial to our daily living and well-being.”  None of this is true. Unlike water and energy, internet access is not a necessity for the continuation of life. Approximately 11% of Americans do not use the internet, according to data from Pew Research. More than likely, these individuals are getting information they determine as pertinent to their lives from old tried and true sources: first hand observation, published news sources, direct contact with government agencies, family and friends. These data sources are not as fast or as glitzy, but they have worked for centuries and more than likely were used by the individuals who built this digital world.

I expect the percentage of Americans not using the internet to fall over time when you consider that in 2000 approximately 48% of Americans were not online.  Our children are already internet savvy and this use of online services will only continue as they get older. As we on the tail end of the Baby Boom enter retirement, we may find ourselves using it more to connect with fellow Boomers who, unfortunately, may not be up to travel for various reasons.

What we need to avoid is allowing political factions such as the Fake Left to play on the emotions stemming from the belief that without net neutrality rules, consumers won’t be able to get to the websites of their choice, see speeds from their favorite websites slow down, or have their data sold to third parties they did not approve.  This narrative should be seen for what it is; another way to get votes.

If the Fake Left were really concerned about protecting your privacy and the speed at which you access data, they would tell you that you are responsible for reading the fine print of every service agreement for every information service provider you access. Arguing that terms and conditions are written in “legalese” is no excuse for skipping over disclosures and subjecting your privacy to abuse.  If, as the Fake Left argues, the internet is that crucial to everyday living, so crucial that it should be treated like a utility, then equal fervor should be applied to the consumer who decides to use online services.  In other words, the Fake Left should stop encouraging people who can’t fly to buy an airplane and attempt to fly it without bearing the consequences.

If you can’t get what your want from an information service provider in terms of privacy or speed, then maybe you should invest in consumer encryption services such as a virtual private network, or using a heavily encrypted network or browser such as TOR.

There are also the old methods of information gathering: a telephone (landline) and a newspaper, from which you can access by paying cash, the ultimate form of encrypted currency. Bottom line, there are ways to protect your individual privacy without implementing more onerous rules on society.

A market-based, voluntary open internet, privacy regime is doable

The best protection on the internet is self-protection and a self-protection regime does not have to be implemented via any additional government rules. Rather, for a subscriber to broadband access services provided by an internet service provider, the subscriber should avail themselves of the opportunity to enter into voluntary agreements as to the level of privacy and open internet protections they wish to purchase. The discussion regarding the confusing legal verbiage of written terms and conditions offered to a broadband access subscriber by an ISP should raise the question, “Would transparency best brought about if negotiation of agreements were more bilateral in nature?”

Before delving in any further to the primary question, let me attempt to dispose of one other question that arose in your mind when I posed the first question. “Do people have time to negotiate an agreement for broadband access services?” My response: “Why not?”

Advocates for net neutrality rules captured in the Federal Communications Commission’ 2015 Open Internet Order argue that broadband is now an essential part of the life of the individual and that today’s economy is robust because of high-speed access to the internet. Broadband access, the advocates would argue, should be treated like a utility service given its importance in sustaining the household.

Some would argue that broadband access does not arrive to the level of human necessity, no matter what a number of international organizations have argued.  Among those in disagreement with the “broadband equal to a utility” argument is FCC member Michael O’Rielly, who on a number of occasions has clearly expressed that people do not need broadband to live.  Mr O’Rielly is not alone in his assessment. His two other Republican colleagues, FCC chairman Ajit Pai and FCC member Brendon Carr also agree that 20th century treatment of a competitive 21st century technology such as broadband should not be regulated as a utility.

But for the sake of argument, let us say that broadband access arises to the level of a utility service. If it is that important to life, why would you not negotiate its terms and conditions?  During a negotiation for broadband access, more than likely the ISP would offer some canned language describing minimum services with a list of add-ons and opt-ins for the subscriber to voluntarily agree to. The ISP may offer different tiers of service where each tier provides various levels of privacy protection, transparency, and options for download and upload speeds. If technology permits, there could even be allowance for traffic from chosen websites that receive priority.

In the end, a subscriber’s willingness and ability to pay for different tiers of service will determine the level and amount of privacy and openness she receives on the internet.

I think an answer from the second question provides an answer to the first. Negotiating terms and conditions of service should lead to more transparency because the consumer had a direct hand in creating her services package.  The subscriber would have first hand knowledge about the amount of privacy protection she has bargained for.  But the direct hand in negotiating agreements requires the subscriber’s willingness to educate herself on how her product works. This is a level of knowledge that consumers fail to obtain because they may consider gaining that knowledge to expensive and time consuming. Hence their love for consumer protection agents. They can punt the responsibility of an alleged important, utility style service to them.

Morgan Freeman finds out that the internet has turned millions of Americans into lawyers, prosecutors, and jurors

The only thing missing from today’s internet charge, trial, and conviction of actor Morgan Freeman on allegations of sexual harassment at a workplace are the digital eyewitnesses like the ones that caught Al Franken play-fondling Lauren Tweeden’s breasts.  In Mr Freeman’s case, the eyewitnesses were human. The prosecutors, lawyers, and jurors, however, are mostly digitized and charges and convictions merge and rapidly go viral in a globe that is increasingly connected.

My title implies that the number of arm chair attorneys and jurors has increased. Check your Twitter and Facebook timelines and observe your followers and friends opining on allegations by eyewitnesses (allegations not yet entered into any legal record) and an apology issued by Mr Freeman (questionable as to whether it is admissible as evidence and probably meaningless since he admitted to nothing). As to whether the number of commenters contributed significantly to the degree of virility, I would answer that while there was some contribution, the number of commenters was not the significant contributor. The main contributor is the number of online editors or gatekeepers.  There are more people today that are giving a “thumbs up” to posting a story.

If you lived in Charlotte Amalie, U.S. Virgin Islands in the 1970s, you had one newspaper and two television stations providing you news. That meant three editors deciding what local news got broadcasted and back then local TV news coverage was sparse, in my opinion.  Today the internet has changed that.  Alternative online news sites and blogs mean that a non-story to one editor is a scoop to another. It is not that the same level of information is spreading faster. Viral means to increase the amount of available information that gets to more consumers via digital means.

The increase in the amount of information reported is compounded by an enlarged forum within which the public is exchanging ideas. Some net neutrality advocates would call an enlarged forum an example of the openness of the internet where more media consumers can be heard. Hence the millions of armchair lawyers and jurors.

How valuable are these opinions? In a court they don’t mean much. Judges and attorneys would not want juror assessment tainted by uninformed opinion, meaning these days they would have to look under a rock to find people outside an earshot of a podcast on the matter.  To a social scientist the public exchanges online provide some data on attitudes toward the tawdry behavior Mr Freeman is accused of, but as an experiment, as a measure of opinion the public exchanges don’t provide the best data because the collection is not subject to the best controls.

Probably the only benefit that matters is that people can claim that while they are not a lawyer, they slept at a Holiday Inn and the ability to vent support, denial, anger, or frustration en mass is benefit enough.

Old school regulation of internet service providers raises the threat of less broadband competition and more consolidation

Yesterday’s vote in the U.S. Senate that upended the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of its net neutrality rules was more political grandstanding than good policymaking. S.J. Res. 52 nullified the Commission’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” rules that would have gone into effect on 11 June 2018. The Restoring Internet Freedom rules reclassified broadband access service as an information service; reinstated private mobile service classification of mobile broadband internet access service; required internet access service providers to disclose information about their network management practices, commercial terms and conditions, and performance characteristics; and eliminated the internet conduct standards and bright-line rules.

By repealing the Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom rules, the Senate signaled its preference for the Commission’s 2015 Open Internet order. The order, based on the premise that broadband access providers posed a threat to openness on the internet and could hinder the virtuous cycle of innovation being introduced by edge providers, the Commission created a regulatory framework that classified broadband access service as a telecommunications service. The 2015 order also established what it referred to as “bright-line” rules that prohibited paid prioritization; the throttling of traffic from websites; and the blocking of consumer access to the legal online content of their choice. In addition, broadband access providers were required to provide consumers with information as to their network management practices, network performance, and commercial terms and conditions. The rationale for this transparency was the need to ensure that consumers made choices based on accurate information.

With its declaration that broadband access is a telecommunications service, the 2015 order subjects broadband access providers to certain sections of the Communications Act of 1934, specifically sections 201, 202, and 208. Although the Commission expressed an intent to not regulate the rates that broadband access providers charge consumers, including edge providers, section 201 of the Communications Act allows broadband access providers to establish different classifications of service.

For example, services may be classified into day, night, repeated, unrepeated, letter, commercial, press, government, etc. So, while no content delivery service can pay a broadband access provider a little extra in order to have their traffic placed ahead of another content provider while in the same class of service, section 201 allows broadband access providers to establish different classes of service that content providers can explore and use.

Let us assume that for some reason the resolution is also approved in the U.S. House of Representatives and President Trump fails to issue a veto. Given the application of sections 201, 202, and 208, small broadband access providers may be faced with the opportunity of being acquired. If a large broadband access provider offers various classes of broadband access, it in essence is carving out smaller markets within which it will dominate. If a broadband access provider carves out a classification that competes with a smaller broadband access provider, that smaller provider will face existential choices. Either lower its rates to where it no longer sees a profit and eventually leaves the market or be acquired which means getting to non-existence a lot faster. The 2015 Open Internet order could well be an example of how regulation stifles competition.

Lastly, I would expect that states will want to get in on the action. I have made this argument before. Under a 2015 Open Internet order regime, states will reassert themselves as the frontline for consumer protection. State public utility commissions don’t see themselves as agencies that sit around and handle consumer complaints all day. They rather those annoying complaints be addressed by their states’ respective attorneys general. State public utilities would rather flex their muscles in the pricing arena and will probably tailor state rules that align with sections 201, 202, and 208 of the federal communications act. The rules and the accompanying administrative procedures that broadband access providers would have to comply with will become burdensome on smaller players.

The result: regulation creating a less competitive market.

Will states seize the opening if net neutrality rules are resurrected?

11 June 2018. On this date the decision by the Federal Communications Commission that repealed the 2015 Open Internet Order will go into effect. Democratic members of the United States Senate hope to vote on a resolution that nullifies this recent decision by the Commission. In other words, the Democrats want to roll back to the way things were in 2015 with the Commission regulating broadband internet access service as if broadband access was a telephone service.

The Senate’s vote, expected to take place the middle of next week, is expected to go nowhere in the U.S. House of Representatives where Republicans hold firmer control. Partisanship is expected to rein supreme. And even if the House were to join the Senate in condemning the Commission’s decision to repeal net neutrality regulations, President trump is expected to veto the bill, sending it back to Congress where an override of the veto has next to no chance of happening.

For students of federal government, this congressional review action demonstrates a major weakness in the legislative branch of federal government. Congress may hold the purse strings, but when it comes to wielding any power, Congress is slow, its actions cumbersome. It is no wonder it gets accused of doing nothing. It is not that it doesn’t try. Congress is designed not to usurp the power of the executive, but simply to keep him or her in check.

Congressional Democrats could have expended energy drafting legislation that not only codified open internet principles but addressed transparency and privacy of consumer data handed over to social media firms such as Facebook or Twitter.  But when it’s time for political theater, no place is better than the chambers of Congress. Senator McCarthy’s search for communists. The Warren Commission. The Nixon impeachment. Iran/Contra hearings on Oliver North’s gun trading in Nicaragua. The Clinton impeachment. All great theater. Democrats may want to add to this list a vote on net neutrality.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, Congress will slide into a couple summer recesses mixed in with campaigning for the November 2018 midterm elections. Except for uninformed millennials and assorted nerds, there will be little attention paid to net neutrality.

Twenty-two states will give repeal the college try, however. A lawsuit filed by a number of state attorneys general hopes to show that the Commission’s action was arbitrary and capricious. I suspect that even if the states were successful in their attempt to overturn the repeal via the courts, I don’t see them doing much on the state utility commission level to regulate broadband access providers.  Just let their states AGs expend resources to tackle on a case-by-case basis complaints alleging throttling, blocking, and lack of transparency on the part of providers. Regulating broadband as a telephone service is fun to say and probably gets a few voter brownie points, but states have spent the past two decades moving away from utility-style regulation of phone services and are not about to roll the clock backward.

Besides, the old heads like me who were members of the public utility commission staffs that did the regulating have moved on and aren’t interested in revisiting the ghosts.

 

Net neutrality: Good politics is about manipulating reality

Democracy gets too much credit as a platform for openness and equity. It operates efficiently by being the opposite: as a platform for manipulating reality by manipulating consensus. American society is under the mistaken belief that facts create reality. I would go further and say that Americans are confused as to the definition of the word “facts.” Engaged in an argument with the average bloke about politics and he will offer as fact his assertions based on what he perceives his surroundings to be as supported by something Joy Ann Reid or Sean Hannity said. That a fact should be measured and its existence corroborated would make his head spin. Measurement and corroboration require too much work and it is much easier to rely on feelings.

There is nothing wrong with feelings and perception per se as navigation tools for moving through life as an individual. As I get older I find myself increasingly comfortable with “going with the flow” of the day, an argument, an event. Being too linear in thinking for my personal daily life is restricting, cuts off the blood flow, creating an uptightness that drives my teenager crazy sometimes.  Sometimes you just have to say, “fuck it.”

But can a society take that attitude? I have some reservations at to what a society is purposed for but will share them some other time. For now, let us stick with a standard definition of what a society is, an organized group with some interest in common or group of persons forming a single community. While as individuals our daily rules of living may differ; you may choose to stay linear, I may choose the flow. A society, if it is to stay, by definition, cohesive must follow some standard that should be followed by everyone. It is a standard arrived at via some political mechanisms and agreed upon by consensus. The agreed upon standard is basis for the political, legal, and economic reality of the community.  Manipulate the consensus and you manipulate the reality.

Take for example the issue of net neutrality. Net neutrality is a set of principles that provide for transparency in the management of broadband networks, calls for equal treatment of all traffic flowing from all websites, and ensures that consumers are able to access the legal content of any website they choose to visit. In short, net neutrality guarantees an open and democratized internet experience.  Over the past fifteen years, ever since the inception of the concept via a paper written by a law professor, net neutrality has become for millions of Americans their internet reality.

Net neutrality is an example of manipulated consensus creating a new reality. Prior to 2003, there was no “net neutrality” concept. All traffic could not, and today arguably cannot, be treated the same. Latency, speed, and bandwidth requirements differ between types of content. Video form RealNetworks in the year 2000 used more bandwidth than an email. Remember your buffering issues? In 2018 while the buffering problems have been adequately addressed to the point where we can watch a two-hour movie on our laptops, a video still uses more bandwidth than email.  But why and how did the new consensus come about, that all traffic should be treated equally, even in the face of facts regarding network management?

First the why. In the early 1990s, alternative network providers, including cable television companies, offered services where they would take a business customer’s calling traffic, route it around a telephone company’s network, and deliver the traffic to the customer’s designated location. This was called bypass.   As revenues and profits increased and technology improved, these companies started their own local telephone networks competing for residential as well as business traffic. In these early local telephone competition days, the traffic that new entrants handed off to incumbent telephone companies was less than the traffic the new entrants received from incumbents. Instead of paying each other for the traffic they exchanged, they decided to merely keep the revenues they received from their own subscribers.

Competitors became increasingly successful and given the increased traffic they provided to the incumbents, the incumbents decided to start pursuing payments. New entrants including fledgling new content providers wanted to maintain the neutrality of payments i.e. no payment exchange, meaning that traffic should continue to be treated with neutrality. This was the beginning of the net neutrality argument.

Now, the how. Politics is about marketing to vote providers and behind good marketing is good communications. First, you make a legal and regulatory argument that neutral exchange of traffic is good policy and should be set in rule. Second, you approach regulators and the courts with this principle and try to convince them as to the feasibility, efficacy, and legality of such a rule. Lastly, to secure the rule once it has been passed, or to gain more support should the rule face roadblocks, you enlist an ignorant public with a narrative that net neutrality is about “open networks” and “freedom on the internet.” Get 4 million signatures on post cards mailed to the Federal Communications Commission and get John Oliver to go on television and skip 20 years of telecommunications history and you can change consensus on what net neutrality is really about.

So far, the efforts have put net neutrality on the political radar.  Efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to remove net neutrality rules from the books are being met in court by proponents for net neutrality rules. How it plays out, I don’t know. I do know that good politics is about effective manipulation of consensus and consensus creates the reality of net neutrality.

Time for broadband providers and Facebook to call a truce

Americans talk too much. They give up too much information on themselves. Right now, I am writing this post in a Krispy Kreme joint where a worker on break is sitting on my right yacking personal business on her smart phone. At the same time a customer is walking out of the store providing details on her travel itinerary including where she is to be picked up from and the color of the vehicle that will scoop her up.

Walk into the Kroger here in the West End Atlanta and you will gather a lot of opinions on the seemingly high prices and the budgetary stresses consumers are under. The U.S. Departments of Labor and Commerce would have a field day gathering so much consumer information.

And as the news that Bill Cosby has been convicted of sexual assault sits atop the “what’s trending” columns of social media, it will be impossible to avoid all the amateur legal and sociological assessments of the former “America’s Dad.”  Fans of Hugh Beaumont and Robert Young may be blowing sighs of relief that these two now sit alone at the top of the perch.

The current political environment provides much fodder for political commentary particularly on social media. The current occupant, as David Horowitz has observed, has had a seven second honeymoon post inauguration and is providing the left plenty to talk about. I don’t consider rumor about his wife, his philandering with prostitutes, or his fast food meal plan true political news. It is noise and in American politics that noise has become the new baseline. It is the surprise that pops out of the baseline that interests me. That is true information. How valuable those noises are is another matter.

Whether noise or baseline, Facebook is collecting and analyzing this user output, ascertaining as much user behavior as possible in order to offer up the user on an advertiser’s menu. This business model, at least in the short term, is working for Facebook as the social media firm is seeing an uptick in users and revenues. According to The Wall Street Journal, the number of Facebook users jumped to 2.2 billion while quarterly revenue jumped to $11.97 billion. It’s quarterly per share profit came in at $1.69, up from $1.04 a year ago. As I write this, Facebook shares are up 9.06% after today’s trading.  All this, according to The Journal, over a tumultuous 17 months of allegations that the company allowed Russians to abuse its platform and that its lax privacy practices allowed third parties to use its subscribers’ private data against the company’s privacy practices.

Some users have managed to share their opinions about Facebook’s privacy practices even as they continue to share cat videos, vacation schedules, and religious and political views. Facebook has been instrumental, as a supporter of net neutrality rules, in convincing some of these users to push the Federal Communications Commission to subject internet service providers (ISPs) to 20th century telephone rules in order to enforce management transparency and privacy protections for broadband subscriber data. The irony. How things have changed since the FCC passed onerous net neutrality rules in 2015 not only to see them overturned late last year but now to have Facebook be subjected to rules onerous enough to damage its business model.

Facebook could, in my opinion, do one of three things. It could continue with business as usual, taking a chance that continued user and revenue growth will buffet it against the threat of onerous regulation. On a second path it could call a truce with ISPs and together convince Congress to pass a statute containing a consumer bill of rights that provides for protection of data while codifying net neutrality principles of transparency   in network management, no blocking, and no throttling. The third path, would be market-based, where Facebook introduces a tiered service where subscribers that want added privacy protections would pay Facebook for insuring no third-party use of information.  Facebook could also “purchase” subscriber data in exchange for not using subscriber data beyond activities related to providing a better customer experience. That promise not to use customer data beyond the need for managing the CX should be equal to the very onerous telephone rules that Facebook would like seen applied to ISPs.

I would recommend Facebook go the middle route. It would ensure, in my opinion, a seamless application of privacy throughout the internet, something that past FCC chairman advocated for and the net neutrality posse cheered on.

Facebook is learning the hard way that American democracy has its spillover effect. To call for a democratized internet means Facebook must do its part to bring it about.

Happy anniversary, World Wide Web. Now, let’s go back to 1988

On 12 March 1989, Tim Berners-Lee publishes a proposal to link hypertext with transmission control protocol, the basis for the world wide web. On 6 August 1991, he launches the first web page. Prior to his proposal, the internet was pretty much a niche hideout for academics and military researchers. Berners-Lee’s proposal helped introduce ‘democracy’ to the original dark web of interconnected computers.

Democratizing digital information via open network architectures unleashed the digital demons that Mr Berners-Lee would like to see regulated today. We went from a relatively simpler system where Dr James Haywood Rolling Jr could send Dr Marshall Shepherd samples of research that could add artistic flavor to the otherwise drab depiction of weather patterns, to the current system where an 18-year old dressed in psychedelic garb can do the booty clap in front of a smartphone and send the images live from Accra. Using this information, the Digital Daemons, i.e. #Facebook#Google, and #Twitter, can create profiles based on every ‘like’ the booty clapper receives and market services and products to consumers.

Closer inspection of the history of the world wide web and Mr Berners-Lee’s criticism of today’s social media/social network companies exposes a downside of the premise that the Digital Daemons are negatively impacting global connectivity via the internet. Mr Berners-Lee is concerned that the one-half of the planet currently not connected to the internet may be at a disadvantage culturally and economically and that connecting to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that is the world wide web may be the developing world’s salvation.

Ironically, it is that arrogant premise that the world needs to be connected to a single standard that drove European colonial expansion across the globe and spawned a global financial system anchored by the Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund to replace the colonizer when Europe entered its post-World War II decline. Whether he realizes it or not, Mr Berners-Lee’s liberal position on digital connectivity is steeped in the European DNA for conquest.

If Mr Berners-Lee and other progressives are so bloody concerned about the negative impact the Digital Daemons are having on access to and distribution of information, they should push for an internet that existed pre-1989 where communities of value-based information exchangers created their own databases, and protocols and criteria for membership in these groups. Ironically, under that type of scenario, application of net neutrality rules based on Title II of the Communications Act would be valid because the administrators and owners of the databases could more easily be defined as consumers of telecommunications in some type of corporate form.

Sometimes you have to go back to your past to find a solution to a current dilemma. Happy Anniversary, World Wide Web.