Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Bret Swanson on Structural Separation
I used to be more in tune with the George Gilder camp when the separation of content and carriage was front and center. Gilder protégé Bret Swanson, writing in the Discovery Institute's technology blog, disses the idea of structural separation, sneering, "Too bad [Isenberg's] stupid network is no longer an ironic figure of speech."
It never was a figure of speech. It meant that the network did not have services or know what it was carrying! It just delivered the bits, stupid.
Swanson is right when he says that, "Digital technology and abundant bandwidth is pushing in this direction [structural separation] over the long term . . . All industries undergo waves of vertical integration or disaggregation, depending on the economics of the era's technology." But what he doesn't say is that this can be facilitated or retarded by investors, governments, telcos and/or netheads.
[Note: the Discovery Institute crowd invokes similar rhetoric on climate change -- hey the climate of the Earth changes and it always has -- but then the Discovery explanation stops, implying that humans didn't cause the current emergency (What emergency?) and can't do anything to stop it.]
Then Swanson says, "Imposing the rigid end-result of 'structural separation' on such a dynamic, evolutionary, and tricky business environment as the Internet via blunt legislation from Washington would yield catastrophe. It would stop much-needed fiber-optic and wireless investment in its tracks . . . "
If he had understood my story about Unbundled Network Elements, he might have come to the opposite conclusion: when a regulatory intervention opens a market opportunity, investment dollars **rush** in! And, conversely, when market opportunities close, investment dollars disappear.
The same forces that closed UNEs are at work to close the Internet to the Petri dish conditions that gave birth to Utube, Second Life, Facebook, MySpace and your blog.
Swanson has the temerity to use the word, "evolutionary" without caveats. When somebody from the Discovery Institute says that, watch out!
It never was a figure of speech. It meant that the network did not have services or know what it was carrying! It just delivered the bits, stupid.
Swanson is right when he says that, "Digital technology and abundant bandwidth is pushing in this direction [structural separation] over the long term . . . All industries undergo waves of vertical integration or disaggregation, depending on the economics of the era's technology." But what he doesn't say is that this can be facilitated or retarded by investors, governments, telcos and/or netheads.
[Note: the Discovery Institute crowd invokes similar rhetoric on climate change -- hey the climate of the Earth changes and it always has -- but then the Discovery explanation stops, implying that humans didn't cause the current emergency (What emergency?) and can't do anything to stop it.]
Then Swanson says, "Imposing the rigid end-result of 'structural separation' on such a dynamic, evolutionary, and tricky business environment as the Internet via blunt legislation from Washington would yield catastrophe. It would stop much-needed fiber-optic and wireless investment in its tracks . . . "
If he had understood my story about Unbundled Network Elements, he might have come to the opposite conclusion: when a regulatory intervention opens a market opportunity, investment dollars **rush** in! And, conversely, when market opportunities close, investment dollars disappear.
The same forces that closed UNEs are at work to close the Internet to the Petri dish conditions that gave birth to Utube, Second Life, Facebook, MySpace and your blog.
Swanson has the temerity to use the word, "evolutionary" without caveats. When somebody from the Discovery Institute says that, watch out!
Technorati Tags: Content-Conduit, GeorgeGilder, Science, Stupid Network
Comments:
Post a Comment
