Well, I actually didn't exactly get a chance to say quite enough for this to qualify as much of a "debate," but I was brought in roughly a half hour into this WBUR (Boston NPR affiliate) radio show featuring Jonathan Zittrain, author of the recently released: The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It. Jonathan was kind enough to suggest to the producers that I might make a good respondent to push back a bit in opposition to the thesis set forth in his new book.

Jonathan starts about 6 minutes into the show and they bring me in around 29 minutes in. Although I only got about 10 minutes to push back, I thought the show's host Tom Ashbrook did an excellent job raising many of the same questions I do in my 3-part review (Part 1, 2, 3) of Jonathan's provocative book.

In the show, I stress the same basic points I made in those reviews: (1) he seems to be over-stating things quite a bit in saying that the old "generative" Internet is "dying"; and in doing so, (2) he creates a false choice of possible futures from which we must choose. What I mean by false choice is that Jonathan doesn’t seem to believe a hybrid future is possible or desirable. I see no reason why we can’t have the best of both worlds–-a world full of plenty of tethered appliances, but also plenty of generativity and openness.

If you're interested, listen in.

I found Jaron Lanier's provocatively titled Discover magazine essay "Long Live Closed-Source Software!" quite interesting. Taking a look at the development of open source software over the past 25 years, Lanier concludes that:

Open wisdom-of-crowds software movements have become influential, but they haven’t promoted the kind of radical creativity I love most in computer science. If anything, they’ve been hindrances. Some of the youngest, brightest minds have been trapped in a 1970s intellectual framework because they are hypnotized into accepting old software designs as if they were facts of nature. Linux is a superbly polished copy of an antique, shinier than the original, perhaps, but still defined by it.

Before you write me that angry e-mail, please know I’m not anti–open source. I frequently argue for it in various specific projects. But a politically correct dogma holds that open source is automatically the best path to creativity and innovation, and that claim is not borne out by the facts.

The problem, Lanier argues, is that...

The open-source software community is simply too turbulent to focus its tests and maintain its criteria over an extended duration, and that is a prerequisite to evolving highly original things. There is only one iPhone, but there are hundreds of Linux releases. A closed-software team is a human construction that can tie down enough variables so that software becomes just a little more like a hardware chip—and note that chips, the most encapsulated objects made by humans, get better and better following an exponential pattern of improvement known as Moore’s law.

I have a new paper out this week entitled "Unplugging Plug-and-Play Regulation" in which I discuss the ongoing dispute between cable operators and the consumer electronics industry over “digital cable ready” equipment and “plug-and-play” interactive applications. Basically, it’s a fight about how various features or services available on cable systems should work, including electronic programming guides (EPGs), video-on-demand (VOD), pay-per-view (PPV) services, and other interactive television (ITV) capabilities.

This fight is now before the Federal Communications Commission where the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) has asked the agency to mandate certain standards for those next-generation interactive video services. In my paper, I argue that regulation is unwise:

Ongoing marketplace experimentation and private negotiations represent the better way to establish technical standards. There is no need for the government to involve itself in a private standard-setting dispute between sophisticated, capable industries like consumer electronics and cable. And increased platform competition, not more government regulation of cable platforms, is the better way to ensure that innovation flourishes and consumers gain access to exciting new services.

To read the entire 7-page paper, click here.

In his latest FT.com article, Tom Hazlett, professor of law and economics at George Mason University, points out that despite all the talk about the need for mandatory "openness" or wireless Net neutrality, Apple's "walled garden" i-Phone model has spawned some serious innovation. He argues:

"One million customers bought iPhones in the first 79 days; analysts project 4.5m units sold in the first year. Hosting this Apple party is a curious way for carriers to lock out innovation. It is even more remarkable that critics could configure Apple's entrepreneurship as an attack on creativity. They claim that only a device that is optimised for any application and capable of accessing any network is efficient.

They are wrong. What works best for consumers is a competitive process in which independent developers, content owners, hardware vendors and networks vie to discover preferred packages and pricing. When decision-makers compete for customers and answer to shareholders, a sophisticated balance obtains. The alternative proposition, business models voted on by regulators, is a recipe for stasis."

It hasn't even been a week since Tim Wu made such a splash with his "Wireless Net Neutrality" proposal and already a major corporation has run to the FCC asking for it to be implemented into law! (Tim, my old friend and occasional nemesis, you know how to get results!)

Today, Internet phone giant Skype filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission "to confirm a consumer's right to use Internet communications software and attach devices to wireless networks." The 32-page filing repeats many of the arguments Tim Wu made in his paper about the supposed need for regulators to step in and impose Bell System-era device attachment rules to modern cell phone operators. Specifically, Skype wants the FCC "to create an industry-led mechanism to ensure the openness of wireless networks." I'm not sure what that means but I am certain that entire forests will fall as the paperwork flies at the FCC in an attempt to interpret and implement these new regulations.

I disagree on so many levels with the Skype petition that I don't know exactly where to begin, but luckily I don't have to say much. I just need to point to the excellent critiques that my TLF colleagues and current and former PFF colleagues published last week in response to the Wu paper. Here's a sampling:

I'm listening to a Webcast of the Senate Commerce Committee's hearing on the Cyren Call proposal.

The idea, put forward by former Nextel Vice Chair Morgan O'Brien, is for Congress to take 30 MHz of (formerly analog TV) spectrum in the 700 MHz band, which is currently scheduled to be auctioned early next, and give it to a "Public Safety Broadband Trust" that would be managed by his new company, Cyren Call. Cyren Call would lease the spectrum to commercial wireless companies, which would build out a nationwide network and use it for commercial services, but public safety agencies would get to use it more or less for free.

Cyren Call has lobbied the plan on the basis that it's needed for public safety interoperability and broadband. Not surprisingly, public safety seems to think it's a great idea too. A study I co-authored (Full disclosure: It was funded by the High Tech DTV Coalition and CEA.) shows the plan isn't likely to work, for lots of reasons. (See http://www.criterioneconomics.com/news/070206.php.)

The thing I found really striking about today's hearing is that Mr. O'Brien came right out and said his real goal here is to create a new cell phone company, which (he argues) would benefit consumers. Did I miss something, or did we just go through a round of much-needed consolidation in the wireless industry? And, if things have changed and we really do need another carrier, what's stopping Cyren Call (or anyone else) from buying the spectrum at the auction?

The history of farming the FCC for free spectrum is long and sordid. Auctions seem to have gotten the problem under control. Hopefully, Mr. O'Brien's laudable candor will help Congress to see the Cyren Call plan for what it is.

With the CES in full-swing in Las Vegas and the "gee whiz, isn't this stuff cool" stories, the question all these would-be digital age titans are chasing is: what do consumers want?

As a professional consumer and non-technoid gadget freak, I'll tell you what I want: seamlessly integrated, intuitive, plug-and-play platforms. That's why I am writing this blog on a powerbook, enjoy the iPod, despite the price premiums for both. Apple accomplishes this consumer-friendliness and commands its premiums by pursuing a heretical strategy to openness devotees: its platforms are relatively closed and rather tightly integrated. That way it gets to ensure interoperability and seamlessness in its products. It also compels competition against its entire platform -- vertically and horizontally.

Kudos to Robert Cresanti, the exceedingly capable vice president for public policy with the Business Software Alliance. President Bush has selected him to be Undersecretary of Commerce for Technology, and has already sent the nomination to the Senate. The Senate should be expedient in approving his nomination, because it's hard to imagine someone with a better grasp of both technology and the appropriate role of government.

I first learned of Cresanti when he was guiding the Senate's approach to the Year 2000 problem. (To those who say that was much ado about nothing -- maybe it turned out to be nothing because of all the preparatory work done?) I first met him when he left the Hill and joined the Information Technology Association of America. I have always found him to be informed and honest. He'll be replacing Phil Bond, who also is extremely informed and capable. I'm not convinced, however, that this Administration fully utilized Bond and another departed Commerce official I admire, Bruce Mehlman. Here's hoping the Administration will recognize the strengths of Cresanti and give him the latitude he needs to work with the private sector in important areas such as standards and security.

Microsoft and Yahoo can do it. The Internet backbone providers can do it. Maybe someday the legacy communications world can grow up enough to catch this digital trend.

This week juxtaposed calls by Congress [TRDaily subscription required] to shore up interoperability of public safety communications shown lacking by Hurricane Katrina and an update from Vonage [TRDaily subscription required] that 97% of its customers say they know whether they can "dial 911" for emergency help, as recently required by the FCC. This, and the threat that Internet voice providers may have to disconnect customers who don't respond to the 911 inquiry later this month, dramatized some of the trade-offs related to imposing public safety and other "social" obligations.