Well, here we go again. Harvard's Jonathan Zittrain has penned another gloomy essay about how "freedom is at risk in the cloud" and the future of the Internet is in peril because nefarious digital schemers like Apple, Facebook, and Google are supposedly out to lock you into their services and take away your digital rights. And so, as I have done here many times before, I will offer a response arguing that Jonathan's cyber-Chicken Little-ism is largely unwarranted.

Zittrain's latest piece is entitled "Lost in the Cloud" and it appears in today's New York Times. It closely tracks the arguments he has set forth in his book The Future of the Internet-And How to Stop It, which I named the most important technology policy book of 2008, but not because I agreed with its central thesis. Zittrain's book and his new NYT essay are the ultimate exposition of Lessigite technological pessimism. I don't know what they put in the water up at the Berkman Center to make these guys so remarkably cranky and despondent about the future of of the Internet, but starting with Lawrence Lessig's Code in 1999 and running through to Zittrain's Future of the Internet we have been forced to endure endless Tales of the Coming Techno-Apocalypse from these guys. Back in the late 90s, Prof. Lessig warned us that AOL and some other companies would soon take over the new digital frontier since "Left to itself, cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control." Ah yes, how was it that we threw off the chains of our techno-oppressors and freed ourselves from that wicked walled garden hell? Oh yeah, we clicked our mouses and left! And that was pretty much the end of AOL's "perfect control" fantasies. [See my recent debate with Prof. Lessig over at Cato Unbound for more about this "illusion of perfect control," as I have labeled it.]

But Zittrain is the equivalent of the St. Peter upon which the Church of Lessigism has been built and, like any good disciple, he's still vociferously preaching to the unconverted and using fire and brimstone sermons to warn of our impending digital damnation. In fact, he's taken it to all new extremes. In Future of the Internet, Jonathan argues that we run the risk of seeing the glorious days of the generative, open Net and digital devices give way to more "sterile, tethered devices" and closed networks. The future that he hopes to "stop" is one in which Apple, TiVo, Facebook, and Google -- the central villains in his drama -- are supposedly ceded too much authority over our daily lives because of a combination of (a) their wicked ways and (b) our ignorant ones.

Over at the Verizon Policy Blog, Link Hoewing has a sharp piece up entitled, "Of Business Models and Innovation." He makes a point that I have often stressed in my debates with Zittrain and Lessig, namely, that the whole "open vs. closed" debate is typically greatly overstated or misunderstood. Hoewing correctly argues that:

The point is not that open or managed models are always better or worse. The point is that there is no one "right" model for promoting innovation. There are examples of managed and open business models that have been both good for innovation and bad for it. There are also examples of managed and open models that have both succeeded and failed. The point is in a competitive market to let companies develop business models they believe will serve consumers best and see how things play out.

Exactly right. Moreover, the really important point here is that there exists a diverse spectrum of innovative digital alternatives from which to choose. Along the "open vs. closed" spectrum, the range of digital technologies and business models continues to grow and grow in both directions. Do you want wide-open, tinker-friendly devices, sites, or software? You got it. Do you want a more closed, simple, and safe online experience? You can have that, too. And there are plenty of choices in between.

This is called progress!

"Hasn't Steve Jobs learned anything in the last 30 years?" asks Farhad Manjoo of Slate in an interesting piece about "The Cell Phone Wars" currently raging between Apple's iPhone and the Google's new G1, Android-based phone. Manjoo wonders if whether Steve Jobs remembers what happen the last time he closed up a platform: "because Apple closed its platform, it was IBM, Dell, HP, and especially Microsoft that reaped the benefits of Apple's innovations." Thus, if Jobs didn't learn his lesson, will he now with the iPhone? Manjoo continues: Well, maybe he has--and maybe he's betting that these days, "openness" is overrated. For one thing, an open platform is much more technically complex than a closed one. Your Windows computer crashes more often than your Mac computer because--among many other reasons--Windows has to accommodate a wider variety of hardware. Dell's machines use different hard drives and graphics cards and memory chips than Gateway's, and they're both different from Lenovo's. The Mac OS, meanwhile, has to work on just a small range of Apple's rigorously tested internal components--which is part of the reason it can run so smoothly. And why is your PC glutted with viruses and spyware? The same openness that makes a platform attractive to legitimate developers makes it a target for illegitimate ones. I discussed these issues in greater detail in my essay on"Apple, Openness, and the Zittrain Thesis" and in a follow-up essay about how the Apple iPhone 2.0 was cracked in mere hours. My point in these and other essays is that the whole "open vs. closed" dichotomy is greatly overplayed. Each has its benefits and drawbacks, but there is no reason we need to make a false choice between the two for the sake of "the future of the Net" or anything like that. In fact, the hybrid world we live in -- full of a wide variety of open and proprietary platforms, networks, and solutions -- presents us with the best of all worlds. As I argued in my original review of Jonathan Zittrain's book, "Hybrid solutions often make a great deal of sense. They offer creative opportunities within certain confines in an attempt to balance openness and stability." It's a sign of great progress that we now have different open vs. closed models that appeal to different types of users. It's a false choice to imagine that we need to choose between these various models.

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.