Blog #4: Giving the underdogs a chance

Ed. note: This is one of three blog entries that I didn't write by its initial deadline.

---

In the January 2007 issue of Wired magazine, Lawrence Lessig takes on the Department of Justice ruling against Microsoft and its OS monopoly in "I Blew It on Microsoft" (Source).

In 1997, Lessig says, the US Department of Justice filed an antitrust case against Microsoft. Four years later, the US Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the OS giant had unfairly (and illegally) used its size, power and market domination to maintain its hold on said market. Its aggressive behavior in the market, the courts asserted, minimized new efforts from the competition. Lessig contests that the Dept. of Justice was hesitant to file a lawsuit, but that it collectively admits it had no idea how to otherwise rein in Microsoft and its Windows-based monopoly. Potential competitors asked for restraint from the US government. If they wouldn't step in, who would?

Lessig goes on to say that it was a difficult issue to address in the first place. He indicates that Microsoft Windows was in the lead in the OS market because an OS is a standard and that "over time, one tends to dominate." It would seem that it is in a business' best interest to continue to be the best, one might argue (and Lessig does). Could the government stand a chance against a business model? And how do you regulate a giant like Microsoft?

Lessig reluctantly wanted to regulate the big businesses. He also figured the market would take care of it, as the natural cycle of the market is wont to do. But, he admits, he is a lawyer, and wasn't trained to see things in the light of "how will this make me money?" In a way, he indicates, this is where the underdogs like Linux come into play. Sure, they aren't commercially a huge success, but they had figured out how to create a system where everyone was a volunteer and no one had absolute power over said system.

It's neo-socialism in an open source world. (My words, my interpretation, not his.)

He ties all this into the still-ongoing "network neutrality" debate that still pops up on the radar today. Again, Lessig runs into the issue of being a reluctant regulator on how networks determine was is and isn't going over their wires. And it seems unlikely that any new underdog developer will come from behind to completely overtake the popularity of such services providers as AT&T.

That being said, he admits, there are "forces mucking up the game" for those who would seek a monopoly on access to the Interwebs. Linux-like volunteers and local governments are establishing neutral networks where anyone and everyone can work to further "blisteringly fast" broadband networks. Many more volunteers are building free wireless protocols that are legal and don't shift control to the bigger parties.

These activists, as Lessig calls them, recognize the truth in an economic principle: private ventures owned by users create different business models.

Lessig remains skeptical as to whether or not these homegrown ventures stand a chance at checking the powers-that-be or powers-to-come, but also points out that they at least have the big guys scurrying to encourage states to shut down these municipal broadband providers.

So, Lessig says, those who oppose net-neutrality regulation a la Microsoft and the OS market should oppose the regulation of last-mile broadband's most important competitor: the little guys. "Municipal competition won't kill commercial broadband any more than Linux has killed Windows," he says, and I agree 100%. But just as Linux may have changed the business model of Microsoft, so could city government competition with last-mile broadband.

After all of that, Lessig's argument boils down to this: If we want the broadband system and its business models to be self-regulating -- from today through tomorrow as we had desired in the recent past -- then the government cannot interfere and label these underdog ventures as crime. The government must not regulate from a legal standpoint; rather, they would do well to allow the market to regulate itself as developers come and go and come up with innovative approaches to issues such as widespread network access. To interfere on behalf of Big Business, as Big Business is frantically wishing to happen, would allow the Big Business monopolies to thrive and continue their vise-like grip on the market.

I think that this is an issue that is pertinent even today, particularly with the development and dispersal of services such as Google WiFi. It even could tie into the contract-based monopoly AT&T has with Apple's iPhone service. It seems worth noting, though, that underdogs figured out how to jailbreak the formerly service-bound phones to bring them to other networks. This has not gone without notice, as Apple is claiming that jailbreaking the devices could pose a threat to national security (Source).

Who knew AT&T and Apple took its competition so seriously? The act of jailbreaking and unlocking a phone must pose more of a threat from the underdogs than we give credit.

Or it could just be an attempt from the Big Guys to shut down the Little Guys before they get too far with their development of removing the tethers of crappy service and sharing that fire with the rest of the world. Since when has competition done Big Business any favors, anyway?