On Citizens, Subscribers, Consumers, Owners, Users, Producers: What's in a Name? An Identity

My personal view is that the pendulum has swung too far over to the protectionist / conservative / big corporation side, not only favoring the haves over the have nots, but also the preservation of the old over the incubation of the new. When did we become so timid and where did our vision and statesmanship go? While this assessment can apply to many industries and aspects of our lives today, the time is ripe in particular for a re-evaluation of our national approach to telecommunications and connectivity infrastructure, one of our largest and most important industries today.

In short, we deserve a national conversation on this important topic. I think it's time for a new revolution, so much has technological change shifted the deck and changed the balance equation. I draw inspiration from our forefathers, but I don't equate our struggle with theirs. Our nation's citizens today have the freedom to choose to remain subscribers to telecom services, as consumers paying out of their household budgets for an array of new voice and data services. Many will be content to continue on with the status quo. Others will choose to evaluate a new paradigm where they own their own networks and enjoy greater freedom to both consume from the marketplace, but also produce and sell into the marketplace. If we acknowledge this as an alternate path, how will it start?

Change on this front won't be easy, and it will be resisted fiercely by the powers that be, on both the private and public side, who have a tremendous investment in the status quo. Talk about dyanmic tension! I believe the incumbents have begun to represent more of the problem than the solution when they act in their own self interest, as they are bound to. As the debate continues over a new Telecommunications Act in Washington, for instance, there's a distinct feeling that the fox has gotten into the henhouse. Can the FCC and the Congress really act dispassionately on behalf of the long-term national interest, given the tremendous amount of political influence that big telecom and cable companies represent? Have they so far?

What does the history of the Federal Telecom Act of 1996 teach us? It promoted competition and instead we got consolidation and a return of a monopoly. Given the innovation and creativity born of current unlicensed spectrum, do any of us expect the FCC to make more unlicensed spectrum available to foster more innovation, or will the spectrum be auctioned off to large companies? Why does the tremendous amount of revenue collected under the Universal Service Fund flow disproportionately to the established telecom providers? Why are the telecom incumbents not held accountable for their failure to fulfill their promises to roll out broadband infrastructure over the past decade? Where is accountability in this equation? What have we the people received lately in exchange for our tax credits, government subsidies, and use of the public airwaves? What leaders are asking these questions? Why aren't more of us connecting the dots and dreaming of new solutions?

My focus on this website, as well as WikiMetroNet and MetroNanoNet and in my consultant practice has been to educate and equip a broad array of interested parties with information and insight to think about new forms of communication infrastructure, wireless mesh broadband in particular, and practical tools to get started. The sooner we act to test out new technologies and business models, the sooner we will benefit from the value of our infrastructure. My recommendation is to go simple and small with the MetroNanoNet model, described here and here.

Since I began blogging I've drawn a tremendous amount of energy and wisdom from great and innovative thinkers like Om Malik, Bob Cringely, Martin Geddes, and most recently, Bob Frankston, as well as a host of others. They all do a much better job than I could on the high-level topics that ask "Why does it have to be this way?", protesting policy, etc. Instead, my chosen role has evolved to fill a missing niche by answering the question "How do we get from here to there?" What are the painstaking details that can get the ball rolling?

In the past few days, I've read and reread Bob Cringely's June 29 post "If we build it they will come: It's time to own our own last mile," and then I read a great deal of Bob Frankston's essays and articles. In a nutshell, they came to much the same conclusion I have over the past six months:

1. Connectivity infrastructure ownership and operations should be split from access and content services to ensure a level, fair playing field and optimal market conditions.
2. Local connectivity is a commodity / utility that should be achieved in the most efficient manner, most expeditiously.
3. The end consumer should own the infrastructure.
4. Splitting the tremendous capital costs of building out our nation's infrastructure into millions of small pieces, so that individual investors can handle their piece and make a contribution, is a road out of our current dilemma.
5. The federal government could/should do that, but when would that happen, if ever, and would it not be compromised into a gift for the incumbents, as so much other legislation is wont to do?
6. The fact is that while enlighted governmental action would help, we don't need any government as an intermediary, given today's technologies.
7. We have what we need to get started, we just need to get started!

I started out an avid promoter of municipal wireless, (and critic of status-quo obstructionist incumbent behemoths), but have since tried to shed the negatives of criticizing the status quo. I've become more enamored of building bridges and lighting candles, primarily by promoting broader participation by the body public through smaller network units, with a more peripheral role for government at all levels.

My conclusion is that the system is broken and that the people of the United States are in need of a Connectivity Declaration of Independence. While our situation pales in comparison to that of our forefathers, nevertheless we can learn from their initative and deliberate action. The best interests of individual citizens are not at the heart of the current debate. New technology has enabled, and will continue to enable alternatives to the traditional paradigm, but few of us are aware of the potential or able to take action on our own. We need to work together, as they did 230 years ago. We need a plan. We need a vision. We need to start by acknowledging that the rules of the game have changed, and we have an opportunity to fend for ourselves, to be independent. Some will agree, many will not. But any change must start with a conversation, with everything on the table.