Photo courtesy of Barbara van Schewick
This afternoon, Nora interviewed Stanford Law prof Barbara van Schewick about her new book, Internet Architecture and Innovation. In it, Barbara explains why the internet has been so good at fostering good ideas, and why online innovation is at risk as the internet’s architecture changes. A shorter version of this interview will air on Spark 132, but you can hear the full, uncut interview below, or download the MP3. [runs 38:29]
Play audio:
If you like hearing these extended interviews, why not subscribe to Spark Plus? You’ll get regular weekly episodes, plus additional blog-only content like this. [Subscribe via RSS] or [Subscribe with iTunes]
- Internet Architecture and Innovation at Amazon.ca
- Internet Architecture and Innovation at Chapters
- Internet Architecture and Innovation at LibraryThing
Great choice of interview subject. Her economic treatment of distributed innovation outperforming quality-control-based processes is among the best I've heard. At any layer of abstraction, that's the story of the Internet.
I'm hoping Barbara's soundbyte about application-blind networks reaches the ears of more cyberlaw people. Making a stand at ISPs' license to spy inside packets is a masterful way to lift fog from the net neutrality debate. Plus, as Gary Ohm suggested, this approach eases in a strategic alliance between net neutrality and privacy.
Forty minute interview? You spoil me, Spark!
I've listened to a lot of "economists" over the years, but this is the first time I've ever heard the term market failure. It's so easy to get the impression that market systems are all about homogenization and monopolies as a natural thing all markets actively strive for (much to our chagrin). To think about it again knowing that there is a such definable thing as market failure upon those grounds almost sounds too good to be true — especially in regards to net neutrality.
Thanks for a great interview! Professor Schewcik succinctly and clearly expresses the need for network neutrality.
I would add another technique large ISPs used to blunt competition. The long-term commitment – where an ISP offers an incentive (introductory rate, "free" modem and/or installation, bonus item, et cetera) for a multi-year "contract". Of course the "contract" only binds the consumer. The ISP makes no reciprocal commitment to the consumer, they may change their network "management" practices, introduce bandwidth or other limits, even increase rates. If the consumer doesn't like the service or sees a more attractive offer s/he is trapped in the contract or must pay an egregious termination penalty. Another example of the ISPs putting their own interests first
It's a scam they developed in the mobile telephone business – another hotbed of pseudo-competition.
Ms. van Schewick’s defense of the FCC’s new, unwarranted regulation of the Internet is understandable when placed in context. The regulations appear to be exactly what Internet monopolist Google – to which Ms. van Schewick is indebted not only for helping to advance her career but also for substantial portions of her paycheck – wanted.
However, the fact is that the regulations exceed the statutory power of the FCC, and will likely be overturned – if not by Congress, then by the courts. And this is a good thing, because the regulations – were they to be enforceable – would stifle innovation, raise the price of broadband service, decrease the quality of service, discourage investment and deployment, and destroy jobs. (In fact, the mere threat of them, when the FCC first proposed such regulations, immediately did impact investment.)
Worse still, the regulations would shore up Google’s multiple Internet monopolies by prohibiting the sale of services (including paid prioritization) which new startups would want to purchase so as to challenge Google. This would certainly not benefit the public, but it would benefit Ms. van Shewick’s patron, Google – which appears to be the motivation for her strident arguments in favor of it.
bravo spark… I really enjoyed your interview with Barbara van Schewick. The internet is yet another example of how the capitalist model has serious limitations. The internet must remain free and open. We must fiercely protect this revolutionary medium. Information is the lifeblood of humanity/democracy and creativity.
I just heard this interview over the radio and thoroughly enjoyed it. This brought up some really good points that I, as an Internet user have been sensing, but have had difficulty putting into words.
Interesting interview but a most peculiar accent. Is she a non-native speaker? It sounds a bit like a poorly executed speech generator. Almost unbearable to listen to. One has to sympathize with her students.
(Wish IntenseDebate allowed me to subscribe to comments without posting. I added my 2c to the main episode, so won't repeat here).
Hmm. I'm able to subscribe to individual post comment feeds w/o commenting. For instance, here's the comment feed for this post: http://intensedebate.com/postRSS/66514147
Dan, where'd you get that link for subscribing to comment feeds?
Right at the top of the comments section. On the upper right hand side, there's an RSS icon w/ dropdown.
Hey, lookit that! Thanks!
Are transcripts available for any of your interviews? This is an important issue, but I have *many* friends who'd rather spend 15 minutes (if that – <sigh>) reading about it than 40 minutes listening to it.