Did Net Neutrality Just Kill the Possibility of a Free Internet, or Pave the Way for It?

Harvard Law Professor Jonathan Zittrain dissects the recent FCC net neutrality decision and asks whether it's nearly as earth-shattering as many of us suppose.

Jonathan Zittrain: Recently the FCC took another swing at what's loosely called net neutrality. I guess I'd count myself among those who are not sure it's an earth-shattering deal. It shouldn't come as that much of a surprise that a chairman of the FCC who is a former head of the Cable Television Association and the Wireless Association is not done anything that's going to bring anything down. I guess what's most notable about the rules as they're coming down again is they're applying to wireless; that had been left off the table by rules that were in place from 2010 to 2014. But I suspect that most internet service providers can live within these rules. The long-term question is going to be to what extent internet service providers feel they need to earn money through something other than cash-and-carry delivery of what we think of as generic broadband. You know, "We're just going to give you good bandwidth; you're going to pay for it; have fun out there," is the internet service provider of the traditional vain.

If they're wanting to cut a bunch of what you might think of as more interesting deals, well wait a minute maybe we'll charge more for one particular provider, like Google, to have to reach our eyeballs of our subscribers and Google can pay for that. And maybe, this is the ideal case for this kind of argument that net neutrality doesn't allow, maybe it will even turn out that we can offer free internet access to people. They'll pay nothing per month because it will get paid for, subsidized, on the other side as the Google's of the world pay to beat a path to the door of our subscribers. That might be a good idea. The thing is that the number of outs that involve some form of differential pricing, of being very canny about whose bits are coming from where and going to where and whether those will be treated differently or charged differently, more frequently I think would not result in free internet for consumers, but in added revenue for the company that simply goes back to the shareholders and really is reflecting the fact that there isn't a lot of competition in America today for the provision of broadband.

If you live in a house and you want a fast internet connection, you don't have a ton of choices; in many places you only have one choice for who you're going to use. And at that point they don't have the same incentives that a competitive marketplace would give. And that's one reason why something like that net neutrality makes a lot of sense. It's been interesting to see that around the world there's been a laboratory for different regulatory and technical regimes for implementation of internet access. In a place like the United Kingdom they don't talk much about net neutrality because they have a regime where British Telecom, the legacy government-affiliated telephony provider is a wholesaler and then Virgin Broadband and others can resell it. And that means that if one started to get to canny, no Google for you because Google refused to pay us, their subscribers would leave and use a different ISP; even though it's all going over the same pipe, you might not need net neutrality the way that you see it shaping up in America where there isn't that open-access mandate. The third category to keep an eye out for over the years is municipal broadband. Should it be that just like governments provide roads and fill or don't fill potholes in them that municipalities might choose to offer fiber to each home? You'd pay them a flat fee and that's the end of the story.

One of the interesting artifacts of the recent FCC decision is actually overturning state-level legislative bans on municipal broadband provision that had been enacted in part at the behest of existing internet service providers that would prefer not to compete with the government to provide internet access. And we will see now maybe a couple cities in which the municipalities will have a chance to offer it as well. And I'm curious to see where that leads.


 

 

Harvard Law Professor Jonathan Zittrain dissects the recent FCC net neutrality decision and asks whether it's nearly as earth-shattering as many of us suppose. After all: The chairman of the FCC is a former head of the Cable Television Association and the Wireless Association, so it's not all that likely that what was decided is really groundbreaking. The long-term question, says Zittrain, is to what extent internet service providers will seek out different revenue streams outside of cash-and-carry delivery.

Autonomous killer robots may have already killed on the battlefield

A brief passage from a recent UN report describes what could be the first-known case of an autonomous weapon, powered by artificial intelligence, killing in the battlefield.

STM
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Autonomous weapons have been used in war for decades, but artificial intelligence is ushering in a new category of autonomous weapons.
  • These weapons are not only capable of moving autonomously but also identifying and attacking targets on their own without oversight from a human.
  • There's currently no clear international restrictions on the use of new autonomous weapons, but some nations are calling for preemptive bans.
Keep reading Show less

Is healthy sugar possible — and would you eat it?

Israeli food-tech company DouxMatok (Hebrew for "double sweet") has created a sugary product that uses 40 percent less actual sugar yet still tastes sweet.

Photo: pixel-shot / Adobe Stock
Surprising Science
  • Consumers are fed a lot of nonsense about sugar and fad diets.
  • Our bodies must consume sugar; the question is how much and in what form.
  • Companies are trying to develop healthier sugars to combat our "sugar addiction."
Keep reading Show less

Ancient megalodon shark was even bigger than estimated, finds study

A school lesson leads to more precise measurements of the extinct megalodon shark, one of the largest fish ever.

Credit: Catmando / Adobe Stock.
Surprising Science
  • A new method estimates the ancient megalodon shark was as long as 65 feet.
  • The megalodon was one of the largest fish that ever lived.
  • The new model uses the width of shark teeth to estimate its overall size.
Keep reading Show less

Meet Dr. Jennifer Doudna: she's leading the biotech revolution

She helped create CRISPR, a gene-editing technology that is changing the way we treat genetic diseases and even how we produce food.

Courtesy of Jennifer Doudna
Technology & Innovation

This article was originally published on our sister site, Freethink.

Last year, Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier became the first all-woman team to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work developing CRISPR-Cas9, the gene-editing technology. The technology was invented in 2012 — and nine years later, it's truly revolutionizing how we treat genetic diseases and even how we produce food.

CRISPR allows scientists to alter DNA by using proteins that are naturally found in bacteria. They use these proteins, called Cas9, to naturally fend off viruses, destroying the virus' DNA and cutting it out of their genes. CRISPR allows scientists to co-opt this function, redirecting the proteins toward disease-causing mutations in our DNA.

So far, gene-editing technology is showing promise in treating sickle cell disease and genetic blindness — and it could eventually be used to treat all sorts of genetic diseases, from cancer to Huntington's Disease.

The biotech revolution is just getting started — and CRISPR is leading the charge. We talked with Doudna about what we can expect from genetic engineering in the future.

This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Freethink: You've said that your journey to becoming a scientist had humble beginnings — in your teenage bedroom when you discovered The Double Helix by Jim Watson. Back then, there weren't a lot of women scientists — what was your breakthrough moment in realizing you could pursue this as a career?

Dr. Jennifer Doudna: There is a moment that I often think back to from high school in Hilo, Hawaii, when I first heard the word "biochemistry." A researcher from the UH Cancer Center on Oahu came and gave a talk on her work studying cancer cells.

I didn't understand much of her talk, but it still made a huge impact on me. You didn't see professional women scientists in popular culture at the time, and it really opened my eyes to new possibilities. She was very impressive.

I remember thinking right then that I wanted to do what she does, and that's what set me off on the journey that became my career in science.

Freethink: The term "CRISPR" is everywhere in the media these days but it's a really complicated tool to describe. What is the one thing that you wish people understood about CRISPR that they usually get wrong?

Dr. Jennifer Doudna: People should know that CRISPR technology has revolutionized scientific research and will make a positive difference to their lives.

Researchers are gaining incredible new understanding of the nature of disease, evolution, and are developing CRISPR-based strategies to tackle our greatest health, food, and sustainability challenges.

Freethink: You previously wrote in Wired that this year, 2021, is going to be a big year for CRISPR. What exciting new developments should we be on the lookout for?

Dr. Jennifer Doudna: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there were multiple teams around the world, including my lab and colleagues at the Innovative Genomics Institute, working on developing CRISPR-based diagnostics.

Traits that we could select for using traditional breeding methods, that might take decades, we can now engineer precisely in a much shorter time. — DR. JENNIFER DOUDNA

When the pandemic hit, we pivoted our work to focus these tools on SARS-CoV-2. The benefit of these new diagnostics is that they're fast, cheap, can be done anywhere without the need for a lab, and they can be quickly modified to detect different pathogens. I'm excited about the future of diagnostics, and not just for pandemics.

We'll also be seeing more CRISPR applications in agriculture to help combat hunger, reduce the need for toxic pesticides and fertilizers, fight plant diseases and help crops adapt to a changing climate.

Traits that we could select for using traditional breeding methods, that might take decades, we can now engineer precisely in a much shorter time.

Freethink: Curing genetic diseases isn't a pipedream anymore, but there are still some hurdles to cross before we're able to say for certain that we can do this. What are those hurdles and how close do you think we are to crossing them?

Dr. Jennifer Doudna: There are people today, like Victoria Gray, who have been successfully treated for sickle cell disease. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

There are absolutely still many hurdles. We don't currently have ways to deliver genome-editing enzymes to all types of tissues, but delivery is a hot area of research for this very reason.

We also need to continue improving on the first wave of CRISPR therapies, as well as making them more affordable and accessible.

Freethink: Another big challenge is making this technology widely available to everyone and not just the really wealthy. You've previously said that this challenge starts with the scientists.

Dr. Jennifer Doudna: A sickle cell disease cure that is 100 percent effective but can't be accessed by most of the people in need is not really a full cure.

This is one of the insights that led me to found the Innovative Genomics Institute back in 2014. It's not enough to develop a therapy, prove that it works, and move on. You have to develop a therapy that actually meets the real-world need.

Too often, scientists don't fully incorporate issues of equity and accessibility into their research, and the incentives of the pharmaceutical industry tend to run in the opposite direction. If the world needs affordable therapy, you have to work toward that goal from the beginning.

Freethink: You've expressed some concern about the ethics of using CRISPR. Do you think there is a meaningful difference between enhancing human abilities — for example, using gene therapy to become stronger or more intelligent — versus correcting deficiencies, like Type 1 diabetes or Huntington's?

Dr. Jennifer Doudna: There is a meaningful distinction between enhancement and treatment, but that doesn't mean that the line is always clear. It isn't.

There's always a gray area when it comes to complex ethical issues like this, and our thinking on this is undoubtedly going to evolve over time.

What we need is to find an appropriate balance between preventing misuse and promoting beneficial innovation.

Freethink: What if it turns out that being physically stronger helps you live a longer life — if that's the case, are there some ways of improving health that we should simply rule out?

Dr. Jennifer Doudna: The concept of improving the "healthspan" of individuals is an area of considerable interest. Eliminating neurodegenerative disease will not only massively reduce suffering around the world, but it will also meaningfully increase the healthy years for millions of individuals.

There is a meaningful distinction between enhancement and treatment, but that doesn't mean that the line is always clear. It isn't. — DR. JENNIFER DOUDNA

There will also be knock-on effects, such as increased economic output, but also increased impact on the planet.

When you think about increasing lifespans just so certain people can live longer, then not only do those knock-on effects become more central, you also have to ask who is benefiting and who isn't? Is it possible to develop this technology so the benefits are shared equitably? Is it environmentally sustainable to go down this road?

Freethink: Where do you see it going from here?

Dr. Jennifer Doudna: The bio revolution will allow us to create breakthroughs in treating not just a few but whole classes of previously unaddressed genetic diseases.

We're also likely to see genome editing play a role not just in climate adaptation, but in climate change solutions as well. There will be challenges along the way both expected and unexpected, but also great leaps in progress and benefits that will move society forward. It's an exciting time to be a scientist.

Freethink: If you had to guess, what is the first disease you think we are most likely to cure, in the real world, with CRISPR?

Dr. Jennifer Doudna: Because of the progress that has already been made, sickle cell disease and beta-thalassemia are likely to be the first diseases with a CRISPR cure, but we're closely following the developments of other CRISPR clinical trials for types of cancer, a form of congenital blindness, chronic infection, and some rare genetic disorders.

The pace of clinical trials is picking up, and the list will be longer next year.

Quantcast