Jeff Chester: 'Big Media Companies Are a Threat to the Internet'
The head of the Center for Digital Democracy warns that Big Media's control of the broadband Internet will "severely damage the vitality of the digital world."

I Want Media, 06/12/01

Jeff Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a Center for Media Education spin-off group that is working to secure open access to new information technologies. An outspoken figure on media policy issues, Chester was named by Newsweek as one of the 50 People Who Matter Most on the Internet. I Want Media spoke with Chester about what matters most to him about the Internet, namely open access.

I Want Media: Do you believe that the Web's role as a forum of free information is in jeopardy?

Jeff Chester: No question about it. The biggest threat is from major media and telecommunication companies who are fundamentally changing the open architecture of the Internet. The Internet was founded as a nondiscriminatory network where no single entity would be able to slow down, speed up or distort communications. But that was the dial-up Internet. As the Internet moves to broadband, network operators are given more control over content flow.

Cable is becoming a major provider of broadband services for most Americans. And now there is a growing danger that cable operators will use their control of this closed network to fundamentally change the way the Internet operates. For example, Charter Communications, a major cable operator, tried to limit the amount of streaming programming ESPN could make available over the Internet. In essence, these cable TV giants are creating tollbooths online that will impact both content providers and users.

IWM: So, your chief concern is primarily the issue of access?

Chester: The open-access qualities of the dial-up Internet led to the creation of more than 7,000 Internet service providers. Because there is so much competition, one can be assured of reasonable costs. But with broadband, cable is a closed network, so we're really dealing with a monopoly situation.

IWM: Isn't commercialization of the Internet inevitable?

Chester: Nobody's saying that the Net shouldn't be commercial. What we're saying is that we need to ensure the Internet is truly competitive in a commercial context.

The Internet is much more than just a commercial medium. It's sort of a central nervous system of our global society, and it needs to embrace both commercial and noncommercial content. It should serve the PTAs and the Little League teams as well as start-up businesses and the global giants.

The problem is that the nation's leading "old" media companies are chaining the Internet to their business models. They want to make sure they control the content flow. They want to give their content, brands and applications premium service while relegating everyone else, including competitors, to less favorable terms. Ultimately, it's going to severely damage the vitality of the digital world.

IWM: Won't "walled content" and free content be able to cohabit the Net simultaneously?

Chester: We have to be very concerned about "walled gardens," particularly given the control over the architecture and network access that these broadband operators have. There's nothing wrong with offering users select access to content. But because there are no open-access safeguards, a company like AOL Time Warner could simply rig the architecture so that one can never get out from behind that wall. Increasingly, as more users go online, they may think that the "walled-garden" version of the Internet -- Internet Lite, I call it -- is, in fact, the Internet.

Our concern is that these companies will use their control over the network architecture to not give the same functionality to others' services. These companies have to be held accountable. They are not in charge of the Internet, no matter how powerful they are. At stake is potentially the most participatory medium ever created. Within the next few weeks we're launching a campaign to tell Washington that we want to see a national policy for open access.

IWM: Do you see big media companies as a threat to the Internet as we know it?

Chester: Yes, they're absolutely a threat to the Internet, because these companies are using their political muscle to stop the FCC from having a safeguard to keep the Internet open and nondiscriminatory. They're opposed to it because the business model of these media giants is about controlling the user experience. It's not about real competition or diversity of expression.

IWM: How realistic is it to, as you say, hold these big companies accountable?

Chester: There are millions of people online who want to see the Internet remain a vital, open and competitive network. As our campaign rolls out, and people begin to understand the threats from this anti-Internet behavior, we expect a rising tide of protest. Could this campaign flop? Absolutely. But we intend to try to bring some balance to this debate.

IWM: If you had the opportunity, what would you say to FCC Chairman Michael Powell?

Chester: Michael Powell never met a media company he didn't want to deregulate. He has basically said to the public-interest community: "Provide me with analysis and research about why any of these rules that promote competition and diversity are necessary. Otherwise, I'm going to get rid of them." Michael Powell has placed the intellectual burden on the public. He needs to take a close look at this emerging market himself and then make the right decisions.

My statement to Michael Powell is: "You're selling the public short and harming the Internet through such knee-jerk actions that help the biggest media companies in the country."

IWM: Does media consolidation hurt the average consumer?

Chester: As media companies get larger and take on more debt, they have to pass on those costs to consumers. That's why AT&T, Comcast, Cox and others have recently announced DSL price increases. And, of course, media consolidation reduces diversity of expression. You end up with a homogeneous, copycat kind of news environment that doesn't provide the depth of analysis essential to support a participatory democratic society.

IWM: Where do you hope the Internet will be in five years?

Chester: In five years I hope we will have an Internet architecture that allows media giants to thrive but sustains many more voices, both commercial and noncommercial. Will these big media companies stop using their political muscle in Washington to thwart expression and come out as the Net's savior? Or, is it too late? It could be the latter. But we intend to give them a run for their mega-dollar.



Previous Media People interviews.