Doc’s posted a great (and longish) piece on saving our Internet. He cogently lays out the threats from the carriers.

His solution is important and right but, I’m afraid, not enough. Changing how we speak — reframing the issues — takes longer than we have. Plus, this particular framing is entangled with deep and deeply-motivated cognitive-economic systems being driven by the most powerful frame-makers in our culture: The media and government. So, yes, reframe! Never ever ever utter the phrase “intellectual property” again, for example. But I fear that we need much more than that much faster.

My positive proposal? Join me in my trough of despair.

Although yesterday, after giving two interviews in which I was relentlessly hopeless — heartbroken is actually the more accurate term — about the Net’s future, two people said things that gave me a little hope.

Chris Nolan believes that wifi will become enough of a consumer (sorry, Doc!) issue that Congress won’t be able to enact a new telco act that outlaws wifi sharing.

Then I talked with Charlie Nesson of the Berkman who made a case for universities becoming such a bastion of the open Internet and the intertwingling of knowledge that they make it impossible to close our Internet. The could be champions of our Net.

Speaking of universities, Frank Paynter a couple of days ago said he wished the university libraries would take more of the brunt of the challenge to Google Print than Google is. Google is, after all, a public company and many distrust it. It would indeed be very very interesting if Harvard, Oxford, the Univ. of Michigan, etc., were to offer their copies of Google Print’s scans to the public as appropriate. I agree with Frank: I’d rather see the Author’s Guild sue the Harvard Library than Google only because Harvard is out to educate people, not to make money for its shareholders. [Tags: DocSearls SaveOurInternet ChrisNolan CharlieNesson FrankPaynter google GoglePrint berkman]

Categories: Uncategorized dw