What lessons should we learn from the fabulous success of Netscape's initial public offering (IPO), and from the amazing attention garnered (generated?) by the roll-out of Windows 95 and Microsoft Network? What do these events tell us about ourselves, about what we have become and about where we might be going? Have we just heard the first roar from the Internet community as it enters its teenage years, or are we hearing instead the spirit and message of that community from much more established voices? Do these sorts of extravaganzas constitute progress, or are they well-disguised catchings-up or even steps backward? Complicated questions all, with different answers in each case. But, these events do seem to have a least one common denominator that is worth identifying and considering.
It is no more complicated than this: power may attract some people, but access sells to all people. To be sure, Netscape is a powerful, attractive piece of software. But, the Netscape story is about access to the financial future of a company that's made a great start on the "killer application" of access to the World Wide Web . . . which implies, in the minds of most people, access to the entire Internet. It's a triple play!? And, no matter how attractive and powerful they may be, the story of Windows 95 and the Microsoft Network is convenient "plug and play" access to advanced operating system features and the Internet by the other 80 percent of personal computer users on Earth. We now live in a world in which products that offer easier access to existing networked resources and services are leading the way. And, the differences between basic research, applied research, development and production, which have always been somewhat hazy in the Internet environment, are beginning to be clear.
"Who can I reach, and what can I access?" are the first two questions asked by most prospective Internet users, be they potential producers or consumers. For most of this year "offensive people and materials" is the only answer to these questions offered by politicians, pundits and the popular media. The pervasiveness of this negative picture has given pause to many parents, teachers and others. Netscape, Windows 95 and Microsoft Network are technologies that create new interest in positive, encouraging, even compelling answers to these questions. They take us back to why we are working on a new global information infrastructure (GII) in the first place. They speak to the actual experience of most contemporary Internet users. They also reset the stage for figuring out what "universal service" and "universal access" mean in the new networked environment, and what the respective roles of the public and private sectors should be in ensuring both.
There is a problem here, though. The lessons of the Netscape IPO and the roll-out of Windows 95 and Microsoft Network are very positive for the diffusion of GII opportunities (universal service). These technologies provide a common set of tools that will lead to commonly shared experiences (as well as options for upgrading and migrating) for the overwhelming majority of personal computer users. The lessons for innovation of GII capabilities (universal access) are not this positive. The concern is particularly keen in the case of Windows 95 and its bundling with Microsoft Network. The level of concern in that case has skyrocketed since the roll-out because it's become generally known that installing Microsoft Network on one's personal computer effectively deinstalls competing services already installed there. The U.S. Department of Justice is now at the center of a gathering storm of debate over whether Microsoft's leveraging of its dominance in one sector (operating systems) to create promising positions in other sectors (Internet access, resources and services) is a fair trade practice that serves the interests of the nation as a whole.
The Congress is no stranger to the "market power" issue. It is one of the most difficult sticking points in the effort to enact telecommunications reform legislation. The President has also threatened to veto any legislation that addresses this issue in the way that the bill passed by the House of Representatives does, which he finds seriously flawed for a number of reasons. To simplify matters, the Congress and the President want to make sure that firms that have enjoyed positions as regulated, monopoly providers of local and regional telephone services do not unfairly convert that power to dominant positions as providers of long distance services when these two types of providers are allowed to compete with each other for the first time.
The lesson of the "market power" concerns triggered by the Netscape IPO and the roll-out of Windows 95 and Microsoft Network is that once the Congress and the President finish this business, they will be called upon to address a variety of similar questions in the far less familiar and tangible areas of software, information, and networked resources and services. The debate over networked intellectual property policy will be simple in comparison.
Paul Evan Peters is executive director of the Coalition for Networked information. [email protected]