Open Access: the principle that the Internet should remain a freely flowing source of information and ideas, regardless of who owns the pipes through which such material flows—remains a critical issue. The open-access debate did not begin with AT&T's acquisition of TCI, and it won't end with AOL's acquisition of Time Warner. Indeed, these high-stakes corporate maneuverings are illustrative of the premium that has been placed on staking a claim in the evolving telecommunications landscape. And they suggest as well the need to ensure that the public interest also finds a secure place, amidst all of the dot-coms and their aggressive marketing tactics, in the new online environment.

Open Access has long been the hallmark of the Internet, a system in which more than 6,000 Internet service providers offer online connections to more than thirty million households, enabling users to send and receive information of their own choice. Standing A.J. Liebling's journalistic dictum on its head—that freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one—the Internet has offered a platform to any number of independent voices that are otherwise excluded from participation in the mass media. Online communications have been a boon to nonprofit organizations in particular, which are able to launch public-interest advocacy and information campaigns at a fraction of the cost of print and broadcast efforts. Libraries and educational institutions have also flourished online, vastly extending the reach of their resources.

Thus Open Access is much more than an advertising slogan. It is more than AT&T's "agreement in principle" to make its cable networks available to other ISPs at some unspecified date in 2002. And it is more than AOL Time Warner's vague promise "to take the open-access issue out of Washington and out of City Hall and put it into the marketplace…." To reduce the principle of Open Access to the fine print of corporate negotiations, in fact, is to pin our hopes for a diverse, democratic online infrastructure on the largesse of a handful of cable system operators. The history of the mass media in the US—or even a cursory glance at the pages of TV Guide—suggest that for all of the solutions that the marketplace offers, full attention to the public interest is not always one of them.

That's why a formal FCC rulemaking on Open Access—rather than the good intentions of the media conglomerates—is needed to address the three fundamental issues of the broadband era:

• Competition: ISPs should be granted equal access to the new cable networks, under the same terms and conditions that the cable companies extend to their own or affiliated ISPs.

• Nondiscriminatory Transport: Network providers should be prohibited from employing transmission protocols (beyond those necessary to basic traffic maintenance) that place certain kinds of material at a competitive disadvantage.

• Freedom of Expression/Exploration: The basic rights that Internet users have long enjoyed—the freedom to exchange ideas openly and to view material of one's own choosing—should not be compromised in the broadband environment.

Beyond these fundamental principles, Open Access also implies a concern for the larger online environment, underscoring in particular the belief that the civic values that have proved so critical to the health of our democracy in the real world will be no less vital in the virtual world. Indeed, given the rapid commercialization of the World Wide Web, and the impending convergence of broadcast and online technologies, it is all the more important now that we foster an environment in which all forms of civic, educational, and cultural expression can flourish. These, too, will depend on more than corporate good will, which is another reason that the campaign for Open Access—for an Internet that maintains its diverse, democratic character in the broadband era—must continue.