The Open Web is one of the world’s modern wonders. Based on core, universally recognised technical standards and owned and controlled by no one body, it is a unique structure that has had an unprecedented impact on the world.
But it is under threat from a group of monopolists who want to shut it down for their own financial benefit. The browser owners are using their unprecedented power to create ‘walled gardens’ where they control the content and monetisation of the internet. And they must be stopped.
There is a solution. By introducing sensible regulation we can restructure the web for the benefit of society, not silicon valley. We can create an open and competitive ecosystem in which many players can thrive and the vibrant and effective Open Web can once again drive innovation and social good.
Why the Open Web?
The Open Web has been the core of the digital revolution that has transformed society worldwide over the last 30 years. It has been the engine that has powered the transformation of information, finance and innovation for billions of people.
What has been central about the Open Web is that it is ‘permissionless’. That is, you don’t need to ask permission to set up a website or an email server, the technology doesn’t require a single entity to control access to information or communications. You can innovate and create without being beholden to anyone.
This has enabled revolutions in digital publishing, in payments, in content discovery. It has created a vast and competitive marketplace where anyone can create a great idea and take it to the world – to the benefit of society and economies.
The platform threat
But the Open Web is under threat.
The major platforms such as Google, Apple and Facebook have used their dominance to erode the permissionless open web. By buying up the digital advertising chain, creating closed app environments, removing core, interoperable standards, enforcing their whims through SEO requirements and much, much more, the platforms are enclosing the Open Web and creating ‘walled gardens’ which they own and control.
Perhaps the most powerful tool of web domination for the platforms has been the browser. Apple and Google through Safari and Chrome now effectively control a huge percentage of the Internet’s traffic. This not only means that they now hold vast troves of data about users – which enables their advertising dominance – it also means that they have been able to shut down true competition in large areas of web functionality.
Today, the browser is more than a browser – it serves the core requirement of web access but also provides access to discovery (through search), account identity and authentication, payments and wallets, communications and more. This dominance, combined with the bundling of proprietary services within the browser and the preferencing of the platform’s own services, has meant that huge swathes of the open web are now no longer open to competition.
Break up the browsers
The question then is what can we do? The platforms have won the digital war and now virtually own the Internet – can they be stopped?
We believe that there is a solution. The internet is now a mature market and – like other mature markets such as telecoms, finance and utilities – should be subject to regulation. Where monopolies dominate at the cost of society governments step in and act to create a new equilibrium, and the time for that to happen has arrived.
The obvious place to target the platform’s dominance is at the strongest point of their control – the browser. Whilst Apple and Google control something like 90% of web traffic their dominance will remain unchallenged, so we must break up the browsers.
The proposal for how this could be achieved is simple. We must separate the core functionality of browsers – providing web access – from the other ancillary services that populate the web. Ownership of browsing must be strictly separated from the provision of those services to prevent the type of vertical integration that has enabled the current dominant structure.
This breakup would create a regulated set of tiers of provision.
The first layer of functionality would be ‘browser engines’ that adhere to a strict set of technical standards for interoperability and separated in ownership from other parts of the stack. These browser engines would then provide API connectors for ‘building block’ plugin services provided by competing players, for example, search, ID authentication, AI, payments and more.
This would usher in a new age of competition in the broad array of online services that are currently bundled into the browser. Users could choose to use from a range of competing providers to create the blend of services they want, not the ones that they’re forced to adopt by their browser of choice. Indeed, other brands could choose to offer their own bundles of services, made up of competing providers – for example a Mozilla browser pack that combines search, payments, ID and more from different providers based on a Chrome browser engine.
This approach would prevent the browser owners from being able to monopolise access to user data, self-preference their own services and bundle functionality, creating a level playing field where innovation can bloom. Without the crushing dominance of the monopolies a new permissionless web could emerge where true competition could once more reign.
For users, it would create a far more dynamic and personalised web experience. They could choose to receive a bundled web experience from a brand of their choice or could pick and choose the services they wanted from a new smorgasbord of providers. I might prefer the Chrome browser engine but get my search from a new independent EU provider, my payments direct from my bank and my ID authentication from an innovative and secure provider of my choice. What’s more, without ad revenue being concentrated in the platforms, I could access content from a far broader range of financially successful publishers and providers.
Who will fund this, you ask? The obvious answer is that the Browser Engines could be funded via Linux-style foundation arrangements, with industry participants recognising the value of infrastructure and providing the funds. In this way, should it choose, Google could spin out Chrome as an open foundation and then compete in search as a plugin operator. Alternatively, regulator-defined access charges could be developed to fund the browser engines in an Openreach-style wholesale agreement. The plugin layer would become a truly competitive and economically vibrant ecosystem of its own, recreating the dynamism and innovation of the open web.
Governance would also be a major question in a global and distributed entity such as the web, and this too would require regulatory innovation. A Web Browser Foundation, overseen by sovereign antitrust bodies across the OECD or G7, could be a body that defines web standards and browser functionality to ensure the ongoing health of this key market.
The future of the web
If this approach were to be adopted the future of the web could look very different. Rather than a series of walled gardens controlled by monolithic Silicon valley giants we could see a dynamic and competitive web ecosystem populated by a broad range of players from across the world, offering specific services within the regulated environment of the browser engine.
Moreover, without the platform’s incentives to capture and keep every eyeball on the web for as long as possible, we could see the rise of services aimed at consumer satisfaction, not distraction, stopping the rise of services that optimise for disinformation, illegal content and political extremism.
A regulated web would be a better place for users, an economically more vibrant and competitive ecosystem, and a more positive force for good in society. These are universally attractive outcomes and the time is right to push for their delivery.
To read the full report on which this post is based, please click here.