The Internet's amazing growth can at least be partially attributed to hands-off regulatory policies. However, governments, internet service providers and websites (especially peer-to-peer) have, in fact, implemented policies and rules which restrict or limit Internet content and access.
For example, Internet regulation by the Chinese government has been well-documented. Although some of this regulation appears to be loosening, Chinese Internet users still do not have nearly the access as their Western counterparts. Individual Internet usage is monitored. Ideas that appear to be politically damaging, subversive to the Chinese government, or offensive ti the Chinese culture appear to be the ideas that are most likely to be suppressed. Many other countries also have aggressive Internet censorship policies. It is unlikely that all countries will abandon their policies in order to create true "net neutrality".
The US government's approach to internet censorship appears to have been largely hands-off. However, the issue has been addressed by the FCC. Many would agree that government policies addressing the distribution of child pornography or terrorist threats would be prudent. However, that would lead us down the slippery slope of trying to determine what else constitutes a significant threat to warrant censorship. Furthermore lobbyists for billion dollar companies (e.g. Google, Verizon) will base their arguments on whatever is most financially advantageous for the companies they represent... rather than any deeper philosophical issues.
I believe that the Internet is very free and accessible to Americans, but not absolutely so. Furthermore, I believe that future political and corporate influence is a threat to the concept of net neutrality.
References:
NY Times - "The Illusion of Net Neutrality"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/opinion/23iht-edwolf.5002859.html
Computerworld - "Google CEO - China's Internet Censorship Will Fail in Time"
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9194860/Google_CEO_China_s_Internet_censorship_will_fail_in_time
How Stuff Works - "How Internet Censorship Works"
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet-censorship.htm/printable
Wired - "FCC Delays Net Neutrality"
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/fcc-delays-net-neutrality-over-google-verizon-proposal/
ARS Technica - "FCC Proposes Net Neutrality Rules (And Big Exceptions)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/fcc-proposes-network-neutrality-rules-and-big-exemptions.ars
This situation will always be touchy. I agree with the threat that child pornography presents completely. I think that compromise to net neutrality was totally warranted. Great post.
ReplyDeleteGood stuff. But are we all looking at the Net Neutrality issue correctly? Does the issue have more to do with the broadband connection itself or the content.
ReplyDeleteThe challange seems to be between who gets to control the lines not the content. Maybe like the siutation with the utility companies. For years anyone living in this area had to purchase their natural gas from Columbia Gas of Ohio because they owned all the gas lines. Only recently (since the gas price wars began) have we been able to shop around for better gas rates from different suppliers. Here is the catch -- we can buy the natural gas from another supplier, but the supplier has to use the Columbia Gas gas lines to get the product to us. Which in turn Columbus Gas charges us a usage fee.
Is this what Net Neutrality is about? Verizon, Comcast, etc. all fighting to gain full control of the broadband connections?
As far as content, I haven't seen a whole lot of print on this issue. Any reputable service provider (Google, Yahoo, etc) will regulate this themselves. Who prevents the distribution of child pornography in Staples or McDonalds? Who is in charge of not serving an alcoholic beverage to anyone under the age of 21 in a bar?
Could a society function in a true neutral setting? Can the net? Some laws like some free speech restrictions are necessary.
ReplyDelete