ENG 112-44D
Informative Essay: Final Draft
Dylan Yoki
February 15, 2013
We
live in the most technologically advanced civilization in human history. The
ability to communicate with people across the world via the internet is part of
our technological achievements. In my
own experience with the internet, not being the most sociable person and being
a very radical thinker, I had a lot of trouble connecting with people within
the community I live. Discussing issues that I cared about on forum sites with
people who shared some of the same views has helped me stay civilized and sane.
I ended up meeting my best friend on a forum site. I have known her for over a
decade now and she is the only person I have ever encountered that has lived up
to my insane standards of integrity and one of only two people that has earned
my trust.
The
internet, as I have stated, is a way for me to connect with people of similar
interests and opinions. Some of those opinions that I hold are vehement
anti-government sentiments with the belief that government should stay out of
the lives of its citizens. It is with this statement that I begin the story
that led to this essay. The story begins in 2008 when I was first living on my
own. I was browsing YouTube and came across a video with a link to a forum site
called I-Power. The main drive of the site was geared towards self-improvement
but another aspect of the site was political activism. The focus of this site’s
activism was centered on an issue known as network neutrality, or “the concept
that all web content should be treated equally” (Roxberg 224).
This idea of having a free and open internet is
at the heart of the argument that proponents of network neutrality use. “Those
opposed to neutrality requirements generally view the Internet as a good thing,
too; they argue, however, that market forces will assure continued access to
the internet on reasonably neutral terms, and that legislating this requirement
will stifle investment in new broadband services (Weitzner 1). Critics also argue
that internet service providers would be burdened by the growing demand for
broadband services and the bandwidth needed to sustain this demand. As
Shelanski put it, “As the debate has continued between those who argue that
network neutrality regulation is necessary to preserve applications innovation
and those who argue that such regulation would harm the growth and development
of underlying network infrastructure”(24). This illustrates the main argument
against network neutrality in that it would be detrimental to businesses.
What the network
neutrality debate boils down to is that it is an issue concerning freedom of
expression as well as the freedom to disseminate ideas without being censored. Put
another way, “Free speech is a matrix, the cohesion that holds all other laws
and rights together, the proverbial glue of Western society” (Chesbrough 4).
In order to
understand the issue of network neutrality, one must first understand how
relevant the issue is in a historical context. Although network neutrality is a
recent political issue, the debate at its core is as old as the use of language
to communicate. There will always be governments and corporations that wish to
restrict the freedom to express and spread certain ideas.
A quick overview
of key events in the network neutrality debate will be useful for the reader to
get up to speed with network neutrality. The first major event was the Comcast
vs. FCC court case after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had given
an order to Comcast to stop its discriminating policies of blocking certain
peer to peer content. In response to
this, Comcast argued that the FCC had overstepped its authority to intervene in
the practices of internet service providers. Comcast ended up winning the case as
Roxberg explains, “The court subsequently vacated the FCC’s order and left the
FCC without authority to regulate broadband ISP’s until the FCC could justify
use of its ancillary authority” (233). This decision by the court to deny the
FCC’s ability to interfere with internet service providers’ activities of
blocking certain content was a set back for network neutrality activists. Commenting on the decision was an FCC
commissioner “The decision was not just a blow to all Americans who rely on an
open internet that serves all corners without discrimination” (qtd. in McClelland
14). This commentary elucidates the importance of preserving an open interent.
Another important event
in the history of network neutrality is the Stop Online Piracy Act, better
known as SOPA. This is one of the few, if not the only case, in which the
network neutrality issue has been covered by the main stream media. The
attention it received prompted activists to strike down the bill for the time
being. The SOPA bill would allow the government to effectively shut down a
website that it perceives as promoting copyright infringement. This can extend
to certain YouTube videos that contain fair use content. Another bill that is not as well known as SOPA
is Protect IP Act (PIPA) that contains similar language to the SOPA bill. This
bill accompanied by SOPA was also shut down through the efforts of activists.
The last bill that is worth mentioning, CISPA , or “The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and
Protection Act, which passed the House last month, was designed to enhance
security by facilitating information-sharing among private companies and the
government. But critics said the bill would allow major transfers of
information—say, from Google to the government—without meaningful protections
for Internet users” (Cowles 1). This illustrates how government, not just ISPs,
are attempting to change the way the internet is experienced by allowing
corporations to share private data with the government such as e-mails.
Those who do not
know about the issue of network neutrality may be asking themselves how a
regulated internet would affect them. For anyone that downloads music on peer
to peer sites such as pirate bay, a regulated internet would shut down or
interfere with these sites. There would also be certain sites that would be
slowed down because of bandwidth discrimination. Another way this would affect the average
internet user is in a professional setting. For example, if someone were to
start a business online they would have to compete with much bigger sites and
the bigger sites would be given preference by these discriminatory practices. The
small site would receive fewer hits and would load slower than the bigger web
pages.
Even though the
issue of network neutrality has been discussed on the internet, among the
general public, it is largely unknown. As Quail suggests, “Despite its
intensifying growth and importance, network neutrality has not yet captured the
public imagination. This is likely reflective of the lack of media attention
given to net neutrality as well as the way that both the concept and the policy
are conceptualized and discussed in the media (32). About the only time I can
remember network neutrality being mentioned in the mass media was a short bit
on The Daily Show but that was more
of a parody of the SOPA conflict. Since then I have not heard much of anything
about network neutrality from mass media sources. I think that this ignorance
of network neutrality is why it is so important to inform people about what is
really going on in today’s government.
As the network
neutrality debate moves forward there are some key points to consider going
into the future of the issue. First is that CISPA is back as it was introduced
again in February. This bill was strongly opposed by network neutrality
proponents and supported by telecommunication corporations. I think that this
scenario shows how much influence corporations have on policy making. Another
point I need to bring up is that, as I mentioned earlier, network neutrality
being an issue about freedom of expression and sharing those ideas with others
with out being censored is the foundation of the network neutrality argument.
This is a very old debate that has been around ever since some megalomaniacal
tribal leader decided that they didn’t like what others were saying about him.
He decides to snuff out the dissidents by killing them, thus ensuring his
tyrannical rule for years to come. Nothing has really changed since that time;
censorship has always existed, even to this day. As with any political agenda,
there are those who are overzealous and the camp of network neutrality
advocates has their fair share of them. They are activists that use hacking as
a political tactic. This is known as hactivism.
With internet
hackers shutting down government sites and releasing personal information,
governments will most likely crack down on hactivism in the future. There are a
couple well known hactivist groups, one being Anonymous and the other
wikiLeaks. These two groups have been
the most notorious for their activities. As Stephen Ruth puts it, “Hacking has
become a common occurrence worldwide, and attacks seem to be increasing in
audacity and level of penetration.” (79). These hackers are the extremists of
network neutrality advocates and will probably cause more harm than good in the
long run and could even be the downfall of the network neutrality cause.
Looking to the
future of the network neutrality debate, I am very pessimistic about the
internet being preserved as it is. The most startling aspect of this issue is
not anything involving network neutrality directly. It is the fact that this
issue is largely unknown to the general population and even among those who
have heard about it, the unwillingness to do anything. This ignorant complacency
could prove to be an even greater issue than network neutrality.
Works Cited
Chesbrough, Emily Alice. “Freedom
of Speech through the Looking Glass: Reflections on the Governance of Political Discourse in
China, the United States, and the European Union”.
20 April 2012. Google Scholar. Web.
25 Feb. 2013.
McClelland, Stephen “Fallout: FCC,
Comcast and net neutrality”. Intermedia, May2010, Vol. 38 Issue 2, p14-19, 6p Communication & Mass Media Complete.
Web. 25 Feb. 2013.
Quail, Christine, and Christine
Larabie. “Net Neutrality: Media Discourses and Public Perception”. Global Media
Journal: Canadian Edition March 1, 2010 Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 31-50. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web.
25 Feb. 2013.
Roxberg, Emily R. “FCC Authority
Post-Comcast: Finding a Happy Medium in the Net Neutrality Debate” Journal of
Corporation Law; Fall 2011, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p223-244, 22p. Business Source Premier. Web. 25 Feb.2013.
Ruth, Stephen and Samuel Stone. “A
Legislator’s Dilemma”. Internet Computing.
9 Oct. 12. Google Scholar. Web. 26 Feb. 2013.
Shelanski, Howard. “Network
Neutrality: Regulating With More Questions Than Answers”. Telecomm. & High
Tech L.23 (2007-2008). Google Scholar.
Web. 25 Feb. 2013.
Weitzner, Daniel “The Neutral
Internet: An information Architecture for Open Societies” 2006. Google Scholar. Web. 25 Feb.2013.
