Net Neutrality and Public Sphere

Net neutrality in terms of politics and government often refers to regulations, policies and censorship. For the purpose of this discussion, we look at net neutrality in two ways: (a) freedom of political debate in public sphere and (b) governmental policies pertaining to Internet regulations and censorship.

When it comes to public sphere, countries with democratic polity often take the concept of public sphere for granted. Noted German philosopher Jurgen Habermas describes political sphere as a society which has engaged in and will continue to engage in critical political debate [1]. According to him, one of the important conditions of political sphere is the fact that all citizens must have access to the ongoing debate which is aimed at forming some sort of consensus or public opinion [2]. As compared to other mediums, Internet, though not perfect, can be considered as a suitable medium for existence of public sphere. For the existence of an active public sphere, citizens require information and expert views, which can be used to frame issues and push public opinions as well as challenge existing norms in different aspects of public sphere. Internet has a potential to provide the medium where extensive information can be made available (news, expert opinion blogs, etc.), and platforms can be provided for further debate and discussions (social network, comments, etc.). For this reason, net neutrality is extremely critical when it comes to public communication. In fact, the existence of net neutrality is responsible for the effectiveness of Internet as a forum for public debate [3].

Numerous examples of Internet activism has been observed in the recent past. The Arab Spring, though not triggered by the internet and social media, is once such event the Internet played a central role in shaping political debates [4]. Similarly, the Occupy movement that spread across more than 25 countries effectively used the Internet for communication and dissemination of information. Academicians in the recent past have studied Internet as a tool for political deliberation as well [5]. Internet provides newer and more accessible ways for political participation as well as to acquire information previously inaccessible. This can include in depth information of the backgrounds and political history of candidates, past deeds good or bad etc. [6].

Online petitions (e.g. Jan Lok Pal Bill in India), direct questioning of candidates (e.g. 2007 CNN-YouTube debates that invited questions from public) has seen a rise across the world. While the efficacy of Internet is debatable and matter of further research, Internet does provide a very vibrant platform for communication in the public sphere.

Net neutrality proponents argue that allowing ISPs to decide on this flow of information will be highly detrimental to the public sphere. ISPs, if left unchecked, can easily slow down or block website content that go against political ideologies or corporate profits. Absence of net neutrality has the potential to turn the Internet to what television has become today [7]. Just like a news broadcast house selects what news go on television and in what order and time, the Internet users may also get to read the content the ISPs want to promote, have political or commercial interests in. With selective promotion or blockage of content, ISPs and their partners can convert and exploit the Internet into another agenda setting medium. Thus, net neutrality becomes highly critical for public sphere as it is an essential element of free speech, which is the prerequisite for healthy public debate and political participation.

The second, more critical aspect in the net neutrality issue refers to regulatory censorship and governmental policies. A brief look at some of the Internet governance and net neutrality / related policies will indicate that from West to East, governments have shown different attitudes towards the issue of Internet governance.

Censorship is probably one of the biggest threats to net neutrality, especially in the public sphere. To further the debate, we consider the example of China. China’s Internet Censorship policy take blocking content over the Internet to the extreme. The Great Firewall of China blocks access to various websites such as Google, Facebook to name a few, as these sites refuse to block certain type of content that the Chinese government does not wish to release to its people. Officially referred to as the Golden Shield project, the firewall it is achieved using sophisticated Internet Protocols that enable selective content to go through to the end user. Content is often filtered and blocked based on keywords (e.g. Tiananmen) or specific websites (Twitter, Facebook, Google search etc.). In some cases web content on websites is temporarily disrupted. For example, on October 1, 2014, Yahoo services were disrupted as China sought to control information coming from Hong Kong democracy movement from reaching mainland readers. Just two days before, on October 29, 2014, Facebook’s photo-sharing application Instagram became inaccessible in China. [8].

While China is an extreme example of censorship and lack of net neutrality, it’s implications on net neutrality globally cannot be ignored. China shows that technologically, it is possible to create selective access and temporary blockage of web content. The bigger problem is that, this practice can be easily replicated by governments and corporate giants for purposes of personal agenda or profits. By keeping the practice of selective flow of information sparse and low key, net neutrality can be easily compromised.

While largely, we agree that net neutrality is essential for vibrant and active public sphere, complete lack of governance on Internet is proving to be extremely tricky in today’s era. The debatable outcome of Arab Spring, emergence of ISIS terrorist group and their usage of social media to influence and recruit far beyond their boundaries, has raised essential questions on security at large. Proponents promoting Internet regulations also state that blocking content on the web becomes a necessity with issues of public safety and law and order. Volatile matter on the social networking sites or defamatory video content can trigger be socially unacceptable or may lead to outrage creating law and order situations. There have been instances where governments have selectively blocked access to Internet pages, for example, UK government with the help of Google identified search terms that would restrict content related to child pornography [9]. During one recent incident of communal clashes in Gujarat India, government ordered temporary suspension of mobile internet and text messaging services. The government justified this move by stating that it was done with an intention to stop the clashes from spreading across other parts [10]. While, such issues do have some value and raise concerns for need of selective and responsible Internet governance, giving the power of governance to select few ISPs may not be the way forward.

For the purpose of this debate, we conclude that as far as public sphere is concerned, net neutrality is critical. Lack of net neutrality, and permission to ISPs to govern the Internet sphere will convert Internet into a mass medium comparable with today’s radio or television, which is largely in existence for corporate growth and profits only. Net neutrality is essential to achieve information and media literacy. Openness of the Internet is essential for self-empowerment, critical thinking and evaluation of information. If information is available selectively, the completeness of the information will be in question, thus, affecting the quality of public communication and debate in the public sphere.

References:

[1] Habermas, Jürgen (German (1962) English Translation 1989).The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Thomas Burger. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press. p. 52. ISBN 0-262-58108-6.

[2] Habermas, Jürgen (German (1962) English Translation 1989).The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Thomas Burger. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press. p. 27. ISBN 0-262-58108-6.

[3] Barron, B. (2007). The Importance of Network Neutrality to the Internet's Role in the Public Sphere. Canadian Journal of Media Studies, 3(1), 90-105.

[4] Howard, P.N., Duffy, A., Freelon, D., Hussain, M., Mari, W. & Mazaid, M. (2011). Opening Closed Regimes: What Was the Role of Social Media During the Arab Spring?. Seattle: PIPTI. Retrieved September 29, 2014 from http://pitpi.org/index.php/2011/09/11/opening-closed-regimes-what-was-the-role-of-social-media-during-the-arab-spring/

[5] Warnick, B. (2007). Rhetoric online: Persuasion and politics on the World Wide Web (Vol. 12). Peter Lang.

[6] Bowen, C. (1996) Modem Nation: The Handbook of Grassroots American Activism Online. New York: Random House.

[7] Barton, M. D. (2005). The future of rational-critical debate in online public spheres. Computers and Composition, 22(2), 177-190.

[8] Yahoo Restricted in China as Hong Kong Protests Spur New Control. (2014). Retrieved October 3, 2014, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/yahoo-restricted-in-china-as-hong-kong-protests-spur-new-control.html

[9] Hyland, J. (2013, November 25). UK government moves to clamp down on Internet, citing child pornography. Retrieved from http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/11/25/goog-n25.html

[10] Bhan, R. (2014, September 29). 40 Arrested After Communal Clashes in Vadodara in Gujarat. Retrieved from http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/40-arrested-after-communal-clashes-in-vadodara-in-gujarat-599209

The economics of net neutrality

Before getting into the topic of the day, let's start off with a funny video!

CollegeHumor's Favorite Funny Videos

Here is the link if you can't view the video

When discussing the effect of removing, or taking a strong stand against net neutrality, the first effect would be on the economy. Both proponents for net neutrality and those who are not both acknowledge that there would be an economic impact with net neutrality. The question would be who would it affect, perhaps disproportionately, and how would it affect them. There are three parties that are affected – the Internet service providers (ISPs), consumers and content-makers or companies in general.

Economic impact on Internet service providers

Those who do not support net neutrality are usually internet service providers (ISPs). There’re interesting arguments from those that do not support net-neutrality, and usually they are economically based. The arguments that come out from the net neutrality debate largely stem from the USA, especially relevant right now because of the decision by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) based in the USA classifying ISPs as information providers, not as telecommunications, which meant that they were fundamentally different and hence the FCC would not be able to regulate the ISPs the same way as they do with phone companies. As content providers, then, ISPs do not have to be neutral to the data they provide.

The USA is very much inclined to believe in the idea of the free market and competition keeping prices low – hence the assumption the FCC made for deciding not to regulate ISPs like telecommunication companies was that high competition would keep the internet neutral and prices low [1]. ISPs like Verizon[2] and Singtel [3] feel that net neutrality chokes their revenue potential.

There have been arguments for the ISPs’ case. Other than the argument from individual ISPs that there is no reason why they have to let OTT (over-the-top) content be for ‘free’, and should instead monetize it, there is also the argument, that the previous FCC ruling had been similar to, was that net neutrality stifles competition, and thus in the end, less drive to creativity [4].

Basically what ISPs wish to do is to differentiate between the types of data that is transmitted. If a service cannot afford to pay for faster speed , then less people will be able to access this website and their content. Let’s take for example the app WhatsApp, an internet based phone-to-phone direct messaging service. If they were not able to pay to access the same speed that Google Hangouts can afford, then messages from users via WhatsApp wouldn’t be able to reach each other as fast as with Gchat messages. This means that users would either move to other services, or else WhatsApp would charge users with more than the current USD 1.99 a year that they do.

However this claim of competition & creativity being stifled is at the level of the hardware – the competition to drive down the cost of installing and maintaining the equipment such as data lines and other hardware. There is little actual incentive for competition to take place at this level, even if there was a forced anti-monopolisation regulation, since virtual duopolies could just grow up in that place.

Instead, under a net-neutral environment, competition takes place on the network level [5], between services without having to purchase or set up a physical network. This is what consumers assume they are paying for.

Economic impact on consumers

The previous section had already touched on how while net neutrality would benefit ISPs, they would affect consumers.

Consumers actually do not realise that ISPs actually are paid twice to provide internet service. Content makers and other similar companies – i.e. those that make websites and content like Netflix or youtube – are charged bandwidth based on predicated users by the ISPs. In turn, consumers – people who surf the internet, get access to youtube, etc – are charged by the ISPs to have internet at home, such as broadband, or dial-up, or data bundles on their mobile phones [6]. The impact of removing net neutrality would therefore remove the control of what consumers see on the internet, and put it into the hands of the ISPs, and those that can afford to pay for higher bandwidth, as well as potentially charging users more for services like cable television.

Economic impact on Companies

Besides the economic impact of net neutrality on consumers, there is economic impacts at the company levels. The current ruling in the USA has already scared away venture capitalists from start-ups that require high speed broadband [7], which would impact the internet based companies that used to be able to be started up with relatively little investment. There would thus be less competition in the long run. Economically, net neutrality has a huge impact. In the USA, this is currently being played out – the internet providers are considered content providers and thus are not regulated to provide neutral services like telecommunications. Contrasted to Singapore, where the Info-Communications Development Authority (IDA) had issued what seems to be the strongest pro-net neutrality statement [8]. Striking down net neutrality would have disproportionate impacts on consumers and new start-ups that now no longer would be able to reach consumers at the same speed as those supported by ISPs.

References

[1] Peter Kafka, “What’s Net Neutrality? What Happened to Net Neutrality Yesterday? What Happens Next? A Q&A for the Rest of Us,” Recode, last modified January 15, 2014, http://recode.net/2014/01/15/whats-net-neutrality-what-happened-to-net-neutrality-yesterday-what-happens-next-a-qa-for-the-rest-of-us/.

[2] Zajac, Andrew and Shields, Todd, "Verizon Wins Net Neutrality Court Ruling Against FCC," Bloomberg, last modified Janurary 15, 2014, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-14/verizon-wins-net-neutrality-court-ruling-against-fcc.html

[3] Ramli, David, “SingTel chief calls for right to charge OTT challengers Skype and WhatsApp,” Financial Review, last modified February 26, 2014, http://www.afr.com/p/technology/singtel_chief_calls_whatsapp_right_maynJrPUvegKvHV5wgNFGJ .

[4] Hahn, R. W., & Wallsten, S. (2006). The economics of net neutrality. The Economists' Voice, 3(6). https://server1.tepper.cmu.edu/ecommerce/Economics%20of%20Net%20Neutrality.pdf

[5] Nicholas Economides, “The Economics of Networks,” International Journal of Industrial Organization 14 (1996): 675–99, http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/Economides_Economics_of_Networks.pdf

[6] Economides, N. (2008). Net neutrality, non-discrimination and digital distribution of content through the internet. ISJLP, 4, 209.

[7] Neagle, C., “Net neutrality ruling scaring VCs away from investing in certain startups; One VC firm has said it will 'stay away from' companies that may require high-performance networks, which ISPs may soon make more expensive,” Network World, last modified May 7, 2014. http://www.networkworld.com/article/2176684/lan-wan/net-neutrality-ruling-scaring-vcs-away-from-investing-in-certain-startups.html

[8] “Decision issued by the Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore,” ida.gov.sg, last modified June 16, 2011, http://www.ida.gov.sg/~/media/Files/PCDG/Consultations/20101111_Neteutrality/NetNeutralityExplanatoryMemo.pdf.

The debate called 'Net Neutrality' - An Introduction

The Internet first came into existence in 1969 for the purposes of data sharing and transfer between computers based at different locations. What started out a network created for specific Defense data transmission and sharing has today become the backbone of communications world over. From being used for a really small Defense network in the United States of America, the Internet today connects billion+ computers across more than 200 countries in the world. Such is the criticality of Internet to governments and corporates alike, that a world without the fast communication that Internet provides is impossible to imagine.

One of the most critical debates surrounding the Internet in the last decade is referred to as “Net Neutrality”. The term net neutrality, coined by Columbia Law School Professor Tim Wu in 2003 [1]. While there is no particular definition universally accepted, net neutrality broadly states that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat the content sent across internet as equal, without providing any discriminatory or preferential treatment to certain types of content over others or charge discretionary fees to companies to ensure their content reaches the user [2]. It is a network principle which goes back to original Internet design which treats every data packet (content on the Internet) as equal and no data packet is given priority over others [3]. For example, an ISP like Comcast, Sky, Singtel, Airtel etc. should not provide special faster speed to Youtube.com and a different speed to Dailymotion.com.

As Professor Wu predicted in 2003, regulators will indeed spend more time resolving conflicts between commercial interests of ISPs and interests of the public. In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the United States released draft rules to help “preserve an open Internet” in the United States [4]. In this draft proposal, FCC clearly stated that there is no debate about the fact that openness of internet and the protocol transparency have been vital to its success world over and maintaining this open Internet will be critical for future development. It agrees that there is a need to have regulations in place to ensure open Internet or net neutrality because ISPs have motivation as well as technology to discriminate for or against certain Internet content which can not only affect companies using internet to send data, but also users using internet to receive the data. Some of the key aspects put down by FCC in the draft rules prohibits the ISPs from (1) Discriminating for or against lawful content, applications or services used by subscribers, (2) Giving priority to some internet traffic over others or charge a fee to give priority and (3) Levying extra congestion charges.

For years ISPs have been lobbying with governments across the world to end net neutrality and as such it has been a highly debated across the globe. The debate is often two-sided, where ISPs debate against net neutrality and companies and end users debate for it.

The proponents or supporters of net neutrality argue that discrimination of content on the Internet will provide higher leverage to companies with more money power to buy priority access, thus, creating a bottleneck for innovators, start-ups and small and medium business enterprises who may not be able to compete with big wigs. For example, Youtube or Amazon will have an upper hand compared to smaller players like Dailymotion or Freepeople. This is the supply side argument. On the end-users side or the demand side, the argument stresses that the money spent by companies to gain priority in data dissemination may ultimately pass on the higher expense to the users who will ultimately bear the monetary brunt. Further, the ISPs themselves might charge the end-users to get their requested content on priority. For example, Netflix may pass on the higher expense by increasing subscription fees or ISPs may come up with a different data pricing for video streaming services. Some proponents also argue that net neutrality is central to as an issue of freedom of speech [5], making it much more socio-political issue, rather than it being just an economic one.

The opposers of net neutrality have quite often been the ISPs who argue that they can provide quality service if they are allowed to bigger hand in the way they manage their networks. They further argue that the investment required in building better and updated infrastructure is expensive. Thus, if they are not allowed to charge differential fees to those who provide majority of content (example providers like Google, Facebook, etc.) then such companies are not contributing fairly for the usage and access they have. Simply put, it means that those who depend more on Internet for their business and make higher profits out of it must pay more [6]. However, it will be misinformation if we consider only the ISPs to be opposing net neutrality. Some academics have provided evidence which supports opposing view.

Internet is the backbone of communication. Advent of social media, electronic transformation of libraries leading to higher knowledge dissemination, faster information and quick news transmission has resulted in providing benefits to the society that cannot be measured in mere numbers. From simple advantages of e-learning to higher advantages such as citizen journalism, internet has contributed vastly to evolution of knowledge and information literacy of the society. As technology advances, newer challenges to Internet as medium of communication will emerge. Net neutrality debate is one such issue facing the society at large.

In this paper, we discuss net neutrality and open internet from economic, political and social angle of the net neutrality debate to

• Better understand the two sides of the debate and try and reach a conclusion on which side of the debate is better placed in the current situation.
• Explore net neutrality beyond its framework to see whether net neutrality in its current situation is reality or an illusion.
• Examine whether net neutrality is essential for a information and media literate society.

For purposes of a little lighthearted entertainment, here's a simplified and funny interpretation of what net neutrality really means for you and me... by none other than the absolutely boisterous, John Oliver! [7] The video stands for net neutrality, and the opinions may be lopsided and dramatized for an entertaining television viewing. The authors of the blog do not necessarily support or oppose his views. 

References:

[1] Wu, T. (2003). Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. Journal On Telecommunications & High Technology Law, 2(1), 141-175.
[2] Ammori, M. (2014). The Case for Net Neutrality. Foreign Affairs, 93(4), 62-73. 
[3] Guo, H., Cheng, H., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2013). Broadband Network Management and the Net Neutrality Debate. Production & Operations Management, 22(5), 1287-1298.
[4] Federal Communications Commission. (2010). In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices. Report and Order, 25.
[5] Cherry, Barbara A. (2006). Misusing network neutrality to eliminate common carriage threatens free speech and the postal system. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 483, 482-511.
[6] Ganley, P., & Allgrove, B. (2006). Net neutrality: A user's guide. Computer Law & Security Review, 22(6), 454-463.
[7] HBO. (2014). Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Net Neutrality (HBO). Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU