tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/open-internet-34891/articlesOpen internet – The Conversation2021-06-06T16:53:37Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1622332021-06-06T16:53:37Z2021-06-06T16:53:37ZNigeria’s Twitter ban could backfire, hurting the economy and democracy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/404663/original/file-20210606-21-se6s5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Taking a selfie during the #ENDSARS protest in Lagos in 2020. Social media was used extensively to mobilise demontrators.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Adekunle Ajayi/NurPhoto via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nigeria’s decision to suspend Twitter indefinitely could backfire for the government and cost the country economically in terms of new investments into its technology sector. The Nigerian government <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/04/africa/nigeria-suspends-twitter-operations-intl/index.html">suspended</a> Twitter on June 4. The official <a href="https://twitter.com/FMICNigeria/status/1400843062641717249">press release</a> gave only a vague justification, citing threats to “Nigeria’s corporate existence”.</p>
<p>While only a minority of Nigerians use Twitter, they form part of the most vocal and politically active segment of the population. Many young people have used Twitter and other social media recently to organise anti-government protests. And <a href="https://www.techinafrica.com/africarena-releases-its-second-annual-state-of-tech-innovation-in-africa/">Nigeria</a> has been among the best-performing African countries in attracting investments for technology start-up business. The ban could threaten that status.</p>
<p>The government made little effort to hide the likely main reason for the ban: the social media giant’s <a href="https://www.thecable.ng/breaking-twitter-deletes-buharis-tweet-on-dealing-with-secessionists">decision</a> to delete a tweet by President Muhammadu Buhari just days before. In the tweet, Buhari seemed to threaten violent retaliation against a southeastern secessionist group’s <a href="https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/04/imo-jailbreak-ipob-esn-behind-attacks-igp-mohammed/">alleged recent attacks</a> on government facilities and personnel. Twitter claimed the message had violated its rules against “<a href="https://theweek.com/news/1001202/nigeria-banned-twitter-over-presidents-deleted-tweet">abusive behaviour</a>”. </p>
<p>The move angered many in the Nigerian government. Information and Culture Minister Lai Mohammed criticised <a href="https://www.thecable.ng/buhari-right-to-express-his-anger-lai-accuses-twitter-of-double-standards">“double standards”</a> and <a href="https://www.thecable.ng/fact-check-did-twitter-fund-endsars-protests-as-lai-claimed">complained</a> that Twitter had not deleted missives from a separatist leader. He also alleged that it supported the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-54662986">2020 #EndSARS</a> movement against police brutality. The potential that social media could help mobilise such a large, <a href="https://guardian.ng/news/from-twitter-to-the-streets-how-nigerian-youths-won-endsars-war/">youth-driven protest movement</a> sent shudders throughout the ruling establishment. Officials might hope a ban squelches a <a href="https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/460534-insecurity-120-groups-activists-call-for-protests-boycott-of-democracy-day-activities.html">growing protest movement</a> against rising insecurity.</p>
<p>The deletion of Buhari’s tweet also came on the heels of Twitter’s <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/13/africa/twitter-hq-africa-ghana/index.html">April 2021 announcement</a> that it would be setting up its first African office in Accra, not Lagos. In its <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2021/establishing-twitter-s-presence-in-africa.html">justification</a>, Twitter cited Ghana’s support for “free speech, online freedom, and the open internet”. There’s no official data on the number of Nigeria’s Twitter users. <a href="https://noi-polls.com/social-media-poll-result-release/">One count</a> puts it at 24 million. <strong>{See note below.}</strong></p>
<p>The shutdown will be hard to enforce. It is also likely to be unpopular. And it could have dire consequences for Nigeria’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/nigeria-is-not-a-failed-state-but-it-has-not-delivered-democracy-for-its-people-149769">fragile democratic institutions</a> and <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/21/nigeria-slips-into-recession-blamed-on-covid-19-and-oil-prices">COVID-battered economy</a>.</p>
<h2>The shutdown challenge</h2>
<p>Shortly after the ban went into effect, traffic to the site was <a href="https://netblocks.org/reports/twitter-restricted-in-nigeria-after-deletion-of-presidents-tweet-aAwro08M">blocked</a> on leading local mobile networks like MTN, Globacom, Airtel and 9mobile, though access was still possible through some internet service providers. </p>
<p>Nigeria’s attorney general, Abubakar Malami, <a href="https://guardian.ng/news/twitter-ban-nigerias-attorney-general-to-prosecute-offenders/">promised to prosecute</a> those violating the ban.</p>
<p>But the extent to which the ban will stop Nigerians who want to use the platform from doing so is open to question. Targeting users for punishment would be a gargantuan and costly task.</p>
<p>It might also not be technologically feasible. Within hours, internet searches for “VPNs” – virtual private networks, which allow users to disguise their online identity and evade country-specific limits – <a href="https://guardian.ng/news/rush-for-vpns-in-nigeria-as-twitter-access-is-blocked/">surged</a> across the country. Multiple videos appeared on YouTube, explaining the ins and outs of VPNs to Twitter-hungry Nigerians. </p>
<p>Nigerians also have plenty of other digital options to share opinions and information, from the <a href="https://guardian.ng/technology/whatsapp-stays-strong-in-nigeria-despite-new-privacy-policy-headache/">popular WhatsApp </a> to the Indian microblogging service Koo, which quickly <a href="https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/indian-origin-koo-eyes-on-nigerian-market-after-twitter-ban">announced plans</a> to expand into the country. </p>
<h2>Not-so-hidden costs</h2>
<p>The widespread use of VPNs would come at significant costs. Poorer Nigerians are likely turn to free VPNs instead of fee-based ones that are more secure. This will expose them to <a href="https://guardian.ng/news/heads-up-nigerians-here-are-things-you-should-know-about-vpn/">data theft</a> and other forms of hacking. </p>
<p>And the use of VPNs can <a href="https://www.vpnmentor.com/blog/the-fastest-vpns-we-actually-tested-them/">slow</a> internet connectivity.</p>
<p>Beyond being an annoyance, this could significantly hamper economic productivity. Nigeria’s <a href="http://eiuperspectives-stage.economist.com/sites/default/files/BuildingadigitalNigeria.pdf">economy</a> and even government have become increasingly reliant on digital media. Some noted the <a href="https://twitter.com/MeduolaS/status/1400843676222472197?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1400843676222472197%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.com%2Fnews%2F2021%2F6%2F4%2Fnigerian-twitter-users-blast-govt-ban-of-social-media-giant">irony</a> that the government announced its ban on Twitter with a <a href="https://twitter.com/FMICNigeria/status/1400843062641717249">tweet</a>. NetBlocks, which tracks internet governance, <a href="https://twitter.com/ParadigmHQ/status/1401171874059624452">estimated</a> that each day of the Twitter shutdown will cost the Nigerian economy over 2 billion naira ($6 million US). </p>
<p>Digital media are essential for information exchange, marketing, customer service, and remote work, especially during public health and safety emergencies. <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/intenet-shutdowns-v-3.pdf">Shutdowns</a> can slow commerce, cut productivity and ultimately cost jobs. </p>
<p>In the longer term, the ban – even if only brief – could seriously harm Nigeria’s ability to attract investment to its <a href="https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/32743?show=full">otherwise-promising digital economy</a>. Investors may turn to markets without the threat of sudden regulatory disruptions to the digital economy. In other words, Twitter’s choice of Ghana would only be the beginning.</p>
<h2>Public reaction</h2>
<p>Predictably, the ban generated <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/4/nigerian-twitter-users-blast-govt-ban-of-social-media-giant">widespread anger</a> on the platform. But Twitter users constitute a minority of the Nigerian population and they are not representative of the general public. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/publications/Summary%20of%20results/ab_nig_r8_summary_of_results-27jan21.pdf">2020 survey</a> by the independent, Africa-based research organisation Afrobarometer found that:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>35% of Nigerians reported using some social media service to get news at least a few times a week. </p></li>
<li><p>Men were marginally more likely to use it than women – 39% versus 31%.</p></li>
<li><p>More young people used it – 46% of 18-25 years old, versus 8% for those over 65.</p></li>
<li><p>Rates of weekly access were higher for Nigerians who lived in urban areas (54%, versus 18% for rural), had at least a secondary-level education (57%, versus 12% with a primary education or lower) and had the lowest levels of lived poverty (51%, versus 25% for those with the highest levels). </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Nevertheless, Nigerians more broadly are unlikely to take the ban quietly. Afrobarometer research also shows that Nigerians, like most Africans, <a href="https://theconversation.com/africans-are-concerned-about-ills-of-social-media-but-oppose-government-restrictions-137653">oppose government restrictions</a> on media generally. Those surveyed were roundly opposed to restrictions on digital media. More than <a href="https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/publications/Summary%20of%20results/ab_nig_r8_summary_of_results-27jan21.pdf">three-fifths</a> (61%) said that internet and social media should be “unrestricted” versus only 23% who agreed that “access should be regulated by the government”. </p>
<p>Nigerians were also particularly fond of social media. Nearly <a href="https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/publications/Dispatches/ad410-promise_and_peril-africas_changing_media_landscape-afrobarometer_dispatch-1dec20.pdf">two thirds </a>(65%) of those who had heard of social media said the technology’s impacts were more positive than negative. This rate is the highest among the 18 countries surveyed in 2019/20. </p>
<h2>Worrying trend</h2>
<p>Nigeria’s move is part of a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-47734843">worrying trend</a> of governments in Africa throttling the use of social media. So far this year <a href="https://www.accessnow.org/niger-election-internet-blackout/">Niger</a>, <a href="https://www.accessnow.org/congo-keepiton-election/">the Republic of the Congo</a> and <a href="https://netblocks.org/reports/social-media-and-messaging-platforms-restricted-in-uganda-ahead-of-general-election-XB7aaO87">Uganda</a> have limited digital media around elections. <a href="https://iafrikan.com/2021/03/08/senegal-social-media-and-internet-shutdown/">Senegal</a> also did so around anti-government protests. </p>
<p>These shutdowns are typically justified as necessary to ensure national security around sensitive periods. But they transparently serve incumbent interests, by <a href="https://openinternet.global/news/internet-shutdowns-and-future-african-democracy-what-more-can-we-do">limiting democratic freedoms</a> around information, expression and assembly. </p>
<p>With its ban, the Buhari government has escalated a spat into something much more serious. The damage to <a href="https://qz.com/africa/2007087/africas-digital-economy-isnt-compatible-with-internet-shutdowns/">economic</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/internet-shutdowns-in-africa-threaten-democracy-and-development-142868">democratic development</a> from shutdowns can be significant, even with short blockages. Lost productivity and commerce threaten Nigeria’s economic recovery, and the reputational harm to its ability to attract investment to its digital economy could be long lasting. </p>
<p>On the political side, the government risks angering the most vocal and engaged segment of the population, with the likelihood that even most non-users will oppose the ban. </p>
<p>Given these costs, it is not even clear the government will come out ahead.</p>
<p>As one Nigerian programmer and web developer <a href="https://guardian.ng/news/rush-for-vpns-in-nigeria-as-twitter-access-is-blocked/">put it</a>: “In the long run, this might be a blow on the Nigerian government and not Twitter.”</p>
<p><em>The number of 40 million Twitter users in Nigeria which was sourced from <a href="https://noi-polls.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Social-Media-Poll-Report.pdf">NoiPolls </a>has been disputed and the research company has since adjusted its estimates down to <a href="https://noi-polls.com/social-media-poll-result-release/">24 million users</a>. An official number is not available.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162233/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeff Conroy-Krutz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>President Muhammadu Buhari’s Twitter shutdown will be hard to enforce and could have dire consequences for Nigeria’s fragile democratic institutions and economy.Jeff Conroy-Krutz, Associate Professor of Political Science, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1558322021-02-25T13:28:27Z2021-02-25T13:28:27ZFacebook’s news blockade in Australia shows how tech giants are swallowing the web<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385936/original/file-20210223-16-6oqmbd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C23%2C5221%2C3548&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Facebook's decision to shut off sharing of Australian news made headlines across the nation.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/AustraliaDigitalPlatforms/5508e6ba66f44b319f785aa5c4a37cdc/photo">AP Photo/Rick Rycroft</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Facebook <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/technology/facebook-google-australia-news.html">disabled Australians’ access to news articles</a> on its platform, and blocked sharing of articles from Australian news organizations, the company moved a step closer to killing the World Wide Web – the hyperlink-based system of freely connecting online sites <a href="https://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-web/">created in 1989 by Sir Tim Berners-Lee</a>. </p>
<p>Though the social media giant has <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56165015">said it will return to the negotiating table and restore news for now</a>, the company has shown its hand – and how it is continuing to reshape the web.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://newhouse.syr.edu/faculty-staff/jennifer-grygiel">social media scholar</a>, I see clearly that the internet in 2021 is <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/23/tech/splinternet-tech-regulation-facebook/index.html">not the same open public sphere</a> that Berners-Lee envisioned. Rather, it is a constellation of powerful <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/twitter-s-jack-dorsey-created-walled-internet-garden-then-he-ncna1102421">corporate platforms</a> that have come to dominate how people use the internet, what information they get and who is able to profit from it. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Tim Berners-Lee" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tim Berners Lee, the man who in 1989 invented the hyperlink-interconnected World Wide Web.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sir_Tim_Berners-Lee.jpg">Paul Clarke via Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Paying for news</h2>
<p>The Australian government’s legislative efforts aim to support the news industry by helping to broker a deal whereby <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd048">Facebook would pay Australian news organizations for content</a> posted on its platform by users. Right now, Facebook isn’t required to pay for news in any way, and the company objected to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/technology/facebook-australia-news.html">this new potential cost of business</a>.</p>
<p>Berners-Lee warned the Australian government the proposed law could undermine free linking, which he called a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/20/australias-proposed-media-code-could-break-the-world-wide-web-says-the-man-who-invented-it">fundamental principle of the web</a>.” <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2021/02/the-real-story-of-what-happened-with-news-on-facebook-in-australia/">Facebook’s own statement of self-defense</a> focused on Berners-Lee’s argument, saying Facebook provides value to news organizations by linking to them. But their statements show that neither has acknowledged that Facebook has, for many people, <a href="https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/">effectively become the web</a>.</p>
<p>Back in the 1980s, Berners-Lee envisioned the web as a network of community-minded academic researchers <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/20/australias-proposed-media-code-could-break-the-world-wide-web-says-the-man-who-invented-it">sharing their knowledge quickly and conveniently</a> across the world. The main mechanism for this was the hyperlink – text that, when clicked on, led readers to something they were interested in, or to supporting material on the actual source’s website. This meant information was freely exchanged, with attribution. The priority was helping users find the material they wanted, wherever it was online.</p>
<p>Berners-Lee’s design serves the reader, but not everyone was as public-spirited: Companies like Facebook have been moving away from this principle since the web’s founding. These corporate platforms are <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/16522354.2018.1527521?journalCode=romb20">designed to capture and dominate users’ attention</a> – and turn it into money.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A Facebook news post" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Facebook post often includes key news content – not just a link.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/theguardian/posts/10159994274116323">The Conversation screenshot of the Guardian's Facebook page</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Keeping users on the site</h2>
<p>When a user posts a link on Facebook, it’s not just a hyperlink as Berners-Lee envisioned. It’s much more advanced, <a href="https://medium.com/slack-developer-blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-unfurling-but-were-afraid-to-ask-or-how-to-make-your-e64b4bb9254">displaying information from the linked page</a>, including, for news stories, a <a href="https://developers.facebook.com/docs/sharing/webmasters/">headline, a main image</a> and sometimes a summary of the news users might see if they clicked the link. In this way, users can get a lot of the information without ever leaving Facebook, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2018.1527521">hurting news organizations’ revenues</a>.</p>
<p>On Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, users’ options are even more restricted. People can post photos and text, but cannot directly share links to other websites. The only active links in a post are internal, for tagging others on Instagram and hashtags.</p>
<p>In my view, both cases show that Facebook doesn’t really want an interconnected web: It wants to keep its users on its own platforms. Facebook displays valuable information, but if people don’t click through, or there is nothing to effectively click on, then those who actually created the content will continue to have a <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/facebook-to-lift-news-ban-for-australian-users-and-publishers/news-story/e3567b796fbe642418d8b220b101988d">hard time making money off their work</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An Australian media company's Facebook page had no articles on Feb. 18." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Facebook page for the Australian Broadcasting Corp. had no articles visible to users on Feb. 18.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/AustraliaDigitalPlatforms/9e18b7dbc60c4f75979b5a7af5da380b/photo">AP Photo/Rick Rycroft</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Possible ways forward</h2>
<p>The situation in Australia is a significant opportunity to examine how much power Facebook has over the ways people can seek information online.</p>
<p>News media may decide to bid farewell to Facebook, which provides <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-19/facebook-referral-traffic-down-news-ban-morrison-frydenberg/13171568">about one-fifth of traffic to media sites</a> in Australia, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2018.1527521">not necessarily much revenue</a> in other parts of the world. They might <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/19/22291406/abc-news-app-top-charts-facebook-ban-australia">seek other options for digital distribution of their content</a>. But in the near term they may need financial help from somewhere if they have become too dependent on Facebook.</p>
<p>Or news organizations could negotiate with Facebook directly in deals and avoid restrictive laws, as the proposed legislation is not even final yet. </p>
<p>News publishers could also ask regulators to help them gain more control over how news content is presented on platforms to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2018.1527521">increase link referral traffic</a>, which is key to generating revenue. A return to simpler hyperlinks – and adding them to Instagram – could help more users click through on news stories while preserving the principles of the web. Just because advanced technology exists <a href="https://theconversation.com/livestreamed-massacre-means-its-time-to-shut-down-facebook-live-113830">doesn’t mean it’s helpful in all situations or good</a>. But then again, a basic old-timey solution may not work for those trapped in the “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2018.1527521">attention economy</a>.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: The Conversation U.S. is an independent media nonprofit, one of eight news organizations around the world that share a common mission, brand and publishing platform. The Conversation Australia has publicly lobbied in support of the Australian government’s proposal.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155832/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Grygiel owns a small number of shares in the following social media companies: Facebook, Google, Twitter, Alibaba, LinkedIn, YY, Snap, Amazon, and Netflix. Grygiel also owns nominal amounts of the following cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin, Litecoin and Ethereum.</span></em></p>The internet of 2021 is not the open public sphere that early visionaries had imagined.Jennifer Grygiel, Assistant Professor of Communications (Social Media) & Magazine, News and Digital Journalism, Syracuse UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1277932019-11-27T05:25:56Z2019-11-27T05:25:56ZThe internet’s founder now wants to ‘fix the web’, but his proposal misses the mark<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303902/original/file-20191127-112493-10otlhd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=34%2C0%2C3835%2C2578&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tim Berners-Lee is the director of the World Wide Web Consortium, an organisation which aims to develop international standards for the web.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">SHUTTERSTOCK</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On March 12, the 30th anniversary of the World Wide Web, the internet’s founder Tim Berners-Lee said we needed to “<a href="https://webfoundation.org/2019/03/web-birthday-30/">fix the web</a>”. </p>
<p>The statement attracted considerable interest. </p>
<p>However, a resulting manifesto released on Sunday, and dubbed the <a href="https://contractfortheweb.org/">Contract for the Web</a>, is a major disappointment. </p>
<p>Endorsed by more than 80 corporations and non-government organisations, the campaign seeks a return to the “<a href="https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/10/1301496/">open web</a>” of the 1990s and early 2000s – one largely free of corporate control over content.</p>
<p>While appealing in theory, the contract glosses over several key challenges. It doesn’t account for the fact that most internet content is now accessed through a small number of digital platforms, such as Google and Facebook. </p>
<p>Known as the “<a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/129830/">platformisation of the internet</a>”, it’s this phenomenon which has generated many of the problems the web now faces, and this is where the focus should be. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/who-controls-the-internet-the-debate-is-live-and-clicking-11187">Who controls the internet? The debate is live and clicking</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>An undercooked proposal</h2>
<p>Berners-Lee identified major obstacles threatening the future of the web, including the circulation of malicious content, “<a href="https://webfoundation.org/2019/03/web-birthday-30/">perverse incentives</a>” that promote clickbait, and the growing polarisation of online debate. </p>
<p>Having played a central role in the web’s development, he promised to use his influence to promote positive digital change. </p>
<p>He said the Contract for the Web was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/24/tim-berners-lee-unveils-global-plan-to-save-the-internet">a revolutionary statement</a>. </p>
<p>In fact, it’s deeply conservative. </p>
<p>Berners-Lee claims it’s the moral responsibility of everybody to “save the web”. This implies the solution involves engaging civic morality and corporate ethics, rather than enacting laws and regulations that make digital platforms more publicly accountable. </p>
<p>The contract views governments, not corporations, as the primary threat to an open internet. But governments’ influence is restricted to building digital infrastructure (such as fast broadband), facilitating online access, removing illegal content and maintaining data security. </p>
<h2>Missing links</h2>
<p>The contract doesn’t prescribe <a href="https://www.iicom.org/intermedia/intermedia-past-issues/intermedia-jul-2019/taking-aim-at-big-tech">measures</a> to address power misuse by digital platforms, or a solution to the <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/assets/documents/research/T3-Report-Tackling-the-Information-Crisis.pdf">power imbalance</a> between such platforms and content creators. </p>
<p>This is despite <a href="https://www.iicom.org/intermedia/intermedia-past-issues/intermedia-july-2018/platforms-on-trial">more than 50 public inquiries</a> currently taking place worldwide into the power of digital platforms. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/country-rules-the-splinternet-may-be-the-future-of-the-web-81939">Country rules: the ‘splinternet’ may be the future of the web</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The most obvious gaps in the contract are around the obligations of digital platform companies. </p>
<p>And while there are welcome commitments to strengthening user privacy and data protection, there’s no mention of how these problems emerged in the first place. </p>
<p>It doesn’t consider whether the harvesting of user data to maximise advertising revenue is not the result of “<a href="https://contractfortheweb.org/principles/principle-5-respect-and-protect-peoples-privacy-and-personal-data-to-build-online-trust/">user interfaces and design patterns</a>”, but is instead baked into the <a href="https://www.hiig.de/en/data-colonialism-nick-couldry-digital-society/">business models of digital platform companies</a>. </p>
<p>Its proposals are familiar: address the digital divide between rich and poor, improve digital service delivery, improve diversity in hiring practices, pursue human-centered digital design, and so forth.</p>
<p>But it neglects to ask whether the internet may now be less open because a small number of conglomerates are dominating the web. There is <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Digital%20Platforms%20Inquiry%20-%20Final%20report%20-%20part%201.pdf">evidence</a> that platforms such as Google and Facebook dominate search and social media respectively, and the digital advertising connected with these.</p>
<h2>Not a civic responsibility</h2>
<p>Much of the work in the contract seems to fall onto citizens, who are expected to “<a href="https://contractfortheweb.org/principles/principle-9-fight-for-the-web/">fight for the web</a>”. </p>
<p>They bear responsibility for maintaining proper online discourse, protecting vulnerable users, using their privacy settings properly and generating creative content (presumably unpaid and non-unionized).</p>
<p>The contract feels like a document from the late 1990s, forged in the spirit of “<a href="https://www.wired.com/story/wired25-louis-rossetto-tech-militant-optimism/">militant optimism</a>” about the internet. </p>
<p>It offers only <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/016344387009001005">pseudo-regulation</a> for tech giants.</p>
<p>It also implies if tech giants can demonstrate greater diversity in hiring practices, allow users to better manage their privacy settings, and make some investments in disadvantaged communities, then they can avoid serious regulatory consequences. </p>
<h2>Legacies of internet culture</h2>
<p>A big question is why leading non-government organisations such as the <a href="https://www.eff.org/">Electronic Frontier Foundation</a> and <a href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/">Public Knowledge</a> have signed-on to such a weak contract. </p>
<p>This may be because two elements of the original legacy of internet culture (as it started developing in the 1990s) are still applicable today. </p>
<p>One is the view that governments present a greater threat to public interest than corporations. </p>
<p>This leads non-governmental organisations to favour legally binding frameworks that restrain the influence of governments, rather than addressing issues of market dominance. </p>
<p>The contract doesn’t mention, for instance, whether governments have a role in legislating to ensure digital platforms address issues of online hate speech. This is despite evidence that social media platforms are used to <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/609/60904.htm#_idTextAnchor005">spread hate, abuse and violent extremism</a>. </p>
<p>The second is the tendency to think the internet is a different realm to society at large, so laws that apply to other aspects of the online environment are deemed inappropriate for digital platform companies. </p>
<p>An example in Australia is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/law-should-treat-social-media-companies-as-publishers-attorney-general-20191120-p53cch.html">defamation law not being applied to digital platforms such as Facebook</a>, but being applied to the comments sections of news websites. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-push-to-make-social-media-companies-liable-in-defamation-is-great-for-newspapers-and-lawyers-but-not-you-127513">A push to make social media companies liable in defamation is great for newspapers and lawyers, but not you</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Berners-Lee’s manifesto for the future of the web is actually more conservative than proposals coming from government regulators, such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries-ongoing/digital-platforms-inquiry">Digital Platforms Inquiry</a>. </p>
<p>The ACCC is closely evaluating issues arising because of digital platforms, whereas the Contract for the Web looks wistfully back to the open web of the 1990s as a path to the future. </p>
<p>It fails to address the changing political economy of the internet, and the rise of digital platforms. </p>
<p>And it’s a barrier to meaningfully addressing the problems plaguing today’s web.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127793/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terry Flew receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He currently leads an ARC Discovery-Project on digital platform governance and the future of media policy (DP190100022). </span></em></p>The father of the web wants to address issues including malicious content circulation, misinformation, and the polarisation of online debate. But the methods he is proposing aren’t great.Terry Flew, Professor of Communication and Creative Industries, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1261702019-11-14T18:27:52Z2019-11-14T18:27:52ZCities and states take up the battle for an open internet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301382/original/file-20191112-178520-1dalirv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=53%2C0%2C6000%2C3997&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Communities across the U.S. are taking network construction into their own hands.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/concept-network-troubleshoot-supporter-administrator-internet-507379189">T.Dallas/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon are <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FA43C305E2B9A35485258486004F6D0F/%24file/18-1051-1808766.pdf">free to slow down, block or prioritize internet traffic</a> as they wish, without interference by the federal government. That’s the effect of an October ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-restoring-internet-freedom-order">upholding a 2017 ruling by the Federal Communications Commission</a> that reversed rules requiring what is called “<a href="https://theconversation.com/understanding-net-neutrality-10-essential-reads-71848">net neutrality</a>” – treating all internet traffic equally, regardless of where it’s from or what kind of data it is.</p>
<p>Giving corporate telecom giants this power is <a href="http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming-bipartisan-majority-opposes-repealing-net-neutrality">wildly unpopular among the American people</a>, who know that these companies have <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/02/fcc-accuses-atandt-and-verizon-of-violating-net-neutrality/">overcharged customers</a> and <a href="https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history">interfered with users’ internet access</a> in the past. </p>
<p>However, people who advocate for an open internet, free of corporate roadblocks, might find solace in another aspect of the court’s ruling: States and local governments may be able to mandate <a href="https://qz.com/1721633/us-net-neutralitys-crushing-defeat-this-week-may-end-up-saving-it/">their own net neutrality rules</a>.</p>
<h2>The effort is underway</h2>
<p>Governors in six states – Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont – have already signed executive orders enforcing net neutrality by prohibiting state agencies from doing business with internet service providers that limit customers’ online access. Four states have passed their own laws <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/net-neutrality-legislation-in-states.aspx">requiring internet companies to treat all online content equally</a>: California, Oregon, Washington and Vermont. A <a href="https://www.governing.com/news/headlines/GT-New-Hampshire-Bill-Will-Allow-Multi-Town-Broadband-System.html">New Hampshire bill</a> is in the works.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/more-100-mayors-sign-pledge-protect-open-internet-fccs-net-neutrality-repeal">More than 100 mayors</a> representing both large urban centers such as San Francisco and small cities such as Edmond, Oklahoma, have pledged not to sign contracts with internet service providers that violate net neutrality. </p>
<p>These mayors are leveraging the lucrative contracts that their municipalities have with internet providers to wire public schools, libraries and local government buildings to pressure these companies into observing net neutrality throughout the city.</p>
<p>The emerging patchwork of local- and state-level net neutrality legislation could help ensure that millions of Americans have access to an open internet. However, people living outside of these enclaves will still be vulnerable to the whims of for-profit internet service providers. In our new book, “<a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300241402/after-net-neutrality">After Net Neutrality: A New Deal for the Digital Age</a>,” we argue that the best way to protect the public interest is to remove internet service from the commercial market and treat broadband as a public utility.</p>
<p><iframe id="KXdlE" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/KXdlE/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Corporations focus on profits</h2>
<p>Broadband giants have spent <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/">millions of dollars</a> lobbying against federal open internet regulations since 2006. Industry-backed efforts even included funding a network of far-right online trolls <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jsvine/net-neutrality-fcc-fake-comments-impersonation">to spam the FCC’s website</a> with anti-net neutrality propaganda. These companies continue to want the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-and-netflix-throttled-by-carriers-research-finds">power to manipulate online traffic</a>, such as charging users and content providers like Netflix <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/20/netflix-blasts-isps-calls-for-strong-net-neutrality-and-explains-why-it-pays-comcast/">to access each other</a> – even though both are already paying for connections to the internet.</p>
<p>This history of manipulation highlights a recurring challenge to the ideal of net neutrality: Governments seek to reconcile the public’s interest in open, nondiscriminatory online communication with the profit interests of large internet service providers. The resulting policies only narrowly target corporations’ manipulative practices, while letting the companies continue to own and control the physical network itself.</p>
<h2>Cities build their own</h2>
<p>A different vision of how the internet could operate is already taking shape across the United States. In recent years, many cities and towns around the country have <a href="https://muninetworks.org/communitymap">built their own broadband networks</a>. These communities are often seeking to provide affordable high-speed internet service to neighborhoods that the for-profit network providers aren’t adequately serving.</p>
<p>One of the best-known efforts is in the city of <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/chattanooga-was-a-typical-post-industrial-city-then-it-began-offering-municipal-broadband/">Chattanooga, Tennessee</a>, which built its own high-speed fiber-optic internet network in 2009. </p>
<p>Chattanooga’s experiment has been an unequivocal success: According to <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne5k5m/consumer-reports-broadband-company-ratings">a 2018 survey</a> conducted by Consumer Reports, Chattanooga’s municipal broadband network is the top-rated internet provider in the entire U.S. </p>
<p>More than <a href="https://muninetworks.org/communitymap">500 other communities</a> around the country operate publicly owned internet networks. In general, these networks are <a href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2018/01/communityfiber">cheaper, faster and more transparent in their pricing</a> than their private sector counterparts, despite lacking Comcast and Verizon’s gigantic economies of scale. Because the people operating municipal broadband networks serve communities rather than large shareholders on Wall Street, they have a vested interest in respecting net neutrality principles.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301571/original/file-20191113-77326-13rw9zc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301571/original/file-20191113-77326-13rw9zc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301571/original/file-20191113-77326-13rw9zc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301571/original/file-20191113-77326-13rw9zc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301571/original/file-20191113-77326-13rw9zc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301571/original/file-20191113-77326-13rw9zc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301571/original/file-20191113-77326-13rw9zc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301571/original/file-20191113-77326-13rw9zc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The city of Chattanooga has connected its residents and businesses with a municipally owned high-speed internet network.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/aerial-chattanooga-tennessee-tn-skyline-1173602353">Kevin Ruck/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Thinking bigger</h2>
<p>A number of much larger-scale public broadband initiatives have also been proposed to combat the power of the giant internet companies. In the 2018 election cycle, Democratic gubernatorial candidates from <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/could-vermont-become-the-first-state-with-universal-broadband/">Vermont</a> and <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/one-democrats-bold-plan-to-win-back-rural-trump-voters-cheap-internet">Michigan</a> proposed building publicly owned statewide internet networks. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.ledgertranscript.com/What-presidential-candidates-are-saying-in-their-broadband-proposals-27938409">Several Democratic presidential candidates</a> have announced plans to build <a href="https://www.benton.org/blog/2020-candidates-offer-plans-extend-reach-broadband">thousands of miles of publicly owned high-speed internet</a> connections. They vary in the details, but all are responses to the concentration of corporate control over internet access – both in terms of who gets high-speed service in what locations at what price, and what content those connections carry. </p>
<p>Together, these initiatives reflect a growing understanding that Americans need a more expansive vision of an open internet to truly realize the <a href="https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence">democratic promise of an internet that reaches everyone</a>. </p>
<p>High-quality, affordable, restriction-free internet access can come from publicly owned providers that answer directly to the people. In our view, and in the eyes of a growing number of Americans, the broadband industry uses its entrenched market power to serve itself, not the public.</p>
<p>[ <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=expertise">Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day.</a></em> ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126170/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Victor Pickard is a board member of the media reform organization Free Press. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Elliot Berman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A recent federal court ruling lets big telecom companies censor the internet in ways that boost their own profits – but also allows local and state governments to outlaw censorship if they wish.David Elliot Berman, Ph.D. Candidate in Communication, University of PennsylvaniaVictor Pickard, Associate Professor of Communication, University of PennsylvaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1067392018-12-06T11:43:35Z2018-12-06T11:43:35ZThe web really isn’t worldwide – every country has different access<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248538/original/file-20181203-194950-9jqd60.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1000%2C577&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When a website blocks access, it sometimes delivers a notice saying so.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Screenshot from airbnb.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>What the internet looks like to users in the U.S. can be quite different from the online experience of people in other countries. Some of those variations are due to government censorship of online services, which is a <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2018">significant threat</a> to internet freedom worldwide. But private companies – many based in the U.S. – are also building obstacles to users from around the world who want to freely explore the internet.</p>
<p>Website operators and internet traffic managers often choose to deny access to users based on their location. Users from certain countries can’t visit certain websites – not because their governments say so, or because their employers want them to focus on work, but because a corporation halfway around the world has made a decision to deny them access. </p>
<p>This <a href="https://censoredplanet.org/projects/geoblocking">geoblocking</a>, as it’s called, is not always nefarious. U.S. companies may block traffic from certain countries to comply with <a href="https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx">federal economic sanctions</a>. Shopping websites might choose not to have visitors from countries they don’t ship goods to. Media sites might not be able to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/25/gdpr-us-based-news-websites-eu-internet-users-la-times">comply with other nations’ privacy laws</a>. But other times it’s out of convenience, or laziness: It may be easier to stop hacking attempts from a country by blocking every user from that country, rather than increasing security of vulnerable systems.</p>
<p>Whatever its justifications, this blocking is increasing on all kinds of websites and is affecting users from almost every country in the world. Geoblocking cuts people off from global markets and international communications just as effectively as government censorship. And it creates a more splintered internet, where each country has its own bubble of content and services, rather than sharing a global commons of information and interconnection.</p>
<h2>Measuring geoblocking globally</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247660/original/file-20181128-32226-1sx3009.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247660/original/file-20181128-32226-1sx3009.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247660/original/file-20181128-32226-1sx3009.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=173&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247660/original/file-20181128-32226-1sx3009.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=173&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247660/original/file-20181128-32226-1sx3009.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=173&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247660/original/file-20181128-32226-1sx3009.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=217&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247660/original/file-20181128-32226-1sx3009.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=217&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247660/original/file-20181128-32226-1sx3009.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=217&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The notice users receive when Amazon Cloudfront is configured to block access from their country.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Screenshot</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As a <a href="https://censoredplanet.org/">team of internet freedom researchers</a>, my colleagues <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YHAxUZQAAAAJ&hl=en">and I</a> investigated the <a href="https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3278552">mechanics of geoblocking</a>, including where geoblocking is happening, what content was being blocked and how websites were practicing geoblocking. </p>
<p>We used a service called <a href="https://luminati.io/">Luminati</a>, which provides researchers remote, automated access to residential internet connections around the world. Our automated system used those connections to see what more than 14,000 sites look like from 177 countries, and compared the results in each country.</p>
<p>Websites that didn’t block traffic typically served us a large file providing rich internet content, including text, images and video. Websites that were blocked usually delivered just a short notice saying that access was denied because of the visitor’s location. When the same website delivered a large file to an address in one country and a very short one to another, we knew we had a good chance of finding that the site was conducted geoblocking.</p>
<p>We found that the internet does indeed look very different depending on where you’re connecting from. Users in countries under U.S. sanctions – Iran, Syria, Sudan and Cuba – had access to significantly fewer websites than in other countries. People in China and Russia faced similar restrictions, though not as many. Some countries are less affected, but of the 177 countries we studied, every one – except the Seychelles – was subjected to at least some geoblocking, including the U.S.</p>
<p><iframe id="wYLSh" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/wYLSh/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Shopping websites were the most likely to geoblock, perhaps because of economic sanctions or more straightforward business reasons. But some websites hosting news and educational resources chose to block users from specific countries, limiting those people’s access to outside information and perspectives.</p>
<h2>The role of internet middlemen</h2>
<p>We also found that many websites are taking advantage of geoblocking services provided by their hosting companies and online middleman firms called <a href="https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/cdn/what-is-a-cdn/">content delivery networks</a>. These companies operate systems that preload web content at key locations around the world to speed service to nearby internet users, so an Australian looking for an article in the Washington Post doesn’t have to wait for the request to travel halfway around the world and back. With a content delivery network, there’s already an up-to-date electronic copy of the Washington Post stored in, say, Sydney.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247658/original/file-20181128-32185-1btty3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247658/original/file-20181128-32185-1btty3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247658/original/file-20181128-32185-1btty3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=243&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247658/original/file-20181128-32185-1btty3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=243&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247658/original/file-20181128-32185-1btty3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=243&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247658/original/file-20181128-32185-1btty3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247658/original/file-20181128-32185-1btty3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247658/original/file-20181128-32185-1btty3g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cloudflare’s notification that the owner of a website has banned the country or region a user’s IP address is in.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Screenshot</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many content delivery network services include a dashboard where a site administrator can easily select which countries to deliver the website’s information to – and which ones to block. Content delivery networks in general are <a href="https://cloud.google.com/free/">a</a> <a href="https://www.cloudflare.com/plans/">lot</a> <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2014/05/08/aws-free-usage-tier-now-includes-amazon-cloudfront/">cheaper</a> than they used to be, which means more and more website operators are getting their hands on simple geoblocking tools. </p>
<p>In fact, based on data that were provided to us by <a href="https://www.cloudflare.com/">Cloudflare</a>, one of the world’s largest content delivery networks, this trend is only increasing. As of August 2018, more than 37 percent of Cloudflare’s large-business customers block their website in at least one country.</p>
<p>Sometimes an unavailable website is merely an inconvenience – I can’t order my <a href="https://www.dominos.ie/">Irish friends a pizza from the U.S.</a>, for example. Other times geoblocking can really cause problems. We encountered an Iranian student who couldn’t apply to graduate school abroad because the admissions website wouldn’t accept payment of the application fee from Iran. Another person may be unable to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/25/gdpr-us-based-news-websites-eu-internet-users-la-times">read the news</a> from a major international city, or <a href="https://www.airbnb.com/region_unavailable/">plan a trip abroad</a> because travel websites are all unavailable from their home.</p>
<h2>Geoblocking is ineffective</h2>
<p>Restricting access based on geography is unlikely to affect all internet users equally. As when evading censorship, getting around a geoblock isn’t necessarily difficult. But it might be expensive, expose users to <a href="https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3278570">additional tracking of their online activity</a>, or require a level of <a href="https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2016/EECS-2016-58.pdf">technical</a> <a href="https://petsymposium.org/2012/papers/hotpets12-1-usability.pdf">literacy</a> that not everyone has. Even if a user can ultimately access the content they were originally denied, they may bear a significant burden to gain access to the wider internet.</p>
<p>It’s also not easy – or necessarily accurate – to identify an internet user’s physical location. Using a computer’s numeric IP address to estimate where in the world it’s being used is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3131365.3131380">notoriously</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/1971162.1971171">unreliable</a>. At least some users are likely being unfairly denied access to online services because their network address is determined to be somewhere they are not. However, rather than expanding the accessibility and accuracy of geoblocking, our group is <a href="https://censoredplanet.org/projects/geoblocking">encouraging researchers</a> to address the needs of websites while maintaining as open an access policy as possible.</p>
<p>The internet has indelibly changed the world and the way people connect and do business. Researchers are working hard to keep this valuable resource available to everyone. Companies shouldn’t thwart those efforts by discriminating against users only because of where they are when they connect.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106739/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Allison McDonald does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Private companies – many based in the US – are blocking access to their websites from particular countries around the world. It’s contributing to a splintering of the global internet.Allison McDonald, Ph.D. Student in Computer Science, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/886232018-04-27T10:44:15Z2018-04-27T10:44:15ZInternet openness pits collaborative history against competitive future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216026/original/file-20180423-94160-wuj2ns.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Two views of the internet collide in the net neutrality debate.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/two-male-hands-about-shake-over-72451381">The Conversation composite from Malyugin and AAR Studios/Shutterstock.com</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The debate about how open the internet should be to free expression – and how much companies should be able to restrict, or charge for, communication speeds – boils down to a conflict between the internet’s collaborative beginnings and its present commercialized form.</p>
<p>The internet originated in the late 1960s in the <a href="https://www.internetsociety.org/internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet/">U.S. Department of Defense’s ARPANET project</a>, whose goal was to enable government <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/ARPANET">researchers around the country to communicate</a> and coordinate with each other. When the general public was allowed online in the early 1990s, intellectuals saw an opportunity to include all mankind in the collaborative online community that had developed. As internet rights pioneer John Barlow wrote, “<a href="https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence">We are creating a world that all may enter</a> without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth. We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs.” </p>
<p>Even today, many of the people who contribute to the technical evolution of the network continue to view the internet as a place to share human knowledge for self-improvement and the betterment of society. As a result, <a href="https://theconversation.com/understanding-net-neutrality-10-essential-reads-71848">many people are troubled</a> when internet companies try to charge more money for faster access to digital commodities like streaming videos.</p>
<p>As a researcher in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lFnZ7RkAAAAJ&hl=en">computer networks and security</a>, I note that the problems are not just philosophical: The internet is based on technologies that complicate the task of commercializing the online world.</p>
<h2>The ‘true’ internet</h2>
<p>In practice, the designers of the technology at the foundation of the internet were not really attempting to enforce any particular philosophy. One of them, David Clark, wrote in a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/52324.52336">1988 paper</a> that early internet architects did consider commercial features, such as accounting. Being able to keep track of how much data – and which data – each user is sending is very useful, if those users are to be charged for connectivity. However, most of those commercial features didn’t get included because they weren’t needed for a government and military network.</p>
<p>These decisions decades ago echo through the years: There is no effective and universal way to distinguish between different types of internet traffic, for example, to give some priority or charge extra for others. If whoever produces the traffic actively tries to evade restrictions, separating content gets even more difficult.</p>
<h2>Using old tools in new ways</h2>
<p>One of the few sources of information about how internet companies handle this challenge comes from <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-fccs-proposed-internet-rules-may-spell-trouble-ahead-82561">recent research at Northeastern University</a>. It suggests that they may be using a technique called “<a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/article/how-deep-packet-inspection-works">deep packet inspection</a>” to identify, for example, video traffic from a particular streaming service. Then internet companies can decide at what speed to deliver that traffic, whether to throttle it or give it priority.</p>
<p>But deep packet inspection was not developed for this type of commercial discrimination. In fact, it was developed in the internet security community as a way of identifying and blocking malicious communications. Its goal is to make the internet more secure, not to simplify billing. So it’s not a particularly good accounting tool.</p>
<p>Like many other researchers working on deep packet inspection, I learned that its algorithms <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/319709.319710">may fail to correctly identify different types of traffic</a> – and that it can be fooled by a data sender dedicated to avoiding detection. In the context of internet security, these limitations are acceptable, because it’s impossible to prevent all attacks, so the main goal is to make them more difficult.</p>
<p>But deep packet inspection is not reliable enough for internet service providers to use it to discriminate between types of traffic. Inaccuracies may cause them to throttle traffic they didn’t intend to, or not to throttle data they meant to slow down. </p>
<h2>Breaking the cycle</h2>
<p>The Northeastern team found that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2940136.2940140">T-Mobile seems to throttle YouTube videos</a>, but not ones from Vimeo – likely because the company does not know how to identify Vimeo traffic. As the researchers pointed out, this could lead sites like YouTube to disguise their traffic so it also does not get identified. The peril comes if that pushes internet companies to step up their deep packet inspection efforts. The resulting cat-and-mouse game could affect traffic from other sources.</p>
<p>As internet companies experiment with what they can achieve within their technical limitations, these sorts of problems are likely to become more common, at least in the short term. In the long term, of course, their influence could force <a href="https://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html">changes in the technical underpinnings</a> of the internet. But, in my view, the internet’s current architecture means throttling and traffic discrimination will be at least as difficult – if not more so – as it is today.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88623/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lorenzo De Carli does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The internet developed as a place for open collaboration; there are technical limits on its transformation into a commercial marketplace.Lorenzo De Carli, Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Colorado State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/916162018-03-06T11:39:53Z2018-03-06T11:39:53ZFor tech giants, a cautionary tale from 19th century railroads on the limits of competition<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208956/original/file-20180305-146655-1l0ia1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Southern Pacific steam engine No. 1364 in 1891.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ATrain_at_Arcade_Station%2C_1891_(00031881).jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Late 19th-century Americans loved railroads, which seemed to eradicate time and space, moving goods and people more cheaply and more conveniently than ever before. And they feared railroads because in most of the country it was impossible to do business without them.</p>
<p>Businesses, and the republic itself, seemed to be at the mercy of the <a href="https://archive.org/details/railwaysandrepu00hudsgoog">monopoly power</a> of railroad corporations. American farmers, businessmen and consumers thought of competition as a way to ensure fairness in the marketplace. But with no real competitors over many routes, railroads could charge different rates to different customers. This power to decide economic winners and losers threatened not only individual businesses but also the conditions that sustained the republic.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208953/original/file-20180305-146650-3i9vpv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208953/original/file-20180305-146650-3i9vpv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208953/original/file-20180305-146650-3i9vpv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=907&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208953/original/file-20180305-146650-3i9vpv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=907&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208953/original/file-20180305-146650-3i9vpv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=907&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208953/original/file-20180305-146650-3i9vpv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1140&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208953/original/file-20180305-146650-3i9vpv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208953/original/file-20180305-146650-3i9vpv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1140&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An 1882 political cartoon portrays the railroad industry as a monopolistic octopus, with its tentacles controlling many businesses.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AThe_Curse_of_California.jpg">G. Frederick Keller</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That may sound familiar. As <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-republic-for-which-it-stands-9780199735815?cc=us&lang=en&">a historian of that first Gilded Age</a>, I see parallels between the power of the railroads and today’s internet giants like Verizon and Comcast. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/technology/right-and-left-net-neutrality.html">current regulators</a> – the Federal Communications Commission’s <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-restoring-internet-freedom-order">Republican majority</a> – and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/internet-isps-competition-net-neutrality-ajit-pai-fcc-2017-4#-3">many of its critics</a> both embrace a solution that 19th-century Americans tried and dismissed: market competition.</p>
<h2>Monopolies as natural and efficient</h2>
<p>In the 1880s, the most sophisticated railroad managers and some economists argued that railroads were “<a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp">natural monopolies</a>,” the inevitable consequence of an industry that required huge investments in rights of way over land, constructing railways, and building train engines and rail cars. </p>
<p>Competition was expensive and wasteful. In 1886 the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and the Missouri Pacific Railroad both built railroad tracks heading west from the Great Bend of the Arkansas River in Kansas to Greeley County on the western border, roughly 200 miles away. The tracks ran parallel to each other, about two miles apart. Charles Francis Adams, president of the Union Pacific Railroad, called this redundancy the “<a href="http://books.wwnorton.com/books/978-0-393-34237-6/">maddest specimen of railroad construction of which</a>” he had ever heard. And then his own railroad built new tracks into western Kansas, too. </p>
<p>After ruinous bouts of competition like this, rival railroad companies would agree to cooperate, pooling the business in certain areas and setting common rates. These agreements effectively established monopolies, even if more than one company was involved. </p>
<h2>Monopolies as unfairly subsidized</h2>
<p>Anti-monopolists who opposed the railroads’ power argued that monopolies originated not as a result of efficient investment strategies, but rather <a href="http://books.wwnorton.com/books/978-0-393-34237-6/">from special privileges afforded by the government</a>. Railroads had the ability to condemn land to build their routes. They got subsidies of land, loans, bonds and other financial aid from federal, state and local governments. Their political contributions and favors secured them supporters in legislatures, Congress and the courts.</p>
<p>As stronger railroads bought up weaker companies and divided up markets with the remaining competitors, the dangers of monopoly became more and more apparent. Railroad companies made decisions on innovation based on the effects on their bottom line, not societal values. For instance, the death toll was enormous: In 1893, 1,567 trainmen died and 18,877 were injured on the rails. Congress enacted the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/07/02/2010-16153/railroad-safety-appliance-standards-miscellaneous-revisions">first national railroad safety legislation</a> that year because the companies had insisted it was too expensive to put automatic braking systems and couplers on freight trains.</p>
<p>But a monopoly’s great economic and societal danger was its ability to decide who succeeded in business and who failed. For example, in 1883 the Northern Pacific Railway raised the rates it charged O.A. Dodge’s Idaho lumber company. The new rates left Dodge unable to compete with the rival Montana Improvement Company, reputedly owned by Northern Pacific executives and investors. Dodge knew the game was up. All he could do was ask if they wanted to buy his company.</p>
<p>For anti-monopolists, Dodge’s dilemma went to the heart of the issue. <a href="https://archive.org/details/railwaysandrepu00hudsgoog">Monopolies were intrinsically wrong</a> because they unfairly influenced businesses’ likelihood of success or failure. In an 1886 report on the railroad industry, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Interstate Commerce agreed, stating clearly that the “<a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1982-09-14/pdf/FR-1982-09-14.pdf">great desideratum is to secure equality</a>.”</p>
<h2>Turning to regulators for help</h2>
<p>To achieve equality, anti-monopolists wanted more government regulation and enforcement. By the late 1880s, some railroad executives were <a href="https://archive.org/details/railroadtranspo03hadlgoog">starting to agree</a>. Their efforts at cooperation had failed because railroads treated each other no better than they did their customers. As Charles Francis Adams put it, his own industry’s “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/books/review/book-review-railroaded-by-richard-white.html">method of doing business</a> is founded upon lying, cheating, and stealing: all bad things.” </p>
<p>The consensus was that the railroads needed the federal government to enforce the rules, bringing greater efficiency and ultimately lower rates. But Congress ran into a problem: If an even, competitive playing field depended on regulation, the marketplace wasn’t truly open or free.</p>
<p>The solution was no clearer then than it is now. The technologies of railroads inherently gave large operators advantages of efficiency and profitability. Large customers also got benefits: <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Standard-Oil-Company-and-Trust">John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil</a>, for example, could guarantee large shipments and provide his own tank cars – so he got special rates and rebates. Newcomers and small enterprises were left out.</p>
<p>Some reformers suggested accepting monopolies, so long as their rates were carefully regulated. But the calculations were complex: Charges by the mile ignored the fact that most costs came not from transport but rather from loading, unloading and transferring freight. And even the best bookkeepers had a hard time <a href="https://archive.org/details/accountstheirco02colegoog">unraveling railway accounts</a>.</p>
<h2>Managing power</h2>
<p>The simplest solution, advanced by the Populist party and others, was the most difficult politically: <a href="http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5361/">nationalize the railroad routes</a>. Turning them into a publicly owned network, like today’s interstate highway system, would give the government the responsibility to create clear, fair rules for private companies wishing to use them. But profitable railroads opposed it tooth and nail, and skeptical reformers did not want the government to buy derelict and unprofitable railroads.</p>
<p>The current controversy about the monopolistic power of internet service providers echoes those concerns from the first Gilded Age. As anti-monopolists did in the 19th century, advocates of an open internet argue that regulation will advance competition by creating a level playing field for all comers, big and small, resulting in more innovation and better products. (There was even a radical, if short-lived, proposal to <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-administration-idea-for-nationalized-5g-falls-flat1/">nationalize high-speed wireless service</a>.)</p>
<p>However, no proposed regulations for an open internet address the <a href="https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net-neutrality-missing/">existing power</a> of either the service providers or the “<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-15/the-big-five-could-destroy-the-tech-ecosystem">Big Five</a>” internet giants: Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft. Like Standard Oil, they have the power to wring enormous advantages from the internet service providers, to the detriment of smaller competitors.</p>
<p>The most important element of the debate – both then and now – is not the particular regulations that are or are not enacted. What’s crucial is the wider concerns about the effects on society. The Gilded Age’s anti-monopolists had political and moral concerns, not economic ones. They believed, as many in the U.S. still do, that a democracy’s economy should be judged not only – nor even primarily – by its financial output. Rather, success is how well it sustains the ideals, values and engaged citizenship on which free societies depend.</p>
<p>When monopoly threatens something as fundamental as the free circulation of information and the equal access of citizens to technologies central to their daily life, the issues are no longer economic.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91616/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard White receives funding from Stanford Humanities Center, Huntington Library.
They gave me money but neither is connected to this subject.</span></em></p>Efforts to curb railroads’ monopoly power in the 19th century hold lessons for 21st-century policymakers and internet giants alike.Richard White, Professor of American History, Stanford UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/824852017-10-02T00:52:53Z2017-10-02T00:52:53ZThree steps Congress could take to help resolve the net neutrality debate – without legislating a fix<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185727/original/file-20170912-5947-edpnhm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is it time for Congress to act?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Capitol_Building_Full_View.jpg">Noclip</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The public debate over how best to keep the internet open and free – and what exactly that means – has dragged on for more than a decade. The principle that internet service providers should deliver all online content without favoritism carries with it complex <a href="http://assets.wharton.upenn.edu/%7Efaulhabe/Econ_Net_Neut_Review.pdf">economic</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/thorny-technical-questions-remain-for-net-neutrality-61478">technological</a> and <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/%24file/11-1355-1474943.pdf">legal questions</a>. </p>
<p>In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission issued its <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order">Open Internet Order</a>, requiring transparency and banning blocking, throttling of content and paid prioritization – that is, offering higher-quality service at a price. Under its current chairman, Ajit Pai, the FCC proposes to <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344614A1.pdf">revise and reverse</a> some or all of these rules. Both in the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/01/20/eight-reasons-to-support-congresss-net-neutrality-bill/">run-up to the 2015 order</a> and since this current proposal for reconsideration, many have <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2017/09/05/world/molly-net-neutrality">called for Congress to step in</a> <a href="http://www.cfmediaview.com/lp1.aspx?v=6_2606270879_117430_7">for the first time</a>.</p>
<p>Without legislating specific net neutrality rules, Congress could take three important steps to clear away irrelevant legal impediments and make the debate more productive for regulators and the public alike.</p>
<h2>Separate classification from regulation</h2>
<p>Some of the problems of devising net neutrality rules come from the fact that Congress defined legislative categories that had more to do with the 1984 breakup of AT&T’s telephone monopoly than the still largely nascent internet. In the <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996">Telecommunications Act of 1996</a>, Congress classified communications businesses as engaged in either “telecommunications” or “information” services – either operating the wires that the data flow through or providing the data. Congress decreed that only the former were subject to regulation of prices, access and services – under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II">Title II</a> of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5">Communications Act of 1934</a>.</p>
<p>That congressional decision is why the debate is laced with contentions about whether ISPs should be classified as either telecommunications or information service providers. Those contentions aren’t new; 15 years ago a relatively deregulation-minded FCC classified broadband cable service as an <a href="https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2002/nrcb0201.html">information service, not subject to regulation</a>. And in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-277P.ZO">the FCC could determine how to classify</a> broadband internet. But Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, saying the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-277P.ZD">clear that broadband internet was a telecommunications service</a> – and that the FCC couldn’t decide otherwise.</p>
<p>The FCC’s 2015 Order “reclassified” broadband service as a telecommunications service, to give it the legal authority the <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf">D.C. Court of Appeals said the FCC needed</a> to enact its net neutrality rules. The current FCC proposes, in effect, to “re-reclassify” broadband as an information service. The commission’s announcement of that move involves some excruciating legal contortions, not to oppose the economic substance of the FCC’s 2015 order but to come up with a convincing argument against Justice Scalia’s 2005 dissent. </p>
<p>Congress can fix this mess. The economic case for whether and how a firm should be regulated has nothing to do with what service it provides. Rather, the question should be about economic fundamentals: Is the company a monopoly? Or does competition from alternative suppliers impose reasonable market pressures on price and service quality? And can the regulator get demand, quality and cost information in a sufficiently timely manner to be able to set reasonable prices and terms of service? </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ignored economics and relied on service classifications instead, precluding findings that an information service should be regulated – or that a telecommunications service market is sufficiently competitive to render regulation unnecessary. Returning regulatory determinations to their economic foundations is the first order of legislative business.</p>
<h2>Restore a focus on the ‘public interest’</h2>
<p>But is net neutrality really about economic regulation? While thinking clearly about net neutrality rules requires eliminating classification, looking at the issue solely in terms of regulating monopolies may be looking in the wrong place. In recent years, during both Republican and Democratic administrations, the FCC has tended to assess all communications policy issues in terms of whether <a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/883166/fcc-s-wheeler-signs-off-with-competition-mantra">internet sector practices</a> violate antitrust laws. By and large, the arguments based on competition, or economics more generally, <a href="http://www.freestatefoundation.org/images/Is_the_Open_Internet_Order_an_Economics_Free_Zone_062816.pdf">are not all that compelling</a>.</p>
<p>Regarding net neutrality, a much better role for the FCC would be to focus on the public interest. One example comes from the observation, by open-internet advocate <a href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/about-us/staff/#Harold">Harold Feld</a> at the communications policy nonprofit <a href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/">Public Knowledge</a>, noting how important it was for <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2012/11/28/role-social-media-arab-uprisings/">Arab Spring protesters</a> to communicate on social media. While the FCC’s jurisdiction does not extend to Egypt, the ability for the public to freely share news and ideas through the internet is no less important in the U.S.</p>
<p>In retrospect, the FCC made a mistake by treating net neutrality as a competition problem rather than as a tool to protect speech. Because speech rights were never central in the FCC’s net neutrality review, there is no record of what, if any, policies would be necessary or effective to protect people’s rights to communicate. The current regulations might be sufficient or excessive, but until evaluated under a “public interest” standard, we do not know.</p>
<p>Congress should remind the FCC of its obligations to evaluate the public interest consequences – not just the economics – of its regulations.</p>
<h2>Restore the role of antitrust in telecommunications</h2>
<p>Focusing the FCC on the public interest would be easier if the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/atr">Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division</a> or the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">Federal Trade Commission</a> could guard against internet service providers engaging in monopolistic practices. </p>
<p>At present, the antitrust agencies may not have that authority. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that if a regulator has authority over a practice (in that case, the FCC’s authority over how telephone companies open their facilities to competitors, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-682P.ZO">antitrust laws should not apply</a>. That decision came despite an explicit clause in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.478129">preserving an antitrust role</a> for the FCC.</p>
<p>I do not expect that internet service providers following regulations grounded in the public’s rights to speak and be heard would violate antitrust laws. Congress should make it clear to the Supreme Court and the public that antitrust authorities do have the power to review the facts and remedy any competition problems or harm to consumers.</p>
<p>If Congress could enact legislation that removed the distinction between “telecommunication” and “information” services, reinforced the importance of the public interest in communications and restored antitrust enforcement power for regulators, the FCC would be better able to develop net neutrality regulations – whatever they may turn out to be – with solid substantive and legal foundations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82485/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy Brennan was chief economist at the Federal Communications Commission during 2014, and did some unrelated consulting work for the FCC on the AT&T/DirecTV merger during the first half of 2015. </span></em></p>As the issue of an open and free internet again comes up for public debate, Congress could participate – and help regulators devise a workable set of policies.Timothy Brennan, Professor of Public Policy and Economics, University of Maryland, Baltimore CountyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/825612017-09-29T02:35:23Z2017-09-29T02:35:23ZWhy the FCC’s proposed internet rules may spell trouble ahead<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186052/original/file-20170914-24296-1yz229k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How fast is that video really coming in?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/hand-holds-smartphone-video-player-application-383521630">hvostik/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-proposes-restore-internet-freedom">Federal Communications Commission takes up a formal proposal</a> to reverse the Obama-era <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order">Open Internet Order</a>, a key question consumers and policymakers alike are asking is: What difference do these rules make?</p>
<p>My research team has been studying one key element of the regulations – called “throttling,” the practice of limiting download speeds – for several years, spanning a period both before the 2015 Open Internet Order was issued and after it took effect. Our <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2815675.2815691">findings</a> reveal not only the state of internet openness before the Obama initiative but also the measurable results of the policy’s effect.</p>
<p>The methods we used and the tools we developed investigate how internet service providers manage your traffic and demonstrate how open the internet really is – or isn’t – as a result of evolving internet service plans, as well as political and regulatory changes. Regular people can explore their own services with our <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=mobi.meddle.wehe">mobile app for Android</a>, which is out now; an iOS version is coming soon. We’re working with the <a href="https://www.arcep.fr/">French equivalent of the FCC</a> to promote our measurement tools in France to help audit whether French ISPs are compliant with local net neutrality protections. Other countries, including the U.S., could follow the French lead, using our tools to evaluate their internet service quality.</p>
<h2>Rules take effect</h2>
<p>Before the Open Internet Order took effect in 2015, companies running cellular networks were allowed to use throttling to manage how much data their networks needed to handle at any given time. To do this, some companies capped users’ download speeds, which could cause video to stream at lower quality, with less-sharp images that were blurry during action sequences.</p>
<p>But there were limited rules governing how the mobile companies enforced those caps: We found some providers <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2815675.2815691">slowing down YouTube videos but not Netflix or other video services</a>. This is an example of a major concern net neutrality supporters have: that internet providers might give preference to traffic from one site or another – perhaps making video providers <a href="https://www.benton.org/node/197702">pay extra to have their material delivered at high speed</a>. If the speed or quality consumers can get from an online service depends on how much providers can afford to pay, that can put startups and innovators at a disadvantage to existing internet giants.</p>
<p>When it took effect, the Open Internet Order allowed internet providers to use throttling in only a limited way, under the so-called “<a href="https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/12/8116237/net-neutrality-rules-open-internet-order-released">reasonable network management</a>” provision. Instead of singling out specific types of data for throttling, mobile companies – and wired internet providers as well – were required to do so in a way that treats all traffic equally. We <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2815675.2815691">observed</a> the companies that had slowed down YouTube but not Netflix shifting their policies to reflect this new requirement.</p>
<h2>The return of throttling</h2>
<p>In late 2015, though, T-Mobile announced a program it called “<a href="https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html">Binge On</a>,” <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/t-mobiles-video-free-for-all-everything-you-need-to-know-about-binge-on-faq/">departing from its competitors</a> by offering its customers “free” video streaming – the ability to watch some video services on their devices without counting against monthly high-speed data limits. The trade-off was that their video quality from those providers would be limited in the best case to the <a href="https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-24291">equivalent of a regular DVD</a> – not the high-definition video most people have come to expect, and which mobile data networks are capable of carrying. Some video sites would come in at higher quality, but their data would count against users’ monthly caps. Other sites’ videos, strangely enough, would come in at low quality, though the data would still count against users’ monthly caps.</p>
<p>When my team heard the announcement, we were perplexed. It seemed clear T-Mobile was throttling, perhaps even <a href="https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html">preferentially</a>, choosing a handful of services to exempt from users’ monthly data caps, while continuing to count data from other video providers. And many users were <a href="https://www.t-mobile.com/landing/binge-on-letter.html">opted in by default</a>, potentially never knowing that T-Mobile had decided for them whether they could stream high-quality video. But most confounding, how did T-Mobile know what “video” was, as distinct from other data flowing through its networks? </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rYodcvhh7b8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">What are ‘packets,’ and how do they travel around the internet?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Internet traffic is broken up into small chunks of data called “<a href="http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question525.htm">packets</a>” that travel through the wires separately and then are reassembled by the computer or mobile device that’s receiving them. Think of these as small messages in individual envelopes traveling through the mail. In both cases, the packets and envelopes reach their destination according to the address written on the outside – not what is contained inside.</p>
<p>It would be strange if the U.S. Postal Service looked at the envelopes, guessed what was inside, and decided your credit card bill should be delivered first, but delayed your paycheck. Unlike some envelopes, packets coming from YouTube or Spotify don’t carry information on the outside declaring what’s inside – say, “video” or “music streaming” or “web.” To the internet, they all look the same. And under the principles of net neutrality, they should all be treated the same.</p>
<h2>Unequal handling</h2>
<p>Through a <a href="http://dd.meddle.mobi/bingeon.html">set of rigorous experiments</a>, we were able to find out how T-Mobile and other internet companies tried to tell the difference between video packets and packets containing other types of data: They were looking inside the packets – inside the envelopes – for particular <a href="http://dd.meddle.mobi/bingeon.html">words or terms</a>, like “netflix.com” or “googlevideo.” </p>
<p>Someone had come up with a list of hints that indicated a particular piece of network traffic was in fact part of an online video. But of course there are countless video streaming platforms – and old ones die off and new ones are started every day. T-Mobile’s list couldn’t possibly cover them all.</p>
<p>We found that the popular video service <a href="https://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a> was not throttled by T-Mobile or Verizon. This meant that people who streamed Vimeo content used up some of their monthly data cap, but got better video quality than people watching YouTube or Netflix. This decision by T-Mobile – though it <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/tom-wheeler-accuses-att-and-verizon-of-violating-net-neutrality/">passed</a> a <a href="https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0111/DOC-342982A1.pdf">review by the FCC</a> – affected how well YouTube and Netflix could compete with Vimeo, which raises a specter of more problems to come if the FCC scraps the Open Internet Order (which, for all these reasons, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10829966722377">I have urged them not to</a>). What, for example, would stop AT&T from giving its DirecTV subsidiary faster and better-quality traffic than it gave competitors Netflix and Hulu? </p>
<h2>Protecting consumers</h2>
<p>One way to ensure users get the service they’re expecting – and paying for – is to require more transparency from internet providers. Specifically, they should disclose how much they slow down video and what that does to video quality, but also what hints or techniques they use to detect video traffic in the first place. </p>
<p>In addition, those methods must ensure that internet companies treat all content providers equally – so users don’t get better or worse performance from different sites based on corporate interests <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/">or disputes</a>. And regulators need to enforce these basic rules, <a href="http://dd.meddle.mobi/codeanddata.html">using auditing tools</a> like the <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=mobi.meddle.wehe">open-source ones</a> my research team has developed.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article originally published Sept. 29, 2017.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82561/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Choffnes receives funding from the National Science Foundation, Google, Data Transparency Lab, Amazon, and the Department of Homeland Security. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of his sponsors.</span></em></p>How do internet companies decide which network traffic to slow down and which to charge against users’ data plans? And what can we learn about net neutrality from the answers?David Choffnes, Assistant Professor of Computer and Information Science, Northeastern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/811442017-08-03T12:56:29Z2017-08-03T12:56:29ZWe don’t need strict net neutrality rules to keep the internet fair<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180880/original/file-20170803-5612-18nahzx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are we really headed for a two-speed internet?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s not often you hear large corporations arguing in favour of government regulations. But a group representing some of the world’s biggest technology companies, including Google and Facebook, is <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-idUSKBN1A20W0">doing just that</a>. They want the US government to abandon its plan to <a href="https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-could-be-about-to-end-net-neutrality-71732">repeal the laws</a> preserving net neutrality, the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all internet traffic the same and not block, slow down or otherwise discriminate against particular websites or online services.</p>
<p>The US Federal Communications Commission recently received <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-gets-more-10-million-comments-on-net-neutrality/">10m comments</a> in its consultation on the subject and they largely opposed the plans. Yet the regulator seems determined to follow through with a repeal of the net neutrality rules.</p>
<p>There are undeniably good arguments on both sides and finding a consensus is hard. But the main problem is not that the current rules preserving net neutrality are unbalanced. There’s a more fundamental question about whether we needed such rules in the first place. If not, repealing them won’t spell the disaster <a href="https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/">that activists fear</a>. In fact, it would mean net neutrality is largely a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>In the early days of broadband, net neutrality stood for the idea that ISPs should be seen just as data carriers, much like telephone companies carried voice calls. This would prevent them from favouring their own services or those of affiliates. The FCC tried several times to pass rules to ensure net neutrality, and the <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf">current ones</a> that the Trump administration wants to repeal, were adopted just two years ago. Similar rules were introduced in the EU with the 2015 <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.310.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2015:310:TOC">Open Internet Regulation</a>.</p>
<p>The problem is that very few documented cases exist of ISPs actually violating the principles behind net neutrality, and in several of those cases the evidence is scarce and unconvincing. For instance, in its <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-61A1_Rcd.pdf">2014 proposal</a> for net neutrality rules, the FCC cited the example of AT&T temporarily blocking Apple’s FaceTime app. But following <a href="https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/oiac/Mobile-Broadband-FaceTime.pdf">an investigation</a>, the regulator later found that AT&T had legitimate reasons to do so.</p>
<p>In another example, the FCC accused Verizon of blocking certain tethering apps but later <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-315501A1.pdf">settled the case</a> using spectrum licensing rules rather than net neutrality ones. And the <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf">two most glaring violations</a> of net neutrality that started everything date back more than a decade, without recent equivalents. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the EU <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/article/internet-is-not-inherently-neutral-says-eus-kroes/">delayed adopting net neutrality</a> because the perceived greater competition between internet providers in Europe was seen as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uk-doesnt-need-net-neutrality-regulations-yet-38204">safeguard against harmful practices</a>. The Open Internet Regulation was eventually introduced in 2015 in response to a <a href="https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521087926.pdf">report highlighting</a> numerous examples of European providers shaping internet traffic. </p>
<p>But a closer look shows that the report didn’t argue these practices amounted to a violation of net neutrality. Indeed, the UK regulator Ofcom <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/103257/net-neutrality.pdf">did not identify</a> a single case of net neutrality violation in the UK, despite the continuation of traffic shaping practices.</p>
<p>The counter argument is that there have only been a few incidents, precisely because of the deterrent of existing net neutrality rules. But this is a feeble argument, because there is no correlation between the timing and frequency of net neutrality violations and the introduction of the regulations.</p>
<h2>Better alternative</h2>
<p>Repealing superfluous regulations is generally a good idea, because regulation comes at a cost. But we do not even need to go as far as full repeal of all net neutrality rules. There are less onerous measures than the current rules that are more suitable to the level of risk currently posed by net neutrality violations.</p>
<p>For instance, we could treat violations of net neutrality as a breach of competition law instead of having separate rules. Or authorities could set broad objectives, which the industry would have to meet through self-regulation. My personal favourite is regulation similar to competition law rules, using a single general rule of bad conduct that regulators could then apply on a case-by-case basis. This approach combines the expertise of a sector-specific regulator with the flexibility of competition law. </p>
<p>I don’t mean to suggest that the broadband industry works flawlessly and that no oversight is needed. But the current net neutrality rules, especially in light of the dearth of documented actual violations, feel like overkill. </p>
<p>Regulatory agencies have spent far too much time quibbling about net neutrality, instead of turning their attention to more contemporary and pressing issues. We are at the cusp of the introduction of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/5g-mobile-networks-will-support-an-internet-thats-so-good-you-can-feel-it-32260">next generation of mobile internet technology</a> (5G) and governments still haven’t worked out policies for how the radio spectrum will be used to make this possible. Interconnection between companies that provides internet infrastructure has largely been left unregulated so far, and has now become a much more crucial issue than in the past. It requires urgent attention. This is where the next big battles will be fought.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81144/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Konstantinos Stylianou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are other more pressing problems when it comes to internet regulation.Konstantinos Stylianou, Lecturer in Competition Law and Regulation, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/791512017-08-01T00:17:48Z2017-08-01T00:17:48ZCreating a high-speed internet lane for emergency situations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178515/original/file-20170717-6091-1kdisv4.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In an emergency, responders' telecommunications could get delayed by overloaded networks.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.hampton.gov/691/Recruiting">City of Hampton, Virginia</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>During large disasters, like hurricanes, wildfires and terrorist attacks, people want emergency responders to arrive quickly and help people deal with the crisis. In order to do their best, police, medics, firefighters and those who manage them need lots of information: Who is located where, needing what help? And what equipment and which rescuers are available to intervene? With all of the technology we have, it might seem that gathering and sharing lots of information would be pretty simple. But communicating through a disaster is much more challenging than it appears.</p>
<p>The event itself can make communications worse, damaging networks and phone systems or cutting electricity to an area. And regular people often add to the problem as they <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/04/16/cellphone-networks-overwhelmed-blast-aftermath/wq7AX6AvnEemM35XTH152K/story.html">overload mobile networks</a> with calls, texts and other electronic messages checking on loved ones or seeking help.</p>
<p>As researchers about digital networks and emergency communications, we are developing a faster and more reliable way to send and receive large amounts of data through the internet in times of crisis. Working with actual responders and emergency managers, we have created a method for giving urgent information priority over other internet traffic, effectively creating a high-speed lane on the internet for use in emergencies. While a national emergency responder network initiative called <a href="https://www.firstnet.gov/">FirstNet</a> is beginning to get going, it requires <a href="https://www.firstnet.gov/network">building an all-new wireless network</a> just for emergency services to use. By contrast, our system uses existing internet connections, while giving priority to rescue workers’ data.</p>
<h2>Connecting networks</h2>
<p>At the moment, it’s reasonably common for <a href="http://www.govtech.com/em/disaster/NY-Computer-Network-Sandy.html">communication networks to become overloaded</a> when disaster strikes. When lots of people try to make cellphone calls or use mobile data, the <a href="https://boingboing.net/2013/04/17/why-is-it-so-hard-to-make-a-ph.html#more-224850">networks get too busy</a> for calls to connect and messages to go through.</p>
<p>The problem is that standard methods for routing traffic through the internet aren’t always able to handle all those connections at one time. In technical terms, the internet is a <a href="http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/">collection of more than 54,000 smaller networks</a>. Some of the networks that make up the internet are quite large, like those belonging to major internet service providers or large corporations, but many of them are fairly small. No matter their size, each of these networks has equipment that lets it route traffic to each of the others. </p>
<p>Computer networks don’t all connect directly to each other. And their digital addresses don’t help much – we humans assume 12 Main Street and 14 Main Street are next door, but computers with similar numeric addresses <a href="https://www.vox.com/a/internet-maps">may not be physical neighbors</a> to each other.</p>
<p>As a result, the router connecting each of these 54,000 networks to the rest of the internet must keep a list of every one of its counterparts, and the most efficient way to reach each of them. This is like needing a list of written directions for every place in the world you might want to go.</p>
<p>This system, governed by the rules set out in the “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Gateway_Protocol">border gateway protocol</a>,” works well most of the time. But when it fails, there can be long delays in communications. In fact, on average, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2006.254830">150 seconds</a> (two and a half minutes) can go by before a failure is identified. In that time, the data just wait in an information traffic jam, not moving. Online, <a href="http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/297686724/on-a-rigged-wall-street-milliseconds-make-all-the-difference">milliseconds matter</a> – hundreds of seconds are effectively an eternity.</p>
<p>When one router detects a network failure, it has to let all the others know what’s happened, and how to reroute their traffic. This is like having just one traffic cop try to coordinate rush hour around a major bottleneck. The process takes <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2006.254830">at least several minutes</a>, and sometimes several hours. Until then, data in transit can be delayed or lost entirely. In an emergency, that could mean the difference between life and death. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179054/original/file-20170720-15106-rv08qe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179054/original/file-20170720-15106-rv08qe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179054/original/file-20170720-15106-rv08qe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=245&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179054/original/file-20170720-15106-rv08qe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=245&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179054/original/file-20170720-15106-rv08qe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=245&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179054/original/file-20170720-15106-rv08qe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179054/original/file-20170720-15106-rv08qe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179054/original/file-20170720-15106-rv08qe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When a link fails, the network system must find a new connection between two communicating devices.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rochester Institute of Technology</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Developing the emergency protocol</h2>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dCWUVcXS9QM?wmode=transparent&start=1110" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A demonstration of the authors’ network routing system.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Working with students from Rochester Institute of Technology’s Golisano College of Computing and Information Sciences, we have created a new traffic control system tailored specifically to emergency response networks. It runs without affecting other protocols on the internet. We call it the <a href="http://www.rit.edu/news/story.php?id=61939">multi-node label routing protocol</a>.</p>
<p>Rather than requiring every router to keep track of the best directions to every other one, we divide possible routes for internet traffic into hierarchies. These mirror <a href="https://www.fema.gov/national-incident-management-system">existing emergency response plans</a>: An individual responder sends information to a local commander, who combines several responders’ data and passes the data on to regional managers, who assemble a wider picture they pass on to state or federal response coordinators.</p>
<p>Our routing plan makes direct network connections mirror this real-world emergency response hierarchy. When routers are allowed to connect only with their immediate neighbors in the hierarchy, they can notice when links fail and reroute traffic much more quickly.</p>
<h2>Testing in the real world</h2>
<p>Our system is designed to operate over the same internet as everyone else, and without affecting other traffic. We tested our system on the National Science Foundation’s Global Environment for Network Innovations, a collaborative effort among many universities around the U.S. that allows researchers to develop networking protocols and systems using real computers and networking equipment located across the country. In our case, we connected 27 computers together for our tests, devised by
<a href="http://www.rit.edu/cast/crr/">RIT environmental, health and safety students</a>, many of whom are volunteer emergency responders.</p>
<p>Our test – which we did in front of real emergency commanders and personnel – compared our system to the standard border gateway protocol. When we broke links in the 27-node network, multi-node label routing communications resumed within 12.5 seconds, which is 12 times faster than the regular border gateway protocol’s recovery speed. We can shorten that delay even more by changing settings in our protocol’s configuration.</p>
<p><iframe id="8yjDe" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/8yjDe/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Our system can easily be installed across a much wider area than just 27 test machines, specifically because of how it simplifies the paths information takes between routers. This means incident commanders and managers get information more quickly, and are better able to allocate responders and equipment to meet needs as they develop. In this way, our work supports the efforts of those who support us in our hour of need.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79151/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nirmala Shenoy received funding for this work from NSF and US Ignite.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Erik Golen receives funding from the National Science Foundation US Ignite program <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1450854">https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1450854</a></span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Schneider receives funding from NSF, NIST, DHS; these are all federal agencies that fund grants for my research.</span></em></p>A new data management system can give emergency responders a fast lane on the internet to help speed rescue efforts after a disaster.Nirmala Shenoy, Professor of Information Sciences and Technologies, Rochester Institute of TechnologyErik Golen, Visiting Assistant Professor of Information Sciences and Technologies, Rochester Institute of TechnologyJennifer Schneider, Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking; Principal of the Collaboratory for Resiliency & Recovery @ RIT & Professor of Civil Engineering Technology, Environmental Management and Safety, Rochester Institute of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/809362017-07-16T18:08:52Z2017-07-16T18:08:52ZIs America’s digital leadership on the wane?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178284/original/file-20170714-15958-1qbf51q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is America's digital economy facing a stormy future?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/usa-waving-flag-on-bad-day-208242883">Filipe Frazao/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>American leadership in technology innovation and economic competitiveness is at risk if U.S. policymakers don’t take crucial steps to protect the country’s digital future. The country that gave the world the internet and the very concept of the disruptive startup could find its role in the global innovation economy slipping from reigning incumbent to a disrupted has-been.</p>
<p>My research, conducted with <a href="http://fletcher.tufts.edu/eBiz/About/Team/Ravi-Shankar-Chaturvedi">Ravi Shankar Chaturvedi</a>, investigates our increasingly digital global society, in which physical interactions – in communications, social and political exchange, commerce, media and entertainment – are being displaced by electronically mediated ones. Our most recent report,
“<a href="http://sites.tufts.edu/digitalplanet/dei17/">Digital Planet 2017</a>: How Competitiveness and Trust in Digital Economies Vary Across the World,” confirms that the U.S. is on the brink of losing its long-held global advantage in digital innovation.</p>
<p>Our yearlong study examined factors that influence innovation, such as economic conditions, governmental backing, startup funding, research and development spending and entrepreneurial talent across 60 countries. We found that while the U.S. has a very advanced digital environment, the pace of American investment and innovation is slowing. Other countries – not just major powers like China, but also smaller nations like New Zealand, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates – are building significant public and private efforts that we expect to become foundations for future generations of innovation and successful startup businesses.</p>
<p>Based on our findings, I believe that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/opinion/donald-trumps-multi-pronged-attack-on-the-internet.html">rolling back net neutrality rules</a> will jeopardize the digital startup ecosystem that has created value for customers, wealth for investors and globally recognized leadership for American technology companies and entrepreneurs. The digital economy in the U.S. is already on the verge of stalling; <a href="https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history">failing to protect an open internet</a> would further erode the United States’ digital competitiveness, making a troubling situation even worse.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178159/original/file-20170713-9618-1kyxddx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178159/original/file-20170713-9618-1kyxddx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178159/original/file-20170713-9618-1kyxddx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178159/original/file-20170713-9618-1kyxddx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178159/original/file-20170713-9618-1kyxddx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178159/original/file-20170713-9618-1kyxddx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178159/original/file-20170713-9618-1kyxddx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178159/original/file-20170713-9618-1kyxddx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Comparing 60 countries’ digital economies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://hbr.org/2017/07/60-countries-digital-competitiveness-indexed">Harvard Business Review, used and reproducible by permission</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Comparing competitiveness</h2>
<p>In the U.S., the reins of internet connectivity are tightly controlled. Just five companies – Comcast, Spectrum, Verizon, CenturyLink and AT&T – <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/opinion/donald-trumps-multi-pronged-attack-on-the-internet.html?_r=0">serve more than 80 percent of wired-internet customers</a>. What those companies provide is both <a href="https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/us-broadband-speed-cost-infographic/">slower and more expensive</a> than in many countries around the world. Ending net neutrality, as the <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom">Trump administration has proposed</a>, would give internet providers even more power, letting them decide which companies’ innovations can reach the public, and at what costs and speeds.</p>
<p>However, our research shows that the U.S. doesn’t need more limits on startups. Rather, it should work to revive the creative energy that has been America’s gift to the digital planet. For each of the 60 countries we examined, we combined 170 factors – including elements that measure technological infrastructure, government policies and economic activity – into a ranking we call the <a href="http://sites.tufts.edu/digitalplanet/dei17/">Digital Evolution Index</a>. </p>
<p>To evaluate a country’s competitiveness, we looked not only at current conditions, but also at how fast those conditions are changing. For example, we noted not only how many people have broadband internet service, but also how quickly access is becoming available to more of a country’s population. And we observed not just how many consumers are prepared to buy and sell online, but whether this readiness to transact online is increasing each year and by how much. </p>
<p>The countries formed four major groups: </p>
<ul>
<li>“Stand Out” countries can be considered the digital elite; they are both highly digitally evolved and advancing quickly.</li>
<li>“Stall Out” countries have reached a high level of digital evolution, but risk falling behind due to a slower pace of progress and would benefit from a heightened focus on innovation.</li>
<li>“Break Out” countries score relatively low for overall digital evolution, but are evolving quickly enough to suggest they have the potential to become strong digital economies.</li>
<li>“Watch Out” countries are neither well advanced nor improving rapidly. They have a lot of work to do, both in terms of infrastructure development and innovation.</li>
</ul>
<h2>The US is stalling out</h2>
<p>The picture that emerges for the U.S. is not a pretty one. Despite being the 10th-most digitally advanced country today, America’s progress is slowing. It is close to joining the major EU countries and the Nordic nations in a club of nations that are, digitally speaking, stalling out. </p>
<p>The “Stand Out” countries are setting new global standards of high states of evolution and high rates of change, and exploring various innovations such as <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/03/technology/nutonomy-psa-group-peugot/index.html">self-driving cars</a> or <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40026940">robot policemen</a>. New Zealand, for example, is investing in a <a href="http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/technology-communications/fast-broadband">superior telecommunications system</a> and adopting <a href="http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/science-innovation/digital-economy">forward-looking policies</a> that create <a href="http://kiwilandingpad.com/">incentives for entrepreneurs</a>. Singapore plans to <a href="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/govt-commits-s-19b-to-new-5-year-plan-for-r-amp-d-initiatives-ri-8214052">invest more than US$13 billion in high-tech industries</a> by 2020. The United Arab Emirates has created free-trade zones and is transforming the city of Dubai into a “<a href="https://government.ae/en/about-the-uae/the-uae-government/smart-uae/smart-dubai">smart city</a>,” linking sensors and government offices with residents and visitors to create an interconnected web of transportation, utilities and government services.</p>
<p>The “Break Out” countries, many in Asia, are typically not as advanced as others at present, but are catching up quickly, and are on pace to surpass some of today’s “Stand Out” nations in the near future. For example, China – the world’s <a href="https://www.emarketer.com/Article/China-Eclipses-US-Become-Worlds-Largest-Retail-Market/1014364">largest retail and e-commerce market</a>, with the world’s largest number of people using the internet – has the fastest-changing digital economy. Another “Break Out” country is India, which is already the <a href="http://www.counterpointresearch.com/press_release/indiahandsetmarket2015/">world’s second-largest smartphone market</a>. Though only one-fifth of its 1.3 billion people have online access today, by 2030, some estimates suggest, <a href="https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21693925-battle-indias-e-commerce-market-about-much-more-retailing-india-online">1 billion Indians will be online</a>.</p>
<p>By contrast, the U.S. is on the edge between “Stand Out” and “Stall Out.” One reason is that the American startup economy is slowing down: Private startups are attracting huge investments, but <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-10/silicon-valley-s-overstuffed-startups-risk-messy-blowout">those efforts aren’t paying off</a> when the startups are either acquired by bigger companies or offer themselves on the public stock markets. </p>
<p>Investors, business leaders and policymakers need to take a more realistic look at the best way to profit from innovation, balancing efforts toward both huge results and modest ones. They may need to recall the lesson from the founding of the internet itself: If government invests in key aspects of digital infrastructure, either directly or by creating subsidies and tax incentives, that lays the groundwork for massive private investment and innovation that can transform the economy.</p>
<p>In addition, investments in Asian digital startups have exceeded those in the U.S. <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/f97ed1aa-669d-11e7-9a66-93fb352ba1fe">for the first time</a>. According to CB Insights and PwC, US$19.3 billion in venture capital from sources around the world was invested in Asian tech startups in the second quarter of 2017, while the U.S. <a href="https://www.cbinsights.com/research-venture-capital-reports-q2-2017">had $18.4 billion in new investment</a> over the same period. </p>
<p>This is consistent with our findings that Asian high-momentum countries are the ones in the “Break Out” zone; these countries are the ones most exciting for investors. Over time, the U.S.-Asia gap could widen; both money and talent could migrate to digital hot spots elsewhere, such as China and India, or smaller destinations, such as Singapore and New Zealand.</p>
<p>For the country that gave the world the foundations of the digital economy and a president who seems <a href="http://twitter.com">perpetually plugged in</a>, falling behind would, indeed, be a disgrace.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80936/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bhaskar Chakravorti directs the Institute for Business in the Global Context at The Fletcher School at Tufts, which receives funding from Mastercard, Microsoft and the Gates Foundation. </span></em></p>The digital economy in the US is already on the verge of stalling; failing to protect an open internet would further erode the United States’ digital competitiveness.Bhaskar Chakravorti, Senior Associate Dean, International Business & Finance, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/787912017-06-08T02:37:17Z2017-06-08T02:37:17ZWill Trump and the FCC heal or worsen America’s digital divide?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172547/original/file-20170606-3674-hq50x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some Americans have fast internet, but many still lag behind – especially in rural areas.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/two-boys-running-fast-slow-illustration-330149024">BlueRingMedia via shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many of the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trumps-budget-proposal-slashes-spending-by-36-trillion-over-10-years/2017/05/22/69dbdb5e-3f1c-11e7-adba-394ee67a7582_story.html">Trump administration’s spending priorities</a> seem to be dramatically different from those of past administrations. But at least one, on the surface, appears to have been preserved: expanding access to broadband internet. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996">As far back as 1996</a>, the U.S. federal government has <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report">worked, and spent tax dollars, to get all Americans access to high-speed internet service</a>. The effort began under the Clinton administration, and accelerated when George W. Bush’s administration promised to <a href="https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/technology/">ensure all American households had broadband access by 2007</a>. </p>
<p>Bush was unable to fulfill this promise, so the <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/broadband-coverage-rural-area-fund-mishandled-120601">Obama administration kept at it</a>. And though it is still early, there are no clear indications that the Trump budget will break from this emphasis on expanding broadband access to Americans who don’t yet have it. But the benefits of the internet depend on more than access to the wires; the rules about online traffic are at least as important.</p>
<h2>The state of the American internet</h2>
<p>Quite a bit of work remains to get Americans online. In 2016, a federal report found that <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report">roughly 10 percent of Americans lack access</a> to high-speed internet service. There is a sharp divide between urban and rural communities’ access: Just 4 percent of urban-dwelling Americans don’t have even the chance to buy internet service that meets federal definitions of broadband speeds. In rural America, however, 39 percent of Americans lack broadband access. For Americans living on tribal land, it’s worse: 41 percent of them don’t have access to high-speed internet.</p>
<p>These numbers suggest that efforts to expand broadband access have been very successful for some communities, and much less so for others. This <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521807517">digital divide</a> means those with internet access gain advantages while people without it fall behind. </p>
<p>The internet is useful not only for keeping in touch with friends and family, but also in applying for jobs, working to earn money and expanding educational opportunities. What’s more, as my research discusses, governments are increasingly using the internet to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1100751">provide public services and connect with citizens</a> – including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X15599427">using online disclosure to improve transparency and accountability</a>. If these gaps continue into the future, large numbers of Americans will be alienated from the rest of the country, and potentially from democracy itself. </p>
<h2>Broadband as a public utility</h2>
<p>If citizens don’t have high-speed internet service connecting them to markets, schools and government, they can’t engage in activities that could significantly improve their well-being. Recognizing this fact – that internet service is now as central to American social, business and civic life as electricity and telephone service – the Obama administration successfully rallied the Federal Communications Commission to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html">classify broadband access as a public utility</a>.</p>
<p>Federal courts also played a role, ruling that the FCC had to declare the internet a public utility if it wanted to ensure “<a href="https://theconversation.com/understanding-net-neutrality-seven-essential-reads-71848">net neutrality</a>,” the principle that all online traffic should be treated equally. That way the media conglomerates that own the country’s major internet service providers can’t unfairly stifle competition from startups. For instance, <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/">Comcast couldn’t slow down Netflix content</a> in hopes customers would prefer to use Comcast’s own video services, which could be delivered more quickly.</p>
<p>The intent was to foster conditions for more equal access not only to the internet itself, but to all its various content. The internet’s benefits come, after all, not from the connection itself but the data that travels over that connection.</p>
<h2>Regulating content</h2>
<p>Even as Trump’s budget apparently continues to focus on consumers’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-there-room-for-broadband-in-the-trump-infrastructure-agenda-74881">access to the wires</a>, his administration is taking aim at what information people access online. Trump’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, has <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-fcc-continues-to-redefine-the-public-interest-as-business-interests-75120">begun the process of dismantling the Obama-era net neutrality regulations</a>. Pai, a former Verizon corporate attorney, has argued that <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/26/15437840/fcc-plans-end-title-ii-net-neutrality">market forces are better than government rules</a> when it comes to ensuring equitable, efficient and effective service delivery.</p>
<p>But evidence suggests the opposite: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/padm.12102">Relying upon market forces alone can actually exaggerate</a> rather than attenuate existing inequalities in service provision. To date, the research suggests that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094213496974">internet policy is not closing existing divides</a> but rather preserving – or even worsening – them.</p>
<p>Efforts to expand broadband access, including Obama’s <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/national-broadband-plan">National Broadband Plan</a>, have <a href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/u-s-digital-infrastructure-needs-more-private-investment">created trillions of dollars in economic growth</a>. And yet people who were disadvantaged before the dawn of broadband <a href="http://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2645">remain, in large part, disadvantaged today</a>.</p>
<p>Trump’s budget proposal <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf#page=25">calls for upgrades to broadband infrastructure</a>. At present there are few details about what exactly those efforts will look like. But Pai’s moves to deregulate online activity suggest the administration won’t use other regulations to guide broadband expansion. </p>
<p>That leaves unclear what methods, if any, the Trump administration will use to ensure all Americans get equal access to this important resource for personal and civic life.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78791/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gregory Porumbescu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Trump administration’s proposed budget suggests it will continue to spend federal dollars on expanding broadband internet access. But the rules governing internet traffic matter too.Gregory Porumbescu, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs and Administration, Rutgers University - NewarkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/748812017-04-12T00:38:21Z2017-04-12T00:38:21ZIs there room for broadband in the Trump infrastructure agenda?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164893/original/image-20170411-26730-djgza6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There's still a lot of the U.S. waiting to be wired up.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fiber-optic-cables-connected-ports-309314312">asharkyu/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A promise to restore America’s crumbling infrastructure was a key part of President Donald Trump’s campaign speeches. He <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article128492164.html">pledged</a> to rebuild America’s roads and bridges, ports and highways, which are <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/18/fewer-bridges-need-repairs-but-task-still-monumental/80512038/">undoubtedly in need of repair</a>. Less clear in his speeches – and in these early days of his administration – is what importance he gives broadband internet, an equally essential infrastructure in our 21st-century information economy. <a href="http://www.telecompetitor.com/pew-u-s-smartphone-ownership-broadband-penetration-reached-record-levels-in-2016/">A quarter of Americans still have no broadband</a>, and <a href="https://www.ncta.com/broadband-by-the-numbers">12 percent live in places where they can get service from only one provider or none at all</a>.</p>
<p>Very broadly, governments have two tools to change any particular industry: funding and regulation. Trump’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf">budget blueprint</a> released on March 16 leaves no doubt that the president’s focus is on beefing up America’s defense and security capabilities. To fund his significant increases for defense, homeland security, veterans affairs and law enforcement, Trump <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/16/winners-and-losers-in-trumps-budget-blueprint.html">proposes cuts</a> across the rest of the federal government.</p>
<p>Several agencies that directly or indirectly fund broadband service may have less money to spend, despite the benefits high-speed internet access can bring to individuals, businesses and their communities. My own research at the <a href="http://comm.psu.edu/research/centers/iip">Institute for Information Policy</a> at Penn State, and that of many others, has shown that broadband penetration can have multiplier effects on <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.3.2013.0181">jobs creation</a>, <a href="https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7020438525.pdf">small business startups</a>, <a href="https://www.ericsson.com/res/thecompany/docs/corporate-responsibility/2013/impact-of-broadband-speed-on-household-income.pdf">wages and incomes</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2241926">property values</a> and <a href="http://www.whatworksforamerica.org/ideas/community-development-in-rural-america-collaborative-regional-and-comprehensive/">community renewal</a>. Even modest investments can have lasting benefits.</p>
<p>Beyond the potential for spending cuts, Trump’s early regulatory moves suggest he is not making broadband access a priority. If he harms broadband service, President Trump risks missing an opportunity to invest in a proven economic engine for the country.</p>
<h2>Key programs on the chopping block</h2>
<p>One group whose federal funds are slated for total elimination is the <a href="https://www.arc.gov/">Appalachian Regional Commission</a>, which (among other functions) helps people and communities pay for broadband service in some of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-should-the-u-s-government-help-coal-communities-53475">most economically depressed regions of the country</a>. <a href="https://www.arc.gov/images/programs/telecom/InformationAgeAppalachia.pdf">It supports</a> remote access to doctors, small business connections to larger markets, and job training and education programs from teachers and experts elsewhere – all brought into rural areas via the internet.</p>
<p>Another federal agency destined for the chopping block, the Institute for Museum and Library Services, coordinates various <a href="https://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/BuildingDigitalCommunities_Framework.pdf">efforts to provide internet service to communities through their local libraries and museums</a>.</p>
<p>Wider funding cuts for executive departments, even if they don’t directly target specific agencies or programs, are also likely to affect broadband funding. For example, the Housing and Urban Development department, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-considers-6-billion-cut-to-hud-budget/2017/03/08/1757e8e8-03ab-11e7-b1e9-a05d3c21f7cf_story.html">targeted for a 13 percent cut</a>, offers several programs, including <a href="https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/ross/aboutnn">Neighborhood Networks</a>, which <a href="https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_12902.pdf">provide computer and internet access and online job training</a> to people who live in public housing. Whether that and <a href="https://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/broadband_fed_funding_guide.pdf">other internet-related programs across the government</a> survive will become clearer only in the days and weeks to come, as the budget proposal is formalized and then works its way through Congress.</p>
<h2>Some glimmers in the darkness</h2>
<p>A few government programs’ budgets may see an increase: Trump’s blueprint modestly increases funding for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s projects developing better ways to <a href="https://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/spectrum-management">provide high-speed wireless internet services</a>. Current wireless networks are under significant pressure from the <a href="http://www.brattle.com/system/publications/pdfs/000/005/179/original/Substantial_Licensed_Spectrum_Deficit_(2015-2019)_-_Updating_the_FCC's_Mobile_Data_Demand_Projections.pdf">explosion of demand for mobile broadband service</a>. Transmissions from <a href="https://theconversation.com/your-devices-latest-feature-they-can-spy-on-your-every-move-55998">wireless devices</a> – items like wireless speakers, alarm systems and refrigerators – as well as autonomous cars will only increase the need to better manage radio frequencies.</p>
<p>Another piece of potentially good news is that lots of the money for expanding broadband service across America comes from other sources than the federal budget. American broadband companies continue to invest heavily in their networks. A <a href="https://www.ncta.com/broadband-by-the-numbers">telecommunications trade group reports</a> that the industry has invested US$250 billion in broadband infrastructure since 1996, including $90 billion in the last seven years.</p>
<p>Still, the broadband industry, which took in <a href="http://www.telecompetitor.com/u-s-cable-industry-revenue-forecast-to-hit-141-billion-in-2026/">$131 billion in revenue</a> in 2016, remains highly profitable. President Trump has met with broadband company CEOs to encourage them to invest more. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/24/trump-touts-charter-communications-25-billion-investment.html">In late March he cited</a> a $25 billion investment pledge from Charter Communications as evidence of his success – though <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/27/fact-check-trump-job-boast-charter-communications/99683484/">critics</a> quickly pointed out that Charter’s decision had been years in the making.</p>
<p>But private investments can’t meet all the need, especially in markets that are not considered economically viable. To fill the gap, government-mandated programs subsidize low-income customers, rural health clinics, schools and libraries, and rural areas with poor connectivity. Funding for these programs comes from the <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service">Universal Service Fund</a>, through a fee assessed on telecommunications providers based on how much their subscribers pay for service. <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/contribution-methodology-administrative-filings">Most companies charge their customers to recover this cost</a>, making it another form of public funding of broadband expansion. This fee, <a href="https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf">established as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996</a>, is raised and spent outside the regular federal budget process, so it may not be affected by Trump administration policies.</p>
<h2>Regulatory steps</h2>
<p>Beyond spending or distributing money, the federal government can affect broadband investments with regulations. These are also outside the budget itself, but regulatory requirements can work in conjunction with spending plans. Many <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/rules-regulations-title-47">regulations are obscure and highly technical</a>. They govern the nitty-gritty mechanics of the telecommunications industry, such as prices telecom companies charge each other to connect networks, where physical wires run, and which radio frequencies are used for television channels and which for mobile broadhand. When well-crafted, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2404996">these rules can encourage competition</a>, which <a href="https://theconversation.com/americas-broadband-market-needs-more-competition-71676">boosts speeds and service quality</a> while decreasing prices.</p>
<p>So far, though, the Trump administration’s regulators are taking a hands-off approach to broadband service. In March, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chairman, Ajit Pai, <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/technology/317865-fcc-removes-nine-companies-from-lifeline-program">withdrew authorization from some telecom companies</a> previously approved to participate in the <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/lifeline-support-affordable-communications">Lifeline program</a>, which subsidizes broadband access to low-income customers. That may mean fewer companies offering Lifeline service, less money spent letting potential customers know about the program and fewer low-income people getting online.</p>
<p>Another regulatory move that’s widely expected is FCC action to reverse the Open Internet Order, protecting what is also called “net neutrality.” Under <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet">those rules</a>, formalized in 2015, internet service providers are required to deliver all online content to their customers at equal speeds, without slowing down traffic from any sites or charging some services for faster connections. Supporters say the rules <a href="https://www.recode.net/2017/4/5/15190486/roku-lobbyist-net-neutrality-fight-privacy-online-washington-dc">help keep the internet open for innovation</a>, while critics say it is too much regulation that <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/technology/321563-fcc-chair-rails-against-net-neutrality">hurts</a> broadband providers.</p>
<p>Both <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc-chairman-net-neutrality-repeal_us_58e78626e4b058f0a02e3af3">Pai</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/technology/net-neutrality.html">President Trump</a> have vowed to undo net neutrality. How that will affect the market is unclear. It may spur broadband providers to increase their investments to take advantage of being able to <a href="https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/12/18/net-neutrality-is-dead-these-companies-couldnt-be.aspx">charge content companies for faster delivery of their traffic</a>. But it might <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-warns-republicans-against-net-neutrality-repeal/">slow innovation</a> if new startups find it difficult to reach customers through the ISPs’ bottlenecks.</p>
<p>President Trump came to office promising to create jobs, enhance American economic competitiveness and renew communities. He could take advantage of the proven power of broadband investments to help achieve all those goals. But at present, he appears to be moving away from that path, not using taxpayer dollars, agency regulations or the power of the presidential bully pulpit to push industry players to expand broadband to every American.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74881/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Krishna Jayakar has in the past received research funds from a number of organizations including AT&T, the Free Press Foundation, National Science Foundation, Pacific Telecommunications Council, and the Time Warner Cable Research Program in Digital Communications.</span></em></p>President Trump has touted infrastructure investment as a way to boost the U.S. economy. At the moment, he’s missing a key opportunity – expanding broadband internet service.Krishna Jayakar, Co-Director, Institute for Information Policy and Associate Professor of Telecommunications, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/751202017-03-28T22:06:51Z2017-03-28T22:06:51ZTrump’s FCC continues to redefine the public interest as business interests<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162940/original/image-20170328-3798-jcvd7o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Speak up!</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-illustration-website-horizontal-banner-concept-464473052">Speech bubbles via shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The U.S. Senate voted last week to <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/24/517050966/fcc-chairman-goes-after-his-predecessors-internet-privacy-rules">allow internet service providers</a> to <a href="https://www.salon.com/2017/03/23/senate-overturns-an-obama-era-regulation-to-protect-your-privacy-online/">sell data about their customers’ online activities</a> to advertisers. The <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/for-sale-your-private-browsing-history/">House of Representatives</a> <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/230">agreed on Tuesday</a>; President Trump is <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/27/15073162/fcc-broadband-internet-privacy-rules-congress-vote">expected to sign</a> the measure into law.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title47/USCODE-2011-title47-chap4">As far back as 1927</a>, American lawmakers sought to balance the needs of the public against the desire of big telecommunications companies to make huge profits off delivering information to Americans nationwide. Today, the Federal Communications Commission is charged with ensuring that the broadcasting and telecommunications systems work in “<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996">the public interest, convenience and necessity</a>.”</p>
<p>Policymakers have struggled to specifically define “the public interest,” but the broad intent was clear: Government rules and programs worked to ensure a diversity of programming, distributed by a multitude of companies, with many different owners, through multiple channels that all Americans had access to.</p>
<p>While conducting research for my new book on <a href="http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/64kmn4yx9780252040726.html">local media policy in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada</a>, I watched as officials’ priorities changed, favoring what they say is “freer” competition in the marketplace of ideas. As new proposals come up for public comment and debate in the next few months, we, the American public, must join these discussions, to ensure our interests are in fact served.</p>
<h2>A shift in priorities</h2>
<p>Over the last 30 years, America’s communications regulators have moved away from focusing on society’s benefit, and toward an interpretation of the public interest as <a href="http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/rise-and-fall-broadcasting-commons">equivalent to what businesses want</a>. For decades the FCC has chipped away at that broadly understood sense of the public interest, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/20102014-media-ownership-rules-review">allowing more stations to be owned by one company</a>, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proceedings-actions/mergers-transactions/general/major-transaction-decisions">letting major media corporations merge</a> and <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/broadcast-radio-license-renewal">renewing station licenses</a> with a rubber stamp. And TV and radio stations are now allowed to be located <a href="http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2011/06/articles/what-do-the-fcc-main-studio-rules-require-recent-21000-fine-offers-some-clarification/">far away from the communities they serve</a>.</p>
<p>As a result, the national media system is dominated by a handful of companies, including <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6">Comcast, Time Warner, Fox and Disney</a>. This trend is mirrored at the local level, where Sinclair Broadcasting owns <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-342889A1.pdf">173 of the country’s 1,778 local television stations</a> and is on the <a href="http://nypost.com/2017/03/14/sinclair-tribune-merger-would-surpass-fcc-ownership-rules/">hunt to acquire more</a>.</p>
<p>These changes have seen media and telecommunications companies making money and acquiring more properties, while the public receives less and less in return.</p>
<h2>Moving quickly</h2>
<p>In addition to the moves in Congress, Trump’s FCC has acted quickly, too. Upon his promotion to FCC chairman, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai">Ajit Pai</a> cited other companies’ fraudulent practices as a reason for <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/fcc-makes-it-harder-for-poor-people-to-get-subsidized-broadband/">removing nine internet service providers</a> from the list of companies approved to provide federally subsidized internet access to low-income families.</p>
<p>Pai also ended an investigation into <a href="https://www.wired.com/2017/02/fcc-oks-streaming-free-net-neutrality-will-pay/">mobile phone companies’ practice of exempting mobile data</a> associated with certain apps (such as Spotify or Netflix) from the data limits normally imposed on customers’ plans. Because this explicitly favored some companies’ internet traffic over others’, many people viewed this practice, called “zero rating,” as a violation of open internet (also called “<a href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/what-happens-now-with-net-neutrality">net neutrality</a>”) rules – the FCC’s requirements barring internet service providers from playing favorites with different providers’ internet content.</p>
<p>Taken together, these actions represent a major attack on what is left of the public interest as we once knew it. They also represent a reversal for the FCC, which was <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/net-neutrality-appeals-court">hailed for protecting the public interest</a> when it approved the <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet">Open Internet Order</a> in 2015.</p>
<p>Pai himself <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/ajit-pai-fcc-net-neutrality-trump-what-to-expect-2017-2">opposes those rules</a>, as does his congressional counterpart, <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/enemy-of-net-neutrality-and-muni-broadband-will-chair-house-telecom-panel/">Marsha Blackburn</a>, chair of the powerful House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. </p>
<h2>Attacking broadcasting too</h2>
<p>The Trump administration also appears to be adhering to this view of the public interest in media policy. </p>
<p>Trump’s initial proposed budget <a href="http://current.org/2017/03/trump-budget-seeks-to-zero-out-cpb-funding-by-2018/">zeroed out federal funding for public broadcasting</a>. The U.S. allocates <a href="http://current.org/2017/03/cpb-says-trump-budget-will-aim-to-rescind-fy2018-appropriation/">US$445 million</a> a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports organizations like NPR and PBS. That amounts to about <a href="https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/03/16/presidents-attack-public-broadcasting-puts-him-odds-american-people">$1.35 per person</a>. In contrast, <a href="http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/_files/cbcrc/documents/latest-studies/nordicity-public-broadcaster-comparison-2016.pdf">Germany</a> spends $143 a person; Norway spends more on public broadcasting than any other country – $180 per Norwegian. Cutting this already anemic funding would spell disaster for public broadcasting, most notably stations in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/business/media/corporation-for-public-broadcasting-cuts.html">rural America</a>.</p>
<p>And over at the FCC, Pai eliminated <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/commission-eliminates-two-public-inspection-file-requirements/pai-statement">requirements that broadcasters keep records of what they aired, for public inspection</a>. While perhaps antiquated and <a href="http://archives.cjr.org/united_states_project/inspecting_local_tvs_public_in.php">certainly rarely used by the public</a>, it was one of the last holdovers of a time when <a href="http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/64kmn4yx9780252040726.html">local broadcasters</a> were thought to be responsive to their communities. </p>
<p>As for <a href="http://nypost.com/2017/03/14/sinclair-tribune-merger-would-surpass-fcc-ownership-rules/">Sinclair Broadcasting’s expansion hopes</a>, the company may be making its plans precisely because Commissioner Pai wants to <a href="http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/fcc-ajit-pai-media-ownership-1202008630/">relax ownership restrictions</a>. </p>
<h2>Stepping up to the mic?</h2>
<p>The next few months will see debates about a diverse range of communications-related topics, all of which center on the public interest. We need to ask hard, clear questions of legislators, regulators and ourselves:</p>
<p>Is it in the public’s interest to have an internet where ISPs can decide which websites load fastest? Is it in the public interest for <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/att-says-youll-love-more-relevant-advertising-after-time-warner-merger/">AT&T to buy Time Warner</a>, creating an even larger and more powerful media company? Is it in the public interest for <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/republican-led-fcc-drops-court-defense-of-inmate-calling-rate-cap/">incarcerated people</a> and their families to pay exorbitant sums to speak to one another on the phone? Is it in the public interest to retain access to public broadcasting, which brings us everything from “Sherlock” to “Sesame Street”? </p>
<p>Media is more than just our window on the world. It’s how we talk to each other, how we engage with our society and our government. Without a media environment that serves the public’s need to be informed, connected and involved, <a href="http://thenewpress.com/books/rich-media-poor-democracy">our democracy and our society will suffer</a>. </p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/nicholas-johnson/your-second-priority-a-former-fcc-commissioner-speaks-out/paperback/product-3028022.html">former FCC chairman Nicholas Johnson</a> put it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Whatever is your first priority, whether it is women’s rights or saving wildlife, your second priority has to be media reform. With it you at least have a chance of accomplishing your first priority. Without it, you don’t have a prayer.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If only a few wealthy companies control how Americans communicate with each other, it will be harder for people to talk among ourselves about the kind of society we want to build.</p>
<p>It is time for a sustained public conversation about media policy, akin to the ones we have about health care, the economy, defense and the budget. Regulators and policymakers must communicate regularly to the public. News organizations must report on these issues with the same frequency and intensity as they do other areas of public policy. And the people must pay attention and make their voices heard. </p>
<p>We did it before, powerfully influencing rules about <a href="https://www.savetheinternet.com/release/156">media ownership in 2003</a> and <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/09/17/349243335/3-7-million-comments-later-heres-where-net-neutrality-stands">ensuring net neutrality in 2015</a>. We can do it again. For us, as members of the public, and as avid media consumers, it’s time the public got interested in the public interest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75120/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Ali does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the Trump administration settles into office, regulators and lawmakers have big plans for shifting the country’s media landscape, with potentially profound effects on the public.Christopher Ali, Assistant Professor, Department of Media Studies, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/717322017-02-08T17:01:38Z2017-02-08T17:01:38ZDonald Trump could be about to end net neutrality<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155917/original/image-20170207-8356-1pf0lq2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Donald Trump wants to build another wall. Not a physical wall to keep out illegal immigrants, like his proposed Mexican border project, but a virtual wall around the internet. And just as with Mexico, he wants the people behind the wall to pay for it.</p>
<p>President Trump seems to want to dismantle the main internet policy of his predecessor, that of ensuring <a href="https://theconversation.com/understanding-net-neutrality-seven-essential-reads-71848">net neutrality</a>, also known as the “open internet”. To do this, he has appointed the <a href="transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0111/DOC-342990A1.pdf">most vocal Republican critic</a> of President Obama’s internet policies, Ajit Pai, as chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the largest and most powerful internet regulatory body in the world.</p>
<p>Net neutrality <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863">is the principle</a> that telecoms providers that connect you to the internet should not throttle your access depending on what services and content you use. For example, your mobile phone company should not be able to reduce your use of Skype or WhatsApp by reducing the speed of those services so that you use their calling and messaging functions instead. Without net neutrality, certain services and websites would be able to pay internet providers so that customers can access them with faster speeds, disadvantaging those companies without such a deal.</p>
<p>Telecoms providers’ attempts to do this led to a <a href="https://script-ed.org/article/comparative-case-studies-in-implementing-net-neutrality-a-critical-analysis-of-zero-rating/">growing international consensus</a> among governments on net neutrality. From 2009, many European and Latin American countries introduced regulations and laws to promote or guarantee net neutrality. In the US, opposition from big telecoms and cable corporations <a href="https://theconversation.com/europe-can-learn-from-us-on-how-not-to-do-net-neutrality-21703">in the courts</a> meant it took six years of Obama’s presidency to begin to effectively implement net neutrality rules. </p>
<p>To get around net neutrality rules, some telecoms companies have more recently begun using a “zero rating” approach of offering customers a preferential bundle of certain services that do not use up data allowances. These “sponsored data” plans don’t prevent access to any other site or service. But they still disadvantage smaller content providers, including the likes of the BBC and Wikipedia, that cannot afford to negotiate inclusion in sponsored data plans as the likes of Facebook and Google can.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156078/original/image-20170208-17325-jsvg4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156078/original/image-20170208-17325-jsvg4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156078/original/image-20170208-17325-jsvg4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156078/original/image-20170208-17325-jsvg4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156078/original/image-20170208-17325-jsvg4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156078/original/image-20170208-17325-jsvg4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156078/original/image-20170208-17325-jsvg4k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ending net neutrality could make some sites faster than others.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By the end of 2016, regulators in <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/30/12707590/eu-net-neutrality-rules-final-guidelines-berec">the EU</a> <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/indias-new-open-internet-law-is-stronger-than-the-united-states">and India</a> had produced further guidelines banning zero-rating plans. And the FCC under Obama <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/11/11/fcc-zero-rating-att-time-warner/">was challenging</a> companies using the zero-rating strategy. All those other national regulators are in the midst of their investigations - which is why they are susceptible to the FCC’s do-nothing.</p>
<p>But, in the US at least, that is now history as we enter the Trump era. The new FCC chairman has argued the net neutrality rules over-regulate innovation, even <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/27/republicans-strike-back-fcc-member-star-wars-net-neutrality">quoting the Emperor</a> from Star Wars to invoke his opposition. He prefers deregulation to allow companies to compete without explicit consumer protection rules to guarantee an open internet.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/technology/trumps-fcc-quickly-targets-net-neutrality-rules.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=technology">Since his appointment</a>, Pai has closed the inquiry that was implementing Obama’s policy, and he is highly unlikely to agree to another one. Pai will most probably continue to act towards net neutrality by exercising masterly inactivity, failing to enforce the regulations. </p>
<h2>Behind the wall</h2>
<p>That will allow the big US telecoms and cable companies to erect paywalls around their content, giving customers free access to affiliated services but making them pay for rival content, especially high definition video. That means lower costs for video services affiliated to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast but higher costs for independent providers such as Netflix.</p>
<p>Who else is affected by an end to US net neutrality? In short, those innovators unable to strike a deal to get inside the telecoms and cable companies’ paywalls. Facebook’s deals with mobile operators have enabled it to offer zero-rated content <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebooks-free-access-internet-is-limited-and-thats-raised-questions-over-fairness-36460">in many countries</a>. They may now hope the US approval for zero rating will help their arguments in India, Brazil and other huge developing markets. Google and and even NetFlix may be big enough to look after their interests, too. </p>
<p>But small innovators will have no guaranteed minimum service level to design new services. That could impact the development of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-internet-of-things-16542">Internet of Things</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-5g-38489">5G mobile networks</a> and cloud computing services. Having to ask permission to run your service on the internet is a major issue for start-ups that are effectively three engineers in a garage (as Google and Facebook once were). And this may affect new companies’ decisions on where to start their innovations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71732/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Marsden received funding until May 2015 from the European Internet Science Network of Excellence under Grant Agreement Number 288021. </span></em></p>The US is set to rollback the rules that keep internet companies on a level playing-field. It could make services slower and more expensive.Chris Marsden, Professor of Internet Law, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/699592017-01-16T04:44:49Z2017-01-16T04:44:49ZWhat does Trump’s election mean for digital freedom of speech?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152720/original/image-20170113-11803-9i24i1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/man-covering-his-mouth-hand-imprint-513537250">Via shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the shock of Donald Trump’s election victory is giving way to analysis about <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/2016-us-presidential-election-23653">how his presidency will affect Americans’ lives</a>, our digital freedom of speech deserves special consideration. The ability to express ourselves freely is a fundamental right guaranteed to us all.</p>
<p>There are three major elements that determine how free we are in our online expression: The press must be <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment">free to publish</a> anything newsworthy about public officials without fear of serious reprisals. Online communications must be able to reach broad audiences <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/13/14266168/tom-wheeler-final-speech-net-neutrality-defense">without discrimination by internet service providers</a>. And the government <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment">must not be able to spy indiscriminately</a> on ordinary law-abiding Americans.</p>
<p>Before and during the campaign, Trump made pronouncements that suggest deep and widespread implications for digital freedom of speech if those ideas end up guiding his administration. As a scholar of digital communication, I am concerned about what he and his administration will do once in office. Trump’s actions could result in weaker protections for our free press, less competition and higher prices for online consumers, certain forms of online censorship and a return to an intrusive online surveillance regime. The public must prepare to stand up to oppose these infringements on our rights.</p>
<h2>Attacking the press</h2>
<p>During his presidential bid, Donald Trump ran as much against the press as against his Republican primary opponents and Hillary Clinton. This was despite the fact that many press outlets were only doing what they usually do during campaigns: scrutinize both parties’ front-runners and nominees.</p>
<p>Most candidates simply grin and bear the ritual press grillings, but not Trump. He showed an <a href="http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/10/why-is-trumps-skin-so-much-thinner-than-clintons.html">unusually thin skin</a> for a presidential contender, directly attacking the press during raucous rallies and routinely <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/06/13/trump-washington-post-banned-list/85842316/">banning certain news outlets</a> from covering his campaign.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y2vozC_kP6Q?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Donald Trump attacks the media in this CNN clip.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But he also went beyond even these extraordinary steps, suggesting that he would <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-donald-trump-wants-to-change-libel-laws/">“open up” libel laws</a> to make it easier for public figures to sue news outlets: “[W]hen people write incorrectly about you and you can prove that they wrote incorrectly, we’re going to get them through the court system to change and we’re going to get them to pay damages,” said Trump.</p>
<p>This is, in fact, what <a href="http://www.rcfp.org/digital-journalists-legal-guide/libel">current libel law</a> already allows. Strikingly, Trump has combined his seeming ignorance of libel law (despite his many years in the public eye) with a sense that today’s existing restrictions on the press are too loose. This suggests that he may seek to enshrine in law or policy his particular animosity toward the press.</p>
<p>He also has been willing to attack any and all critics, including <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/this-is-what-happens-when-donald-trump-attacks-a-private-citizen-on-twitter/2016/12/08/a1380ece-bd62-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html">private citizens</a>. Combined, these elements raise questions about the degree, if any, to which Trump values freedom of the press, digital or otherwise. </p>
<p>His Cabinet appointments do not inspire confidence in his support of this principle, either. During his confirmation hearing, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions, <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/01/sessions-not-sure-whether-he-would-prosecute-journalists-233431">dodged questions</a> about his willingness to prosecute journalists based on their reporting, including handling leaks from government employees. He has also <a href="http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-committee-releases-report-attorney-general-nominee-jeff-sessions">opposed a federal shield law</a> that would protect journalists against such prosecutions.</p>
<h2>Threatening an open internet</h2>
<p>Network neutrality was not a hot topic during this presidential election, but that may change during a Trump administration.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"532608358508167168"}"></div></p>
<p>During the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality">debate over net neutrality</a> in 2014, <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/532608358508167168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">Trump tweeted</a> that the policy was a “top down power grab” that would “target conservative media.” He appears to have conflated net neutrality’s nondiscrimination principle with the now-defunct <a href="http://www.museum.tv/eotv/fairnessdoct.htm">Fairness Doctrine</a>. That policy, discontinued in 1987, required broadcasters to devote equal time to opposing views about controversial public issues. It’s hard to know which is more worrying: his early antipathy toward net neutrality, or his objections despite not knowing what it actually means.</p>
<p>Whatever Trump himself understands, his appointments look like bad news for supporters of an open internet. President-elect Trump has <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fcc-idUSKBN13H02B">named Jeffrey Eisenach and Mark Jamison</a> to oversee the transition at the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees internet communications policy. Both are <a href="https://www.aei.org/scholar/jeffrey-eisenach/">staff members</a> at the conservative <a href="https://www.aei.org/scholar/mark-jamison-2/">American Enterprise Institute</a> and <a href="http://warrington.ufl.edu/centers/purc/docs/bio_MarkJamison.pdf">former lobbyists</a> for <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/trump-campaigned-against-lobbyists-now-theyre-on-his-transition-team.html">major telecommunications companies</a>. Both are also <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/29/donald-trump-s-transition-team-wants-to-end-net-neutrality.html">vocal opponents of net neutrality</a>. Also on his FCC transition team are Roslyn Layton, <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/technology/307924-trump-taps-another-net-neutrality-critic-for-fcc-transition">another staff member at AEI and vocal net neutrality opponent</a>, and <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/12/29/trump-fcc-morken-net-neutrality/">North Carolina telecom entrepreneur David Morken</a>. </p>
<p>Morken is not on record as opposing net neutrality, but so far its supporters seem outnumbered. Those signs suggest that a Trump administration could enable an internet where wealthy people and companies can afford to distribute their content everywhere quickly, while regular people and small businesses can’t attract an audience or deliver content efficiently.</p>
<h2>Perpetuating the surveillance state</h2>
<p>During the campaign, candidate Trump supported <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261673-trump-sides-with-rubio-over-cruz-in-nsa-surveillance">keeping or restoring the NSA’s secret surveillance programs</a>, which former agency contractor <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/the-nsa-files">Edward Snowden revealed in 2013</a>. Those programs, with a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nsa-surveillance-idUSKCN0HO1YQ20140929">questionable legal basis</a>, collected <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order">internet and telephone communications</a> from all Americans, <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/29/457779757/nsa-ends-sept-11th-era-surveillance-program">storing them in a massive government database</a>.</p>
<p>Although Congress <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/us/house-votes-to-end-nsas-bulk-phone-data-collection.html?_r=0">voted across partisan lines to eliminate these programs</a> in 2015, Trump’s election may help revive them. He has named Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas), a supporter of the NSA surveillance programs Congress eliminated, as the <a href="http://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Trump-s-CIA-pick-would-reinstate-US-collection-10628986.php">next CIA director</a>. </p>
<p>The programs are <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/">unpopular with Americans</a>: It is perhaps no coincidence that interest in technologies that would make government surveillance more difficult, such as <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/11/13603000/protonmail-encrypted-email-service-donald-trump-nsa-surveillance">encrypted email</a> and <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/12/02/donald-trump-signal-app/">encrypted instant messaging apps</a>, has surged since Trump’s election.</p>
<h2>How successful could Trump be?</h2>
<p>We are not necessarily doomed to lose our digital freedom of speech. As with any public policy question, the answer is more complicated. Should Trump begin to wage on a full-fledged assault on digital expression, the degree to which he can succeed may be limited.</p>
<p>One factor is his ability to navigate the extremely complex and time-consuming obstacle course that is the American system of government. With its separation of powers, bicameral legislature, multiple layers of jurisdiction and <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/194257?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">endless veto points</a>, the American system strongly favors inertia over just about any course of action.</p>
<p>But a highly motivated president with an authoritarian streak could potentially cut through this inertia by, for example, embracing a <a href="http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12368&context=journal_articles">strong unitary executive</a> view of the presidency.</p>
<p>When the public gets involved, even seemingly entrenched plans can be derailed, or even reversed. For example, a mass of public involvement (with a little assistance from <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/john-olivers-net-neutrality-rallying-cry-swamps-fcc/">comedian John Oliver</a>) <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-26/how-john-oliver-transformed-the-net-neutrality-debate-once-and-for-all">transformed the initial net neutrality debate</a>.</p>
<p>This power the public holds – if it chooses to wield it – can be used in two ways: First, it can resist unwelcome changes, by reinforcing the political tendency toward inertia and the status quo. And second, it can drive policymakers to better serve the public who employ them. It’s unclear at present which tactic protecting our digital freedom of speech will require – or whether we’ll need both. In American politics, elections may have consequences, but they’re never the end of the story.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69959/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luis Hestres does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The public must prepare to stand up for a free press, and against online censorship and surveillance.Luis Hestres, Assistant Professor of Digital Communication, The University of Texas at San AntonioLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.