Monday, May 11, 2015

Net Neutrality: How Does Internet.org Factor In?

The internet has undoubtedly done some amazing things. It has made information easily accessible, and facilitated communication with people all over the world. It has changed the way we work, completely transforming some jobs and sectors. Everyone accesses and uses the internet in different ways. But it has also caused new problems and new challenges. Who controls the internet? Our instinct is to say no one, but that isn’t true. In some countries (like China), the internet is censored, meaning certain websites and searches don’t come up. With the release of the Snowden documents we learned that the U.S. collects vast amounts of data and this is largely possible because the majority of internet traffic travels through the United States. After all, they are the ones who invented it and who built the framework. Other countries, like Brazil and Germany, have set to work trying to build new servers and systems that don’t travel through the U.S. How should governments develop policy and deal with issues that previously didn’t exist? Cyber security has become a necessity with the rise of hacking for political and financial gain. The same way businesses are improved by the internet, so too are gangs, drug cartels, terrorists, etc.

One of the largest issues is that of net neutrality. Net neutrality is the idea that all internet traffic should be treated the same, regardless of the users, content, site, application, platform, etc. This means that internet service providers (Comcast, Verizon, Bell, etc.) shouldn’t restrict internet speeds to influence consumers in the choices they are making. This was an issue around Netflix, with certain providers slowing service in the hopes of getting customers to use alternative media channels. Netflix then shot itself in the foot by deciding to make a deal with Comcast and pay them to ensure a more direct route through Comcast’s network. This set a dangerous precedent that should have been avoided at all costs, something Netflix realized afterwards. It’s hard to push net neutrality when you’re willing to pay companies who don’t comply. 

All of this news around Netflix had people paying attention to net neutrality (after all you don’t mess with people and their binge watching!), so that when Comcast announced that they wanted to merge with Time Warner Cable, a lot of people were paying attention. And they didn't like what they were hearing. In 2011, the FCC approved the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal, raising serious questions about conflicts of interest between the two. The landscape has changed drastically since then, with more people aware of the potential problems arising from a giant media conglomerate. In the end, the $45.2 billion deal didn’t go through, after facing enormous public opposition. We face similar issues in Canada where the companies that provide the services, also create the content. For example, you pay Bell for cable and internet, but it also owns numerous channels, such as TSN and CTV.

The most recent company to come under fire for circumventing net neutrality is Facebook. You may have already seen the ads for internet.org, which is an initiative started by Mark Zuckerberg to bring internet to people all over the world. In theory, it sounds great, but it has already become characterized as ‘Facebooknet’ by some. Facebook, in partnership with several phone companies (Microsoft and Samsung among them), allows free access to a small number of websites, largely by partnering with local service providers. However there are several flaws: all traffic is routed through Facebook’s servers (making it the gatekeeper of all the information), it opens users to massive security vulnerabilities (by not allowing participating sites to use two of the most commonly used security protocols that protect users from online attacks), and it’s program lacks any transparency (it isn’t sharing details on its partnership models with telecom operator partners, policies regarding user data, etc.). If that didn’t sound unnerving enough, the following survey should drive home the point. When surveyed, 65% of Nigerians, 61% of Indonesians and 58% of Indians agree with the statement that “Facebook is the internet”, compared with only 5% in the U.S. There were also large numbers of people who said they used Facebook, but also said that they did not use the internet. Clearly in developing countries, Facebook has become synonymous with (or replacing) the word internet.

So while Facebook may try to spin this as an altruistic mission, there is no doubt that they are benefiting greatly from this initiative. The more people online, the more information they have to sell to other companies. Many have pegged this as an internet race between internet.org and Google’s Project Loon, which is trying to provide internet access to the world by building a wireless network using high-altitude balloons. While Facebook certainly seems to be leading the way, they have faced increasing criticism as of late. In April, several of their Indian partners quit, claiming Facebook was violating net neutrality and had a huge conflict of interest. Zuckerberg responded by stating that internet.org and net neutrality could co-exist and that internet.org will not differentiate between services, a claim that was contested by many response articles. In May, the internet.org platform was announced, allowing participation by any developers that met specific guidelines (likely a response to all the criticism).

I think the most interesting aspect of all of these stories, is the amount of pushback companies have received and the amount of change that people have caused by raising their voices. Clearly the majority of people perceive having a neutral internet space as a right and are willing to fight for it. This will continue to be a huge issue in the future, with governments struggling to keep up with the rapid pace of change and legislate an online space that doesn’t follow any national borders. The internet will continue to revolutionize the way we live, and it seems imperative that control of it remains in the hands of the people rather than governments or corporations.