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.
No comments:
Post a Comment