A Series of Tubes: Infrastructure, Broadband, and Baseline Content Control

From Technologies and Politics of Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Syllabus


February 11

The late Senator Ted Stevens famously said in a 2006 committee meeting that the “Internet is not something that you just dump something on; it’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.” While he was ridiculed widely at the time, Senator Stevens’s remarks actually reveal an interesting hortatory description of what the Internet should be (though given the rest of his comments, apparently not one that he intended). What Stevens’s metaphor suggests is that the physical conduits of the Internet should act like nothing more than non-judgmental conduits of the rest of the world’s traffic. We will see this week, however, that this is not a true reflection of how the tubes work, and we have strong debates as to what the government's role should be in ensuring that large enough "tubes" reach all those who would like to be online. The big questions for this week: What are the “tubes” of the Internet? Should the tubes have a role in controlling the throughput content? What is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet-tubes?

Download slides from this week's class


Readings

Comparing and measuring connectivity
What is the role of government?

Optional Readings


Assignment 1

Assignment 1 is due before class today (i.e., February 11th before 5:30pm ET). You can submit the assignment here.

Videos Watched in Class

Links

Class Discussion

REMINDER
Your comments must be submitted before 4:00PM ET on the Tuesday we hold class in order to count for participation credit. Please see the participation policy for more information.


Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: Andy 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)

I believe there is an underlying question surrounding the debate of net neutrality which is to what extent the state should intervene. The easy answer is to the point were the state does not crowd out investment and innovation. Even though in practice this is a hard thing to evaluate and achieve, I believe that regulatory bodies lose sight of it at times and should come back to this premise when deciding on a ruling that harms competition or stifles already functional markets.

Luciagamboaso 16:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)


My personal opinions of net neutrality and connectivity became muddled as I read through this week’s reading. My initial viewpoint supported open access and little/no regulation. Data shows that the top countries that meet the benchmarks defined by Benkler (penetration, capacity, and price) establish an open access community and let competition be the harbinger of innovation. The US also got to its current internet state via open access and has since became the middle of the pack once it restricted open access when the FCC abandoned Telecommunications Act of 1996 in 2001 and 2002. If we restrict open access, and information/broadband companies hold monopolies (like Comcast), why should they improve their services since the end game always ends up being a question of efficient profits? However, my opinion on how the government should be involved once I watched Susan Crawford give her remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform. While her words seemed to agree with my formed opinions on open access and connectivity, her solution focused on using the power of the government to instate infrastructure similar to how highways and telecommunications became ubiquitous. This left me with the question (which everyone seems to have and why this is hotly debated) of how much regulation should be instituted by the government and other regulatory bodies? Although a n00b in this area, my take away thoughts are that some body must exisit to deliver open connectivity and access to the people. The only way to meet Benkler Benchmarks are to develop innovative strategies and technologies - new materials and information delivery systems - to drive down cost, which will increase capacity penetration. This will require that the government invest in science and engineering research and set benchmarks to ensure that the correct infrastructure is provided to achieve this benchmarks. Private funding is also an option, but private institutions usually have a mission that is company driven and not “we the people” driven.

Margorm 11:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

Open and free access to the internet is possible for one who has a ham radio operator license. In some sense it is not really "open" because of technical barrier since it requires acquisition of new technical skills. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet Ichua 11:30, 11 February 2014 (EST)



While working on Assignment One and doing the readings this week on Net neutrality, I have been left with a lot of confusion as to how much regulation I find appropriate. On one hand, I think the internet, as with the spoken word, should be unrestricted to allow freedom of speech and communication. In this age, there are forums for people to express themselves, learn extensively about every possible interest, exchange information and news immediately, and connect to others from around the world in a way never before seen in history. There are now outlets and communities for all-- no longer are people isolated. While that might be troublesome from a standpoint of privacy, in my opinion an issue just as pressing arises dealing with unrestricted hate language. With the internet providing a barrier between individuals, hateful language is easy to disperse as there is no immediate visible repercussion. People are allowed to hide behind their computers and anonymity, sometimes spewing shocking, racist, sexist or otherwise offensive language just to incite anger and controversy (this behavior is often referred to as "trolling"). With school systems and the like actively taking a stand against bullying, should internet bullying also be restricted? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the safety (mental, emotional, physical) of the public who use the internet-- the website itself? The government? Some other agency which is set up to police the internet? Or would things be more fair if a simple internet ID was implemented, which identified users so that they were held responsible for their postings? I would tend to go with the last option, so as not to actually implement a rule of neutrality, which would be restricting free speech and infringing upon basic human rights. Castille 00:14, 8 February 2014 (EST)


I like your comments. The Singapore government is very concerned about this and planning to take some practical measures, including one similar to your last option. See:

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pm-outlines-new-approach-online-engagement-0 Ichua 11:47, 11 February 2014 (EST

Interesting! I think it's great that they're taking those measures. Unless I'm missing something, it seems that they are talking about having sites which require users to sign in so that they are at least consistently using a handle on that site. However, I didn't see anything which has posed a sort of all-encompassing "E-ID" (Internet Identity) which would be tied directly to a person and was basically just a virtual representation of that person which would require said person to take direct responsibility for the way they conduct themselves on the internet. A simple sign-in might be better than nothing, but it's easy to create a handle which still serves as a barrier between your real life identity and your internet identity. Castille 12:39, 17 February 2014 (EST)


I've been a Wikipedian for a long time, although not recently. One of the interesting things to look at in the context of Wikipedia is the deletionist/inclusionist divide (I think the deletionists have basically won). I wrote the original article on this subject on Wikipedia, and I thought some of you might find it interesting: Deletionism and Inclusionism in Wikipedia. I was the original author of this article (I'm Tarinth on Wikipedia) and it has an interesting history as an article, in that there was a fairly concerted attempt to have the article deleted as soon as I had created it. For further background on the subject, the following is an NPR interview I gave on the topic back in 2007: "Marked for Deletion"

My general feeling about Wikipedia: to move beyond casual editing, you need to become part of what amounts to a technological priesthood, and you have to fall in line with the prevailing philosophy to succeed at that. (Nevertheless, I do think Wikipedia is really awesome and super-useful, and it'll be fun to make some edits to an article again) Jradoff 10:31, 8 February 2014 (EST)


Thanks for sharing! As I'm sure you know, Wikimedia is trying to break down the technological barriers to entry, but the normative social order and its impact on edits is an interesting issue to explore more. Andy 14:15, 9 February 2014 (EST)



In both the first and second lecture, someone had mentioned that Wikipedia isn't accepted by universities as an acceptable source. To be fair, this isn't a problem with Wikipedia, because universities will ordinarily not accept Britannia as a source either. This is because these are both "tertiary sources," and in academic writing, you need to use either primary sources (original documents, etc.) or secondary sources (peer-reviewed articles, journalistic articles, etc.). Jradoff 10:44, 8 February 2014 (EST)


As I mentioned during the last class, Wikipedia has a pretty good page detailing the various studies conducted to test the reliability of Wikipedia. I think your point about tertiary sources is exactly right, and at least with Wikipedia (if people are following the guidelines in articles) you should be able to drive to those primary and secondary sources. And, of course, if you find an issue with Wikipedia, fix it! :-) Andy 14:12, 9 February 2014 (EST)



I had a discussion about Wikipedia with my wife and two sons while waiting for my flight from Changi Airport, Singapore, to Manila, Philippines, awhile ago. To my surprise, both my sons were aware of the problems with Wikipedia. They noted that while some of the citations were good, at least 50% was either crap or had broken links. They don't use Wikipedia seriously but scavenge its sites as a quick way of finding references from good citations.

Ichua 12:48, 9 February 2014 (EST)



ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN INTERNET CONNECTIVITY CASE STUDY: SINGAPORE

The Ministry of Education and the Infocomm Development Authority had developed a set of specifications which e-learning vendors like my company must fulfill in terms of internet bandwidth, especially in national emergencies such as SARS, when schools are required to close to avoid spread of a virus, etc. In such cases, students are required to continue their studies online at home. To ensure requirements on internet access times are met, server load tests were carried out based on simulations for various numbers of concurrent users. We also had a contract with Oracle to work with our engineers and programmers to optimize the Php/MySQL coding. It was money well-spent.

In the past, the hardware was the major limitation. Video server vendors could only promise 50 concurrent users per server. This made connectivity into the internet broadband network too expensive because you need to pay for each server connection plus rack space....until I saw Steve Jobs on Youtube launching the new Mac G4 XServe demonstrating it can deliver video streams to 1000 iMacs. At that time I was working for the government and was the first person to order 2 units of G4 6 months ahead of its anticipated delivery. With 1000 concurrent users possible with the G4 XServe, I quit my job and started my e-learning company a year later in 2000.

Then, we found that the schools' internet bandwidth was the problem. The network in the school could only accomodate 3 classes of 40 students each, or a total of 120 students concurrently accessing our online videos. When there were more than 3 computer labs being used concurrently, all the PC's showed the online video had stalled. This happened to schools which subscribed for only 1 or 2 Mbps internet connectivity with their ISP. Schools using 5 or 10 Mbps had no issue. Over the years, the schools had upgraded their bandwidth connectivity to at least 5 or 10 Mbps. Today, almost all the secondary schools are using our online math program.

Two years ago, I was sourcing for better servers with fast solid-state drives (SSD's). The I/O with the storage devices could also significantly affect the access times, especially for connections to our database. But to our pleasant surprise IBM had produced new hard-disks that were even faster than SSD's! Subsequent server load tests we carried out showed significant improvement in access times with the new machines. Further improvement in access times were also obtained after modifying many segments of our code in consultation with Oracle.

But had the MOE and the schools not been pro-active in improving their internet infrastructure, online learning on a nation-wide scale in schools would not have been possible.

Ichua 14:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)


The drive to having broadband in schools is a big part of communications policy in the US, as well. Several times in our communications law (Title 47 of the U.S. Code) Congress has indicated a clear preference for high-speed access in elementary and secondary schools. Andy 09:44, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Thank you for sharing this, Ichua! I am curious to know what the Singaporean population thinks of the government's involvement. In China, it seems that citizens tend to accept the government's control and restrictions. It is incredible how one's culture often defines how policies are rolled out and enforced. --AmyAnn0644 14:55, 14 February 2014 (EST)



WIKIPEDIA EDITING SYNTAX VS HTML

This may not be directly relevant to our coming lecture, but may be helpful for those who intend to add more than just texts to a Wikipedia page. I was wondering how a table or a URL might be added to a Wikipedia page and thought this could be done using HTML. To my pleasant surprise, there is a menu at the top of the edit page in edit mode which allows you to click to insert a table, etc., to minimize coding time. But it was a disappointment to find there is no math equation editor. Help for input of math expressions can be found in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Displaying_a_formula.

Ichua 22:10, 9 February 2014 (EST)


I finally figured out how to edit special tables from this Wiki help link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table#Alignment Ichua 12:12, 10 February 2014 (EST)



APPRECIATING LSTU-E120

I'm beginning to appreciate the information presented in this course. The guidelines about editing Wikipedia and Assignment 1 exercise can help make Wikipedia a better place. While checking out some Wikipedia sites to assess their use for Assignment 1, I found many places in need of citations. For Assignment 1, I would attempt to search for appropriate citations and add these but if not, I now know how to add the "Citation needed" tag. But I also found citations used that were inappropriate....how do I flag these if I could not find appropriate citations?

Ichua 22:30, 9 February 2014 (EST)



ONLINE PRE-QUALIFICATION TEST FOR WOULD-BE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS

Perhaps Wikipedia should require would-be editors to thoroughly read its policy and guidelines and make them take a rigorous online test which they need to pass before allowing them to do any edits on Wikipedia.

Ichua 22:40, 9 February 2014 (EST)


What a great idea, Ichua! Would that be infringing on some kind of "right" that individuals have to post freely? I think that would be a reasonably simple way to implement some form of quality control. Castille 02:04, 15 February 2014 (EST)



NET NEUTRALITY VS FAIR USE POLICY: BIG BUFFET VS HUNGER RATION

In countries like S. Korea, US, or Singapore, where there are lots of internet bandwidth to spare, it is convenient to implement a net neutrality policy. More than 90% of the population in Singapore live in public housing apartments and all units are now provided with fibre-optic cables. But in the Philippines, the ISPs are greedy corporations and charge high prices for very poor services. They also cheat customers by telling them that they get unlimited access and unlimited surfing but disconnect them when they hit an unspecified MB of data transfers or total access time on a daily basis. Connectivity is typically restored at midnight. This had been my experience with all the ISPs since I moved to Manila for medical school in June 2012. If you come to my condo in Sampaloc, you will see on my desk all variety of routers, modems, and so-called broadband sticks from Globe, Smart, and Sun. PLDT never showed up despite contacting them twice. One reason why internet connectivity was very bad was because users get deliberately disconnected without their knowledge. However, this was all indicated in fine print in contracts which customers signed without reading under a Fair Use Policy. The Fair Use Policy is used to discourage customers from using the internet too much! The amount of MB or total time accessed used to determine service disconnection depends on the computed average MB transferred and average total time accessed. Finally, I decided to return to Singapore every weekend so that I could view the recorded lectures online for my Harvard Extension School coursework. Subsequently, the situation got better when Smart offered a promo of truly free 10-day unlimited access for purchasing their new broadband stick. But after the 10-day period subscription to the service was very expensive. I found it so much cheaper to buy 3 new broadband sticks every month. To my great relief, in August 2013, Smart began to offer a new 4G device for Php 7,000 upfront plus Php 995 for every 30 days of truly unlimited access. I am one of the few lucky guys who got this device as Smart does not sell this in the university belt area. I had to travel more than an hour to Mandaluyong to buy it. This is all very hard to fathom, especially when Smart has a 4G antenna in front of my block.

Ichua 14:30, 10 February 2014 (EST)



I find it very surprising that Yochai Benkler's article presents Japan as a country that emphasized ubiquitous, seamless connectivity. Having lived in the country, I would most certainly place it in the first category: ultra high speeds, but rarely there. The internet in Japan is "just there" only if you happen to have a mobile phone, with a relatively expensive data plan, haven't reached your limit, and don't happen to be in a subway.

I think that the problem with the study might be, that although it's more nuanced that most papers on connectivity, it's still not nuanced enough. For example, it uses the metric: Wi-Fi hotspots per 100000. But there's a huge difference between 100 open WiFi hotspots, 100 paid hotspots by one provider, or 100 paid hotspots from 20 providers incompatible with each other. Not to mention that there are many different pricing plans for access to said paid hotspots that can have a big impact on how useful they are.

Japan, for example, would probably not fare very well in this metric if the above-mentioned considerations would have been taken into account. Everyone who has visited the country, even its capital, knows that free hotspots are few and far between, paid hotspots are expensive and often require you to subscribe for long stretches of time, and even if you do pay for the access you'll soon find that different establishments side with different WiFi providers and if you really want a seamless experience you'll need to subscribe to at least 2-3 different WiFi providers at once.

(That said, it's worth noting that my point of view is that of someone who spends a lot of time in European and Asian countries with excellent, ubiquitous, and often free or dirt cheap connectivity, not someone from rural US.) --Seifip 16:09, 10 February 2014 (EST)


Great points! I believe later in the full report Benkler notes that Japan is more of a middle-of-the-pack performer on other metrics, including 3G penetration and price (though Japan has been growing very quickly in the former). Your point about the WiFi access points is a good one - I'm not sure if the OECD study that's referenced here took price into account when developing the definition of what is a "public hotspot." Andy 09:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)



In Australia, net neutrality issues hardly impact us and receive minimal attention from consumers or industry. This week’s reading further piqued my curiosity to research what Australia is doing differently to keep these problems at bay, as we generally mimic structures of technology from America.

Unlimited broadband data plans in America planted seeds to the problems that sprouted with net neutrality. Services meant for access-granting could otherwise be boring and bill customers for simply providing access, however, a power struggle emerged within the market. The ISP’s that provide unlimited broadband failed to create additional revenue parallel to their traffic growth. This business model leaves a lot of temptation for the ISP’s to manipulate traffic, direct users to favoured websites, attempt to stifle their competitors or simply block them out. How else would a provider increase company revenue? This model also give little incentive for the ISP’s to invest in upgrades to capacity or network speeds for their customers, because they wouldn’t profit off of it.

Curiously, Australia does not have any laws in place regarding net neutrality, the ISP’s are structured to have disincentives for discriminating or favouring traffic based on source type. Australian ISPs operate on a volumetric billing system, so the user pays per MB, at a fixed rate, with a pre-determined speed and download capacity. Customers have a choice to upgrade to higher speeds and expand their download capacity, and ISPs manage congestion based on the customer’s willingness to pay. Blocking or manipulating web traffic would have an anticompetitive effect on the ISP. This system gives stronger incentives to maximise transition of all traffic regardless of source type, because that would translate to bigger profits. High market competition paired with low-entry barriers weakens incentives for ISPs to block content. Telstra, an Australian ISP, operates on a metered broadband system. If you choose Telstra as your provider, they have a list of partner sites that can be used on an unlimited basis. This is an effective way to steer the direction of customers without having to manipulate their open-access connectivity to other websites, if they so choose to use them.

ISPs should act as an affordance that suggest, rather than dictate, how their services are to be used. It would be naive to think that American ISPs could simply restructure to a volumetric system, which would run a huge risk of sending their customers running to their competitors who still provide unlimited access. Marissa1989 23:17, 10 February 2014 (EST)


Talking about competition, there is hardly any competition amongst ISP's in Philippines. PLDT directly or indirectly own Smart and Sun. Ichua 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)


Marissa1989 and Ichua - if you don't mind my asking, what do you pay for broadband, and what is your average download and upload speed? You can use services like Speedtest to check. Andy 07:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)


Currently from my location in Sampaloc, Manila, using www.speedtest.net, I am getting 2.26 Mbps for downloads and 0.20 Mbps for uploads. I am paying Php 995 (about USD 25) for every 30 days of unlimited access using Smart's 4G network with ZTE's LTE device Model MF93D (made in China). I am now quite happy with the download speed, but not the upload speed as I have to upload videos for 1st and 2nd Year med school class lectures. It is actually very cheap now for me and I can bring the 4G device while travelling around Manila. This is a very far cry from my situation prior to August 2013. Ichua 12:16, 11 February 2014 (EST)


I am on a plan with Telstra that costs $50 AUD per 8 Gigs of data. This sounds expensive by American standards, but bear in mind, minimum wage in Sydney (city) is around $22 AUD per hr. Marissa1989 16:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)
Using speedtest.net from my location, at my work computer in Sydney city (This isn't my home plan as noted above, I will test that when I'm home today) Download Speed is 14.06mbps and Upload Speed is 2.04 Mbps. Good by Australian standards - this pales in comparison to America. Marissa1989 17:00, 11 February 2014 (EST)
Also, to Marissa's point about competition, it's an interesting question whether folks would be as worried about net neutrality if there was genuine competition in the US over broadband, but that's typically not the case. Major metropolitan areas will have, at most, two or three choices, and for huge sections of the US there is only one cable provider in their area. Some cities have tried to build municipal networks to provide other choices, but several state legislatures have prevented cities in their states from doing so. Australia, as you probably know, is considering the near-opposite approach, embarking on a heroic effort to build fiberoptic lines to every building in Australia. Andy 07:52, 11 February 2014 (EST)



UNSUNG WINTER HEROES OF THE TUBES

During my 4 years in West Lafayette, IN, from 2004-2008, we had very good internet access. But occasionally when the internet goes down, especially during winter, the internet outage extends throughout the whole state or several states. I learned that the technicians sometimes work under tough or hazardous conditions to restore damaged lines.

Ichua 01:02, 11 February 2014 (EST)



FROM TUBES TO AIRSPACE

If any government intend to quickly setup broadband internet or intranet access, technology is now available which enable one to do so using very long range wifi or ethernet radio. The main transmission antenna can be installed and connected to a server within a day. Transmission can be up to 120km at 200 Mbps with equipment like the RAD's AirMux-400. Additional repeaters can be added for places which do not have line-of-sight. Cheap and powerful desktop receivers are also available. This can be a temporary solution until more stable networks such as those based on fiber-optics are installed. If I recall, my costing was merely Php 200,000 (USD 5,000) for a 50km range at 100 Mbps, including equipment and labor for installation and setup. Sounds good for poor and impoverished communities.

Ichua 01:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)



NET NEUTRALITY IMPRACTICAL FOR COUNTRIES WITH BIG INCOME GAPS

Private ISP corporations want to make profit but governments want internet services to be delivered to the poor at almost no cost. To do so would require government ownership or regulated differential pricing and/or the provision of separate internet networks: one for entertainment and commerce and the other for education.

Ichua 01:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)



Net Neutrality is the question which must be maintained by government and private entities in close cooperation. Of course, the ISPs want to make greater profits by means of prices fluctuation for different websites, traffics and etc. In this case, the government can be some kind of "referee" by preventing the IPS to speculate with the mentioned aspects. However, we should bear in mind that the government cannot keep the total governance in its hands as this policy may lead to some restrictions in the development of this sphere in future. So, I think that the met neutrality must be recognized by law and the legislation must set the general rules and protect the consumers from being somehow harmed by the IPS. Still, IPS must possess enough freedom for development and advancement of the services they are engaged in.Aysel 09:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)Aysel Ibayeva



In response to Castille, I am also finding myself at a crossroad on the issue of promoting liberty and safeguarding citizens by preventing injustices. I think this is a topic of endless, profound debate. I thoroughly enjoyed the weekly readings and found Adam Thierer's article "More Confusion about Internet 'Freedom' " to be particularly powerful and convincing. While I did not agree with all of the points he made, I think he makes a valid, logical argument debunking the mainstream point of view that has been engrained in us as a society. I did not realize the extent of power the FCC maintains over the internet and, as he mentions, these are not even elected officials. How can they promote the values or digital issues that we, the people of the internet, hold dear. Shouldn't we have a say in these decisions that directly impact the cyberspace we access on a daily basis? He admits there will inevitably be problems in a free information marketplace; however, in the name of innovation via the promotion of creativity and ingenuity within our society, perhaps these mistakes are well worth the risk and stunting this technological growth/exchange could do more damage than good.

I was surprised to find the end of the article when Thierer ultimately bashes the Senator's initial statement that Net neutrality is “the First Amendment issue of our time.” At first I thought he was in agreement with Senator Franken but he saw this as more of an attack on the goal of the first amendment. When I initially read Franken's statement I took it to mean that the internet is becoming a general issue for freedom of speech.

Thierer suggests that instead of putting more faith in these central planners, we should look to the evolutionary market forces through a bottom-up response as the "cyber-progressivists" have argued (Thierer 2011). The most important point that Thierer discusses, in my opinion, was when he mentioned that people are driven by incentives, but they are only truly free to do so if they are not held at the whim of a higher governing authority and this authority has a track record of always being two steps behind the latest technological advancements. They cannot keep up and in trying to do so, they are ultimately thwarting overall progression. While I cannot go as far as saying that I believe all regulatory intervention is tyranny as Thierer ends up insisting, I tend to agree with his overall convictions. However, as Castille pointed out, there are clearly times when it appears the government should step in to protect its citizens on the web. On the other hand, one intervention leads to another and it becomes a fast moving "slippery slope".

--AmyAnn0644 10:57, 11 February 2014 (EST)


There's a reason this has been a hot issue for about a decade! There are very compelling arguments to be made on all sides. Thierer does gloss over the fact that the FCC's actions are constrained by Congress, and Congress (at least in theory) is dependent upon the people, so as a matter of structure the influence of the public has a role, though we all know how hard that is to achieve in practice. The First Amendment issues themselves are fascinating and an area where I spend a lot of my time thinking about these issues; I hope to get to some of that in class today. Andy 10:58, 11 February 2014 (EST)


Thierer complains, "We are asked to ignore our history lessons, which teach us that centralized planning and bureaucracy all too often lead to massively inefficient outcomes..." However, this is taking the libertarian complaint of inefficiency (that I normally side with) out of its economic context. If he were to balance the concerns of profitability of the architecture of the industry (for the ISPs) and of the fiber networks themselves, and weigh them against the potential economic growth as a result of ubiquitous internet, Thierer would find that one far outweighs the other in importance. MikeJohnson 15:48, 11 February 2014 (EST)


Interesting points here, Mike. I often wonder what the founding fathers would think if they lived today and wonder how they would grapple with the complexities digital technology presents for society. While I have tremendous respect for our great Constitution and the values invoked within it; I still find that it cannot effectively respond to modern advancements. After a bit of research it seems that the founding fathers would favor less government involvement in the face of economic advancement. As James Madison once said, "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty." Patrick Henry also had a quote that may be relevant to this debate: "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." No matter what side of the fence you find yourself, this is one of those debates (as Andy mentions) that does not appear to have a clear course of action that can be taken in the near future. Drafting modern technical policy and implementing it with the consent of the people is the most important task at hand. --AmyAnn0644 15:08, 14 February 2014 (EST)

--AmyAnn0644 14:55, 14 February 2014 (EST)


When the key Net Neutrality cases were being presented before the court a few years back, I remember being firmly on the side of the FCC and hoping that a strict ruling against Comcast would have preserved Net Neutrality... or at least what I presumed "net neutrality" to encompass back then. I see that my view of Net Neutrality was overly narrow at that time...and although I still do not want to see service providers have that much power to manipulate what legal content a user chooses to access online, I see from the readings that the scope of the "problem" would, probably, neither have been fully resolved in a ruling that went in favor of the FCC. Constraints, as discussed last week, would have most likely just shifted, and placed regulated pressure on a marketplace. (an example might be thinking of an ISP that truly wants to enter the market and offer customers a filtered, "safe", online experience for certain families... they indeed would have subscribers and be successful and appeal to some sectors that opt for a “safe online community”). Conversely, with the judges ruling allowing the FCC to walk away with the ability to regulate the entire internet is more than a little worrisome knowing that political cycles could have such sweeping powers to re-define the internet landscape. And while service providers still enjoy their own monopolies within any given township of users who have only 1 (maybe 2) choices for an ISP, it seems that the consumer is the only one who lost some ground in the Net Neutrality rulings.

I think the reading "Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age" strikes closer to where we need to be focusing our attention. To quote from the interview directly: "Dawn argues for an affirmative conception of the First Amendment, under which public and powerful private gatekeepers of Internet communications are subject to the First Amendment’s mandate to ensure the free flow of communications in the digital age." - Here too I originally presumed that the First Amendment *did* apply across-the-board to all communication...Internet, printing press, public speech - but I guess it is that word "public" that becomes an "undefined zone" within virtual spaces online. Is there anything like a national or municipal park in the Internet world where the marketplace has no sway on how we choose to behave in that public zone? Or is every “online space” in which we choose to speak or participate analogous to traveling to private island governed by the values (and whims) of the a single gatekeeper rather than any one nation's constitutional rights? (Why did Mr. Roarke and Tattoo just come to mind...?). Psl 12:31, 11 February 2014 (EST)



MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINES INTERNET FREEDOM (MCPIF)

See: http://democracy.net.ph/mcpif/full-text/

What do you think of Section 5(e)?

Schools in Singapore has a restriction policy. Only selected websites are permitted to be accessed within the school's network.

We also teach parents how to allow their children to access only selected websites and block all others to prevent children from playing online games and accessing pornographic and other undesirable websites.

Ichua 12:42, 11 February 2014 (EST)



WEBSITES BANNED IN SINGAPORE

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/extramarital-dating-website-ceo-disappointed-mdas-ban-20131109

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/23/us-singapore-internet-odd-idUSS2322899620080523

http://yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-504.htm

http://therealsingapore.com/content/singapore-government-plans-ban-websites-such-pirate-bay

See also Internet Filtering in Singapore: https://opennet.net/studies/singapore

Ichua 12:50, 11 February 2014 (EST)



I have used Wikipedia as a starting point to gather resources and verify the accuracy of the information. I have never been a contributor. This assignment has proved useful in "breaking me out of my shell." I am reminded of the quote from an article that I ran across by Tom Simonite. In the article, The Decline of Wikipedia, he stated: "When Wikipedians achieved their most impressive feat of leaderless collective organization, they unwittingly set in motion the decline in participation that troubles their project today." I fear the mechanism is stifled from further growth due to its collective and bureaucratic structure. VACYBER 13:13, 11 February 2014 (EST)

This week’s assignment was very enlightening. I am a casual browser in Wikipedia and have used it just for some very general preliminary information before going into the topic deeper in other websites. I was familiar with the issues of the website but I never really stepped behind the initial pages to edit or evaluate the rules. This was very helpful but I also suffered a bit on the learning curve being a complete beginner on that end. Regardless, I found it very interesting.

Now for the topic of government’s roles of the Internet, I think this would be best avoided. The Internet is where our freedom of speech gets most prolific and also most obscene. There’s room for it all and we should keep it like this. When control enters the picture it is a dangerous slope and it is never black and white. How do you decide what should be banned? Everyone will give a different method and a consensus is nearly impossible. I’m interest to see what the class will say on this topic. Lpereira 13:28, 11 February 2014 (EST)



According to research conducted by Yochai Benkler about search for improvement of high-capacity networks for the next generation in different developed and developing countries is based on download speed and complete connectivity. His study demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses in the broadband deal in several countries and makes a comparison to the technological transition in the next generation, while the video shows briefly how connectivity works today and makes a comparison between the most developed and developing countries. In analyzing both materials, I made the conclusion that the opportunities and technological barriers, experiences and skills gained by the different players in the innovation system flowing through this economic activity to another, establish a specific context for each country or region, that is that any set of economic incentives generate different incentives and constraints to innovation. To the extent and in cases where the divergence between economic incentives and stimulating innovation represented by externalities is substantial, differences are gradually decreased. Gisellebatista 14:08, 11 February 2014 (EST)


Working on Assignment One (and the Wiki rule of neutrality in particular) got me thinking about objectivity as it relates to online journalistic content. It struck me that objectivity has been losing its power online, at least in the journalistic and content spheres. Outside of academic circles, the online news that gets the most attention seems to be quite opinionated — they are the articles that lead to shares, ‘likes’, high-fives, vitriol, and discussion. But it’s also these same pieces that people go to for sources of information. Often biased information. A couple of the readings have addressed this fact: that online communities and the net in general has a categorizing effect… so that it becomes not so much a large “worldwide web”, but a large collection of smaller, almost navel-gazing webs.

There’s a bit of a bipolarity going on here. As an example, Wikipedia seems to be doing a solid job of promoting objectivity, and yet online biases seem break through the clutter faster. On one hand we crave objectivity for our sources, and on the other hand we crave opinions for our entertainment. (Maybe it’s as simple as that? But it rarely is…)

When looking at different Wiki articles, a bit of a pattern started to emerge: Those articles that deviated from one rule, were more likely to deviate from at least one of the other rules, as well. This made it particularly difficult to focus on editing just the one area and led to making amendments of other rules as well. I found that as I delved deeper into the editing process, more issues seemed to pop up that “needed” editing — I could see how it could become quite addictive for regular Wiki editors.

I also found the idea of branching out to edit an article for which I had no previous knowledge to be daunting — even with sufficient sources at my disposal. It would be interesting to look at a study of how much prior knowledge Wiki editors have about the subjects they are editing… Twood 14:15, 11 February 2014 (EST)


I would agree with Twood-the task of verifying sources for accuracy is daunting. The three fundamental rules Wiki has placed ( at first) seem simplistic. Application takes the steps to a different level. I found myself in the most interesting research hole imaginable. The error rate is high on Wiki-but understandable. --Melissaluke 15:36, 11 February 2014 (EST)



Having created and submitted a single Wikipedia article previously, I had a reasonable familiarity with Wikipedia before completing Assignment 1. However, approaching Wikipedia as an editor with a targeted rule to address in a pre-existing article brought up many questions about the role of the individual, the community and the regulation of speech. A number of the readings helped work through these questions for me, none more so than Professor Dawn Nunziato's interview on net neutrality and free speech. I was pleased to consider the two conceptions of the first amendment in the context of the internet and regulation of speech online. As Nunziato explains, under the affirmative conception of the first amendment, "individuals enjoy an affirmative right to speak, free from content and viewpoint discrimination — regardless of whether such discrimination occurs at the hands of the government or other powerful regulators of speech." She also confirms, as I have understood from my lay person's perspective as a frequent user of web and social media, that the affirmative conception of the first amendment "has not taken root" in the internet context because the private entities that control internet speech are not subject to the first amendment's mandate prohibiting censorship. This of course leads to concern about whether our internet communication is really free-- and also leads to the unique case of Wikipedia. As we learned in other readings this week, and in completing Assignment 1 itself, there are certainly "gatekeepers" for speech on Wikipedia, but in a different form from broadband providers, email servers, and search engines that Nunziato cites. The community of editors on Wikipedia, and such reliability control features as autoconfirmed editors, serve as a less tangible but equally omnipresent entity that has the power to censor- but to protect from unreliable or overly biased information, rather than a singular interest. Whether Wikipedia can at the same time ensure neutrality and protect free speech is clearly an ongoing debate.

akk22 15:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)


The Internet is a global infrastructure so measuring, defining, and ultimately controlling it can be accomplished in a variety of ways. In measuring speed, broadband, and the “always on” ubiquitously networked society, the US ranked mid to poor in performance and among the absolute lowest in category of price and future planning. This is one of the key issues debated in politics along with open access policies, network neutrality, First Amendment rights, and the FCC’s broad powers over regulating the Internet. The network neutrality view is that “broadband providers and wireless carriers should be prohibited from discriminating against speech on the basis of viewpoint or content” the right for all information to travel the Internet equally without discrimination. There have been several occurrences of major ISP’s manipulating the content provided on an individualized basis just because it benefited their own interests. How much regulation should we place over the Internet or should we just leave it to the great innovators and major corporations to work it out? Emmanuelsurillo 15:46, 11 February 2014 (EST)



As a first time contributor to Wikipedia, thanks to this class in general and assignment one in particular, I came to realize that it would be very difficult for governments to regulate the internet as it is already an enormous task for individual web-based organizations, such as Wikipedia, to manage all its editors. For example, bearing Wikipedia's first rule in mind (also known as "NPOV"), I read a few articles and edited one that was completely not in line with Wikipedia's policies. There was no citation from reliable sources of any kind. Besides, the author stated a lot of his opinions as facts and vice versa.

Having said that, I believe that if it is that hard for organizations such as Wikipedia to regulate their own user bases, which are relatively small portions of a countries' populations, and make them all stick to the rules, let alone governments of developed nations who manage an entire population with many fundamental rights and freedom to regulate the internet in the traditional governmental ways of regulating.

Finally, I am not totally dismissing the idea that governments should not intervene on internet issues. It is not impossible to regulate it to some extent. On the contrary, I think it is even necessary for governments and individual internet organizations to collaborate and continue to establish policies and regulations that will be in the benefits of their populations and users, respectively. cheikhmbacke 15:55, 11 February 2014 (EST)

Did you see the posting earlier where Ichua suggested implementing a survey or "quiz" of sorts which would test prospective users based on information given in the Terms of Use/Conditions of Wikipedia to ensure that they understood the rules and how to use them before they were allowed to create new posts or make alterations to existing posts. On what sort of issues would you propose governments intervene? Should they monitor or regulate content or one of the four "forces"-- excluding law, which is obvious-- (architecture, market, norms)? As far as content, I don't think it would be the government's duty or right to ensure accuracy or even to prevent "hate speech", as I think that sort of involvement would be a slippery slope towards infringing on free speech. Castille 02:13, 15 February 2014 (EST)

Not sure if I should post this on the most recent board or on this one, where it seems more in line with the topic. The internet has recently exploded with articles about the purported "end of Net Neutrality" due to the January court ruling that the FCC could no longer enforce the rules governing Net Neutrality. Being that I gravitate towards graphics, I found this article to be particularly interesting: [1]. This article by the Huffington Post also breaks down the controversy into an easily-understood FAQ page: [2] Castille 20:32, 2 May 2014 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/is2014/?title=A_Series_of_Tubes:_Infrastructure,_Broadband,_and_Baseline_Content_Control&oldid=3354"