Internet Infrastructure and Regulation: Difference between revisions

From Technologies of Politics and Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 20: Line 20:
==Readings==
==Readings==


*U.S. National Broadband Plan
*U.S. National Broadband Plan - [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf A draft submitted by US Carriers to the Press on February 17th]


*Berkman Center Review of International Broadband Deployment
*Berkman Center Review of International Broadband Deployment


== Additional Resources==
== Additional Resources==

Revision as of 11:02, 27 February 2010

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the hot-off-the-presses US National Broadband Plan and the recent Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

In writing this class introduction, I stopped to give pause to the question of how many people understand how much today’s internet can be tied to the development of the railroads in the 1800’s and the governments attempt at regulating wild and chaotic growth of our nations infrastructure.

The internet has become ingrained in our daily lives as much as television, radio, and a myriad of other electrically driven entertainment mediums. However, as much as we enjoy playing our online games, chatting with friends, sending emails, purchasing trinkets to real-estate, trading stocks, finding employment and collaborating with co-workers, we often don’t realize that all of this would not be possible without the infrastructure needed to interconnect the various networks around the world in a consistent and open fashion. Without regulation and standards, the internet would not be possible. But how much do we as consumers of the internet understand how it is regulated?

The internet is very much a wild-frontier resembling the land-grab era of the 1800’s. In this day and age mega corporations including Oracle, Intel, Microsoft and Google rival monopolistic predecessors of the 1800’s like Carnegie Steel and Standard Oil. As was the case in the 1800’s, the railroads held the key to building out the infrastructure of our nation through their ownership of the national right of ways allowing them to become the natural beneficiaries of a nationwide infrastructure build-out. Even today we see vestiges of this in companies such as Sprint whose name stands for Southern Pacific Railway Intelligent Network of Telecommunications.

Today all communications infrastructure within the United States is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission which has been in existence since 1934 when it took over the regulation of communications infrastructure from the now defunct Interstate Commerce Commission; the governing body which was established to regulate the railroads in order to provide equal access to all Americans who wished to use them. These vestiges are present today when we hear the words of Julius Genachowski – the current chairman of the FCC – as he talks about the commission’s mission of maintaining a free and open internet as they prepare to submit their proposal of a National Broadband Plan to Congress; which will have occurred just a few days prior to this class.

So how does an organization such as the FCC which is funded by the telecommunications surcharges we see on our phone bill everyday plan to balance the need to extend broadband accessibility to the millions of US residents - who still do not have internet access – with their self stated mission of maintaining a free and open internet? Is this an honest attempt and maintaining a “laissez fair” approach to regulation allowing the free hand of commerce to dictate the growth and expansion of the infrastructure? Or will it turn into a “de jure monopoly” ; the government granting exclusive access to those who pay the most as they currently do as they award spectrum to the wireless carriers? After all, wasn’t it this same organization that – after the breakup of AT&T – instituted the regulations allowing Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) access to the infrastructure then owned by the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) which to this day many consider to have been one of their worst mistakes granting favoritism to few and placing an inordinate burden on others?

So how does a Federal Regulatory body enforce free and open, when they themselves rely on the surcharges and sale of bandwidth to fund their organization. Are they merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing lulling the consumers of the internet into a false sense of security? This is of huge debate within the industry today as organizations have sprung up and debated these issues over the last two decades fighting for our rights as internet users and arguing for a truly free internet and net neutrality.

So I ask… Does current and proposed regulations governing the internet truly allow for free markets, open dialog and the unfettered growth of an online society, or are they the groundwork toward building a net that dips into our pockets, restricts our voices through censorship and controls the content we can present and consume? Do organizations such as ICANN and the IETF promote fair and unobstructed participation or are they merely an elitist crowd that favors a select and desirable crowd. --Lunatixcoder 15:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)



Readings

  • Berkman Center Review of International Broadband Deployment

Additional Resources

The Federal Communications Commission

National Broadband Plan

OpenInternet.gov

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

The Telecommunications Act of 1996

§ 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

The Communications Decency Act

Class Discussion

Links from Class