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

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?

Readings

Comparing and measuring connectivity

• The Berkman Center, How Do We Connect To The Internet? (about 7 mins., watch all)

• Yochai Benkler, Next Generation Connectivity (executive summary and introduction only)

What is the role of government?

• Wikipedia, Net Neutrality

• Marvin Ammori, The Net Neutrality Battle Has Been Lost, But Now We Can Finally Win the War

• Berin Szoka and Geoffrey Manne, The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet

• Daniel Solove, Interview with Dawn Nunziato on her book Virtual Freedom

• Susan Crawford, remarks at the 2013 National Conference on Media Reform

• Adam Thierer, More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” (Tech Liberation)

Optional Readings

• Sam Biddle, How to Destroy the Internet (Gizmodo)

• Ethan Zuckerman & Andrew McLaughlin, Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions

• Rob Faris and Rebekah Heacock, Measuring Internet Activity: a (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics (pages 3-9)

• Ed Felten, Taking Ted Stevens Seriously

• Jim Cowie, The New Threat: Targeted Internet Traffic Misdirection

Assignment 1

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

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)

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)