The Internet as a Public Sphere

Today's blog is about the Internet as a Public Sphere because this is something that I could use possibly in my upcoming final paper for this class. 

The first question to answer is what is the public sphere?

The public sphere has it roots from Jurgen Habermas and his conception that the public sphere centers on the principle of universal access and it is a network for influencing political action through the communication of information and points of view.

What caught my eye when I read the article that provided me with this information were the key words of "universal access".  Many today consider the "Internet" the new public sphere.  I'm not sure that I agree with this idea. 

Yes, many people have access to the Internet and it is growing by leaps and bounds.  However, where is the  universal access??

The Obama administration would like everyone to be able to have access to the Internet however we are not there yet.  In order to be able to provide this service  around the country huge investments would need to be undertaken.  There are many rural areas that have not been built out in order to provide this service.  That is a costly endeavor.  Even if there are incentives provided to build out the broadband network I'm not sure if the providers will want to build these networks out.  What kind of return on their investment will they receive for providing this "universal service"  in a rural area with few people.  The return on investment comes from building out areas where there are large amounts of the population.

Another issue is in the realm of net neutrality.   How will and does this affect universal service???

One side of the debate centers on providing equal service to everyone who wants to access the Internet. The other side of the debate centers on being able to limit access based on usage or demand.  This then would affect universal access.

I have only read a few articles so far regarding the Internet as a Public Sphere centered on the premise of universal access.  However, I find this rather interesting and plan on doing some additional research on this topic.

Do you think of the Internet as the next Public Sphere?

Convergent Arguments in the Net Neutrality Debate

I thought in this latest update of my blog I would look how convergent arguments are used in the debate of this issue.

Convergent arguments are when two or more arguments start off at different places, follow different lines of their argument, but come to the same overall conclusion.
 
Some of the arguments in this debate are:  Internet providers and cable companies claim that with Net Neutrality, they will have no incentive to invest in their networks and that it will stifle competition and innovation that the free market provides.

 The other side states Net Neutrality is about promoting free speech and keeping the providers from choosing how the Internet is used. 
They also feel that technology has enabled the providers to discriminate on how the network will be utilized.

What does this all mean? 

The whole debate is centered around how valuable the Internet has become.  The importance and value of the Internet has grown as technology has evolved.   

How Did the Net Neutrality Debate Begin?

This issue of my blog will focus on what initially led to the net neutrality debate and briefly discuss one of the types of arguments used in the debate.

The net neutrality debate can be traced back to about 2005 when several complaints were brought against Internet Service Providers (ISP's) because they were found to be restricting what their customers could do.

The customers issued their complaints to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and as a result of the complaints the FCC reiterated the basic principles that were set in place for how the ISP's were supposed to operate.

There were 4 basic principles that users were entitled to from the ISP's:

• Access content of choice and to be able to run whatever services or applications they chose
• To be able to connect whatever devices they wanted to
• Users should be able to benefit from the competition between the ISP's

There was no further action taken toward the ISP's at that time other than to reiterate the basic principles that were in place. However, from 2006 until the present time there have been several bills that have been initiated to either protect or promote net neutrality to date none of these have passed.

One of the arguments that has been used in this debate is the argument of “quality of life”. The “quality of life” argument is based on a moral value judgement. These type of value judgements can be stated explicitly or left implicitly.

Company Viewpoint:

• The openness and level playing field of the internet has been essential to the success of Amazon, E-bay, Facebook to name a few.

Cultural Viewpoint:

• The level playing field of the internet has allowed for cultural projects such as documentaries, books, blogs, and news to be circulated and available to consumers surfing the net.
• Librarians have been able to utilize the Internet in order to expand the services they offer and in turn better serve the community.
• The internet is viewed as an engine for free speech, civic engagement, and economic innovation.

As you can see from the viewpoints, the internet as a whole is seen as an engine for free speech and expression, political engagement, or as a business tool.

The ISPs have argued for  “network management,” in which they would be allowed to restrict speeds and Internet usage in the interest of maintaining their networks.  This is due to the ever increasing volume of traffic. In October of 2009, according to the Census Population Survey data, 63.5 percent of (75.8 million) of U.S. households use a high speed Internet Broadband service.  This represents a 25 percent increase from just two years earlier (50.8 percent in October 2007).

They have also indicated that if the Internet becomes fully regulated by the Government it could result in a reduction of innovation due to their shrinking revenue opportunities.

We can see that “quality of life” would be affected if there are restrictions imposed on access to the internet however we need to determine how we can best address these issues.  

Below is a link that provides an in depth look at this debate over the last several years. It is based on several videos and related articles from a PBS documentary with Bill Moyers.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/watch.html

 

The Global Battle to Rule the Internet

I thought I would focus this weeks blog on the global battle to rule the Internet.  Governments, industry and stakeholders around the world are all engaged in a battle to shape the Internet. 

In the United States these groups have been debating for months on the positive and negative effects of Net Neutrality. The government would like to implement regulation and ensure that every home has the fastest internet service and that the web was open equally to all who wanted to use it.

An advantage of net neutrality is that no one company or website would dominate the market, thereby increasing  competition that would ultimately benefit the Internet user.

A disadvantage is that the Telcoms and free market groups see this as an unnecessary government intervention that will discourage investments and complicate the legitamate need to manage traffic.

Net neutrality has only recently become an issue in the European Union policy and is now being debated.

The difference with how this issue is being viewed in Europe as compared to the United States is that the Commissioner for the European Union believes that governments should "not" have a stronger role in the day-to day operation of the Internet service.  The commissioner stated "This private-sector leadership continues to deliver important public policy objectives and needs to be maintained and supported."  The Commissioner has communicated to the Telcoms in Europe that if any significant problems develop and persist she would not be afraid to change the current law.  

What is interesting is that in the United States the debate continues with no resolution to date. The public sphere is continuing with debate however since the election the discussion appears to have cooled down temporarily.  This is in stark contrast to the EU.

In the EU they are concerned that reguation would deter investment and an efficient use of the avaiable resourses.  As a result, they perfer to take a wait and see attiturde. They will let the internet continue to operate as it has been and if a problem develops they will step in immediately.  

I'm wondering what has caused this issue which affects people around the world to be solved so quickly in the EU.  Is this based on the arguments that were successfully presented to the Commissioner of the EU?   I think further research in the differences between the Internet in the EU and United States could prove to be very interesting reading.