A Virtual Counter-Revolution

(2010). A virtual counter-revolution. Economist, 396(8698), 75-77. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

This article was written by a staff member of the Economist,  which is a weekly magazine dedicated to the economy and world affairs. It typically goes very in depth into a situation, giving as much information as possible so that the reader may be able to make an educated decision towards the controversy. It is typically an un-biased work, never forming an opinion if it’s own, but very strongly focusing on the side that it supposedly favors.

In this article, a good percentage is spent detailing the history of the internet, and how quickly and quietly it sprang into existence. The piece mentions that it was this stealth growth of the platform that allowed to grow so wildly unchecked in the first place. Had major infrastructures known the power that the internet held, it can be assumed that they would’ve taken better strides in the early day to control it. In fact, some, still unaware of how it would break free, tried to segregate into ways that benefited them, such as the fact that AOL users could not communicate with CompuServe internet subscribers. Soon after, though, a demand for a unified network would force them to ‘play along.’

It goes on to detail how the world is changing towards a less neutral mindset towards the internet. And by the world, they mean governments. For decades now, the internet has grown without check, without regard for international law. It seemed that internet was a country of it’s own, a wild west where law was the minority, and not even the toughest sheriff could stop them.  It was only a few years ago when China, infamous for it’s tight control of it’s country and countrymen, erected what is infamously referred to as the “great fire-wall of China,” a massive infrastructure designed to filter out content that the government does now want it’s people to see. Australia soon joined this ideal as well, though much more rationally, cutting out child pornography and other such illegal content. But where will it stop for them?

It then goes back into the tried and true description of what a non-neutral network would look like, but that was been covered on this blog many, many times already. What’s new is how it mentions the threat that users may not take very well to a non-neutral network. In fact, the article states that, with how fast and spontaneous the internet sprang to life, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine it dying and fading away just as fast.

Mark Thomas

A world where “the Internet splinters”

Lyons, Daniel. (2010, August 15). A world where the internet splinters. Newsweek. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.catalog.library.colostate.edu/hottopics/lnacademic

“Stop the Internet Madness” is an article from Newsweek written by Daniel Lyons.  Lyons is a well known American writer and was a senior editor for Forbes magazine (he now writes exclusively for Newsweek).  He has also written several books.  Here he says that the news surrounding technology, specifically the issue of net neutrality, is a “mad opera” that is both tiring and annoying.  Lyons then describes several examples that have “sent tech pundits into a tizzy” and clearly feels that net neutrality shouldn’t be a source of argument and that corporations have a right to limit internet usage for certain consumers.  He explains the Google and Verizon drama and how it has created a world where consumers are afraid of corporations, thinking that these large companies are threatening to “splinter” the internet.  This divided internet would be comprised of a free but very low quality internet (Lyons makes it sound as if this “free” internet would be very flawed).  The other half would be a high quality but excessively expensive internet for a small amount of users – much narrower than the current user base.

Lyons thinks that these critics should look at the issue from the side of corporations.  While companies like Google pay very little for a neutral internet, the providers of our internet framework – Comcast, Verizon, and the like – pay a very high price to construct this network.  Even worse, internet traffic is slowly overwhelming the system, meaning that these providers will have to pay for upgrades. His point is  that under these circumstances they should have a right to oversee internet traffic, citing the federal court’s ruling against the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) and in favor of Comcast.

As a marketing major I tend to see relevant issues from a business perspective – that is, with numbers, costs, and fair trades in mind. This article is a textbook example of one of these issues, and I agree with Lyons.  Although I am a proponent of net neutrality and a fair internet for all, I also understand that this is unrealistic.  Individuals critical of this often fail to see both sides of the story and seem to take for granted what companies like Comcast and AT&T pay to provide us with the Internet.  These corporations are providing us with a service that fulfills our right to obtain and use knowledge and information and we are forcing them to by demanding more and more of it.  They should be allowed to block certain content if it means that the consumer is provided better service and a higher-quality Internet.

Read this article from Newsweek here.

| Jon Norris |

Marketers and Net neutrality

Lee, Edmund. “Marketers are mired in middle of heated net-neutrality debate.” Advertising Age 81.32 (2010): 3-34. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Sept. 2010.

Lee Edmund is a journalist who focuses on communication and mass media. He writes articles which focus on business, media, advertising, the internet, television, online social networks, and internet marketing. His focus in this article is the net neutrality debate and how it will affect internet marketers. This article was written on September 13th of this year, so shows that the issue is current and still unfolding.

This article describes the net neutrality debate as being, “On one side, bloggers and tech adopters” and “On the other side, telecommunications giants [arguing for] emerging infrastructures”. Edmund explains that bloggers and the like are scared of the, “possibility of a closed, or tiered, internet”, while companies like google and verizon simply want the ability to, “ration and monetize bandwidth as they see fit”. So who is left in the middle? Internet marketers.

Edmunds feels that marketers are in the middle of this debate because it is the marketing itself that will be affected by changes (or lack there of) to the internet. Internet marketing has only come about a a result of the Internet’s being neutral. Innovations such as Google and Facebook were originally upstart companies that relied on the neutrality of the Internet to become successful. Following this line of thought Edmunds concludes, “The two biggest sites on the internet are also two of the biggest distributors of online advertising, which suggests the industry as a whole may not even have taken shape had carriers started differentiating content”. More simply, had these now successful businesses not been allowed to be discovered, they wouldn’t have had the possibility to completely revolutionize the capacities of the Internet to become successful. It is precisely the freedom of the Internet which allowed for companies like Google to become big enough to now have an affect on the net neutrality debate.

Again we are provided with another definition of net neutrality: the “tacit tenet of internet commerce that suggests all content should be treated equally by carriers”. and again, we are left to ponder what the responsibility of treating all content equally is.

Edmunds has setup the fight and who all is involved. Basically: the little guy-bloggers and internet startups trying to compete using a very competitive medium; and the big guys-Verizon, Google, At&t, Comcast, and any other telecommunications giants, which he refers to as “telcos”. Once again we see the fight as being between those who want to use the internet freely, with the possibility to produce capital–and those who have all the money and most o the control, and want to modify Internet usage for their own business purposes. Edmunds doesn’t argue that those purposes are necessarily bad for regular internet users, but does suggest ways that a “closed” internet would hinder startup companies, as well as online advertising.

Edmunds quotes Tim Wu, a Columbia Law Professor who he claims,”coined the term “net neutrality” in an academic paper in 2003″. Wu’s belief is that the fight for net neutrality is really a fight for the carriers (Verizon, Telcos, etc.) to receive shares of internet advertising revenues. This belief stems from his conclusion that, right now, the largest carriers receive no portion of advertising revenues. From this conclusion, we may see that Edmunds sides with the little guy: for net neutrality, against a tiered or closed internet.

This article will again assist in understanding who is debating on which side of this issue. It also shows who will be affected by the decisions made regarding net neutrality, mainly internet marketers and advertisers. The article provides evidence that the larger carriers may actually want the internet to remain neutral, but is weary that these tactics may have ulterior motives. From a business standpoint, net neutrality will have some costs and some benefits, the challenge is to determine where to forfeit cost and how to legislate benefits, and to whom.

A. Graham

Open to All, Controlled by None

Leslie, C. (2009, December 9). An Internet open to all, but controlled by none. USA Today, Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. http://www.usatoday.com/MONEY/usaedition/2009-12-09-netneutrality09_CV_U.htm

This article about network neutrality by Leslie Cauley may be more than half a year dated, but it is still one of the most robust articles detailing the current situation surrounding the net neutrality debate. Cauley, who has written dozens of articles on the debate, showcases what all of the major players are saying.

She begins by detailing exactly what it means to have a neutral network in very simple terms: it’s what the internet has been for the last 40 years. Specifically speaking, if network neutrality were to be put into place, the common consumer would not see any changes to the current system. She goes on to say that it has mostly stayed this way due to a series of ‘guidelines’ set up by the FCC years ago that all of the major Internet Service Providers adhere to for the most part. But being guidelines isn’t enough. The FCC began pushing for those guidelines to become rules, which rubbed many ISPs the wrong way. AT&T in particular showed concern towards this act, who say that making the guidelines actual rules would hinder the internet, rather than help it. They cite that the internet has been thriving without rules up to this point, why change it now?

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski states that he, and Obama’s administration, believe the internet to be something akin to an infrastructure, such as water and electricity, and should stay as neutral as them. He is in disagreement with the major ISPs, stating he believe neutrality is fundamental to the continued growth of the internet. Saying that, those who use the internet to innovate might be deterred in the future if they do not believe the medium of which they use, the internet, to be a fair and balanced venue.

The article continues into long term details which lead the neutrality debate to be such as it is, starting when protection of cable and DSL was cutoff in 2002 during the Bush administration. It also goes into further details about why the wireless network is further complicating things.

Overall, this might be the single best article to show to someone to inform them quickly and intelligently about the current situation with network neutrality, and show them that the battle is far from over.

Mark Thomas

Net Neutrality: A “Family Issue”?

(2007, April 26). Christian coalition calls net neutrality a ‘family issue’. Techweb. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.catalog.library.colostate.edu/hottopics/lnacademic

This article is from Techweb, a United Business Media Limited Company.  UBM calls itself a “leading global business media company” and has over 6,000 employees.

Although the article has no specific author and is slightly outdated, its content is interesting and unique, so I had a hard time passing it up.  Techweb explains that the Christian Coalition of America is a major advocate of net neutrality and wants the topic – which the coalition calls “a family issue” – to become a large part of American presidential debates (both the debate in 2008 and in future debates).  The Christian Coalition is part of a campaign called “Save the Internet”, which includes over 2 million nonprofit organizations bound together in a fight for a neutral internet (their website can be seen here).

Those against what the Christian Coalition of America has to say argue that increased internet strain, especially as television stations start offering their programming to watch online, makes true net neutrality impossible.  Still, the coalition says that net neutrality will affect millions of families in America, including many churches who use the internet and some who have sermons on the internet.  Another source, MoveOn.org, agrees with the Coalition and says that net neutrality, like any natural evolution in technology, is simply an “internet grassroots revolution” that families across America need to embrace.

This article is interesting because if approaches the topic of net neutrality from less of a corporate view and explains it as more of a family issue.  Still, I doubt that most families even know about the issue of net neutrality, let alone really care about it.  As long as we can continue to receive information instantly through the internet we won’t be aware that internet neutrality is being compromised.  The only way I can see net neutrality really being an issue with Americans is if a family is personally affected by an internet service provider taking away that neutrality (if they have a small business website, etc.).  Presidential debates should focus first on more important  and pertinent topics like the War in Iraq before discussing net neutrality.

-Jon Norris

Common Cause: for net neutrality

“Net Neutrality Needs our Protection”. Common Cause: Media and Democracy. Common Cause. nd. Web. 20 Sept. 2010.

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773657#

Common cause is a “nonpartisan, grassroots organization” whose main goal is toward the accountability of the American Government. Led by Bob Edgar, a former united States Congressman, the organization is dedicated to the continuation of an open, democratic system of government. Theis stated mission is to, “[reinvent] an open, honest and accountable government that serves the public interest, and empower[s] ordinary people to make their voices heard in the political process”.

The article “net neutrality needs our protection”, explains the groups feelings toward governmental actions which concern a neutral internet. Common cause views the internet as, “a new medium that allows for truly democratic participation in our democracy”, and states explicitly that they are strict supporters of net neutrality. Common Cause gives a clear understanding of what is meant by the term Net neutrality- the ability for people to access any content they wold like, including the ability to contribute content of their own, without interference from their ISPs.

Common cause sees the internet as the ultimate democratic tool claiming, “the Internet has made the First Amendment of the Constitution guaranteeing Freedom of Speech a “living document” for Americans in a way that nothing has before”. Following this, the internet has changed the way most people think of and participate within a democracy. it is precisely this reason why, “We must make certain that for-profit interests do not destroy the democratic culture of the web”.

The article goes on to discuss the ways in which the internet has opened up democracy and participation within the American government to the largest possible group of people: those who use the internet.  Common cause believes democracy to be “a guiding principle” to the development of the internet, and wants to continue this policy without interruption. The article faults the FCC for letting previous net neutrality legislation expire in 2006, and warns against the attempt by phone and cable companies to capitalize on the, for now unregulated nature, of the internet.

Common Cause warns of the dangers of a non-neutral internet: the ability to  block or impede any online content or services, for any reason. They could also charge websites or applications for “priority service,” practically assuring that any site that couldn’t or wouldn’t pay their fees would no longer work as well or be as easy to find”. Also provided are examples where these large companies have already bordered on non-neutral internet practices, such as Verizon’s refusal to permit political text messages being sent out to participating customers, or Comcast interrupting legal file-sharing on its network. Common Cause has reason to be weary of these large companies because: “AT&T has announced to potential investors that it is “ready to filter the internet”.

It is precisely because of these reasons that Common Cause has sided with those for net neutrality. It fears that the lobbyists working for the large companies could have adverse affects on the “democracy of the internet”. It is only by keeping the internet neutral that small and large businesses alike will be able to fairly compete with one and other using this incredibly viable medium.

This article will be of great use to those arguing for net neutrality. It explains how the internet is, at its core, our most powerful democratic tool, with an aim to keep it as such. The website itself is a great resource for this topic, as it provides links to other articles which discuss issues pertaining to the net neutrality debate. However, the website is noticeably biased in its discussion of keeping the internet free to all users. Another drawback will be defending “people’s ability to access all content they like”, which would bring up questions about internet privacy, as well as any legal issues associated with internet content such as child pornography. Overall, I think this website is valuable in describing how people/groups are trying to resist the “two-tiered” internet.

A. Graham.

Variable Pricing and Net Neutrality

Cox, Rob and Cyran, Robert. (2010, August 16). Variable pricing and net neutrality. The New York Times. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.catalog.library.colostate.edu/hottopics/lnacademic

This article from The New York Times was written by Rob Cox and Robert Cyran only one month ago.  Cox is an award-winning blogger and the Founder and President of the Media Bloggers Association.  He mainly blogs on legal issues faced by bloggers.  Cyran is a journalist and columnist for several newspapers after starting his career with Forbes Magazine in London.  He has a Master’s degree in economics from Birmingham University.

In this article both authors argue that although the net neutrality debate seems like “an ideological battle” between two conflicting sides, in reality it is a dispute over money between two sets of companies – the “Pipes” and the “Swipes”.  The Pipes are companies that provide web access – AT&T and Verizon, the nation’s largest providers of wireless web access, are mentioned.  Also included in the Pipes are cable companies like Comcast.  On the other hand, the Swipes are “those companies that benefit most from surging traffic on the internet”, like Apple, Google, Cisco, and Microsoft.

Cox and Cyran explain that both groups of companies have vastly different economic situations.  As more and more consumers demand new products from the Swipes – like Apple’s new iPad – the Pipes bear the brunt of this demand, which forces them to build new and exceedingly costly infrastructure (things like cell towers, wiring of cables, etc.).  The Pipes, therefore, have a huge amount of debt (the four biggest have a “combined debt of $143 billion”).  For the Swipes, life is much easier: they can only benefit from this demand, as reflected in their balance sheets (the four biggest have a “combined net cash pile of around $140 billion”).  These four Swipes spent only one-tenth of what the four Pipes did in 2009.

An interesting divide, then, exists between these two co-dependent entities, and Cox and Cyran state that it is only going to get worse as mobile usage continues to skyrocket.  Swipes are going to start charging consumers based on variable pricing, or charging based on data usage. As this usage continues to grow, and the Pipes are forced to spend more and more, consumer bills are going to continue to get higher as prices increase.  This is not a sustainable relationship, and both Cox and Cyran expect the Swipes to start supporting the Pipes at a much higher level (e.g., the Google-Verizon relationship) so that they share a more equal portion of the benefits associated with consumer spending in today’s mobile broadband economy.

I agree with what Cox and Cyran are saying.  Although many have stated that the Google-Verizon relationship is an “evil” one that robs consumers of a neutral internet, in reality the two companies realized that consumers would benefit from such a relationship because it helps keep prices low.  I think that it is important for us to realize that we can complain all we want, but both the Pipes and the Swipes are simply trying to provide us with a service that we demand – that is, we are the problem.  However, I disagree with the authors’ point that net neutrality is only a debate over money and not an ideological battle.  From what I’ve already learned about net neutrality, including my annotation from last week and Mark’s and Aaron’s annotations thus far, net neutrality is indeed an ideological battle.  I’m starting to see more and more that there are generally two groups of arguments when it comes to net neutrality – one group argues that it is either ethically/morally wrong or right, and the other group argues in a more realistic, business-oriented way.

-Jon Norris