The Internets Last Refuge

In the years following its spread into the lives of the general public in the early 1990s, the internet has expanded far beyond its original goals and functions. The invention of the graphical web browser dramatically lowered the learning curve which accompanied using the internet, allowing it to reach a much larger audience. This new found accessibility allowed the internet to take upon itself new commercial responsibilities, and offer more services to consumers, services beyond the original internet pioneers greatest ambitions. These pioneers, including innovators Tim Berners-Lee and Marc Andreessen, hoped to establish a free and open medium for communication; they hoped to provide a method of communication unfettered by controlling corporations, a notion known as Net Neutrality. [3] The internet has, for most of its existence, done just this, and maintained a neutral network. However, in recent years, this freedom and openness has come under fire from companies such as Google, Verizon, and other Internet Service Providers (ISPs), who hope to tighten their grip on the internet and the content and utilities it provides. [10] In response to such efforts the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has passed regulations in an attempt to establish network neutrality, freeing the internet of the control of ISPs and other corporations. However, this legislation fails to meet this lofty goal and, because net neutrality is a policy which should receive full government support, this legislation should be revised so it may ensure network neutrality properly and effectively.  [2]

The internet began as a project of the United States Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) in 1958. The project’s intent was to improve the connections between military establishments, such as the Pentagon and Cheyenne Mountain, during the Cold War. The internet first penetrated the public sphere with the invention of the world wide web by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989, as it had become far more accessible to a far broader audience. [3] Because the internet was an open frontier for invention and creation, largely lacking of regulation, it grew quickly, and has become an everyday tool the world over. The internet has been home to revolutionary new products and utilities throughout its history, and was able to do so because everyone who accessed it had a level playing field. The internet was neutral; no barriers existed between an idea, and its implementation. [5] However, in recent years, ISPs have begun to change this, taking it upon themselves to act as gatekeepers of the internet, picking and choosing what services can or cannot run on their networks. [5]

In response to this, the FCC took action to protect network neutrality by passing the order entitled “In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices” on December 21, 2010. The order’s intent is to “preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation… and free expression.” The order requires ISPs to adhere to three guidelines specified in the order: guidelines of transparency, “no blocking,” and no unreasonable discrimination. These guidelines require ISPs to present to customers all network management policies and terms, to abstain from blocking of any lawful content, and to not differentiate or discriminate against any legal content accessed by users, respectively. All of these guidelines may be suspended when necessary for “reasonable network management,” with the addition of the exclusion of “competitively sensitive information” under the transparency clause. This is deemed by the FCC to encompass any practices tailored specifically to ensuring an enhanced end user experience for its customers, including maintaining network security and to mitigate the effects of network congestion, and is expandable on a case-by-case basis.

This order, in spite of the FCCs ostensibly good intentions, falls well short of ensuring the open internet of which it speaks. The exception allowed in cases of “reasonable network management,” and “competitively sensitive information,” while in some cases necessary, are broadly defined to the point of providing ISPs near universal masks with which they may hide the very acts the FCC hopes to prevent. [2] The order makes the claim that the FCC is not aware of all that is required to properly provide internet access, and as a result will allow ISPs to “experiment, innovate, and reasonably manage their networks.” [2] This gives providers borderline absolute freedom when it comes to managing their networks, and unfair and anticompetitive acts may freely don the guise of experimentation, and network management.

The order also makes the mistakes of providing ISPs the right to filter “unlawful” content and allowing providers to forgo compliance with the orders regulations to assist law enforcement. [2] The FCC allows providers to filter illegal content, while failing to provide a definition of exactly what that consists of, or of what “unlawful” encompasses. Nor does it provide any indication of what body ultimately makes that decision. This gives providers yet another excuse with which they may exempt their actions from network neutrality regulations, as, assuming they cloak them with the disguise of safety or security measures, they may pass largely unchecked. A similar claim may be employed by providers who use the fact that network neutrality may be suspended in any case of law enforcement, not only when the provider is required to by a law enforcement body. [9] These special cases do need to be addressed, however, the manner in which the FCC has done so has transferred to providers immense power and control over their network’s traffic.

Network neutrality is a policy that deserves full federal assistance, and, given the fact that the order passed by the FCC falls woefully short of accomplishing its goals of ensuring network neutrality, this order should be revised to do so properly. Network neutrality establishes an internet which fosters the open and free transmission of ideas; it establishes an internet free from corporate control and censorship. This was an internet which the pioneers who paved the way for the creation and proliferation hoped to create. [3] Tim Berners-Lee, the man responsible for the internets explosion in popularity, explains his hopes for what the internet would accomplish, saying, “Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet…” [10] In the past the internet has served this purpose well, facilitating the formation of now multibillion dollar companies such as Apple and Google. [8, 5] The internet can only accomplish its ultimate goal of protecting free and open communication and commerce with the enforcement of network neutrality regulations.

Forgoing a policy of network neutrality would allow ISPs to run rampant, controlling what content and services were allowed to operate on their networks, and using such powers to push their own offerings. Allowing providers to decide what content and services will operate over their networks gives them unparalleled power, power which will allow them to extort money from creators of internet these tools and utilities, or to force customers into using the ISP’s own applications. This power will allow providers to require payment from innovators as an entrance fee, a fee which must be paid before an application can operate properly over a providers network. Using such means allows providers to crush competition, limit customers access to only those content providers who pay the most, or to cut off access to any applications which may compete with their own. This would also preempt the attempts at success of smaller organizations who could not afford this fee. [5]

The internet is home to some of the greatest innovations and creations of recent years, innovations made possible by an open internet which may only be preserved by network neutrality regulations. The internet, as an open medium, has allowed any person who chose to innovate to have free reign over their creations. New creations and innovations quickly proliferate throughout the internet because innovators are not required to ask permission from providers to use their innovations on that providers network; they are not at the mercy of providers. It was this freedom which allowed for the success of projects such as Google, which began as a startup out of Stanford, or Mosaic, the first graphical web browser. Were these projects required to pander to the demands of providers, they may have never experienced widespread success, and the changes they wrought upon the face of the internet would have been delayed by years.

Arguments have been leveled against network neutrality, primarily coming from ISPs themselves, claiming that its implementation would prevent practices necessary to accommodate the internets recent growth. With the dawn of ever increasingly capable media devices, including smartphones and internet capable TVs, as well as the creation of increasingly data intensive services, a growing pressure has been placed upon both wired and wireless broadband networks. Data consumption has increased exponentially in recent years, and network congestion is becoming an ever pressing issue. [6] ISPs have made the claim that practices such as data discrimination are necessary to manage such bandwidth loads, and network neutrality will prevent what they deem are necessary management practices. [6]
However, placing this power in the hands of providers has proved detrimental in the past, being abused by providers to force the use of their own services. Consequently, other, less exploitable, solutions must be sought.  The proper solution to managing increasing network loads is expanding and improving upon the networks framework. While this is an initially costly procedure, some ISPs have reported net revenues in excess of four billion dollars per quarter. [1] Were this money to be invested in improving networks, consumers would be drawn more powerfully to the providers services, increasing revenues. Further, while this may be cost intensive initially, the cost of using the newly laid cables would be extremely low, even for data intensive services. [4] By expanding their networks providers are able to continue to offer to customers a free and unfettered connection to the services they love, while not experiencing undue network stress.

Some may also claim that the “loopholes” pointed out in the FCC’s current draft of regulations will not be abused, and simply used as they are intended to be used, for necessary network management. It has been said that consumers are taking a too pessimistic view toward ISPs, and that accusations of impending restrictive policies are unfounded. However, given the track record of ISPs in recent years, including Comcast and Madison River Communications, as well as the policies and musings of corporate CEOs, this is likely to change. Providers are abusing their power more than ever before, and large companies such as Google and Verizon are showing an increased interest in expanded control of wireless networks. [5, 7, 8] Along with these outward indicators, the threat of networks overloading and bandwidth congestion are relatively new; they were not pressing concerns until the very recent appearance of extremely data intensive services, particularly the streaming of video content by companies such as Netflix and Amazon. [10] Consequently, the future intentions of providers cannot be sufficiently judged by their past actions, and can only be accurately gauged from recent actions and occurrences, the majority of which suggest monopolistic and anticompetitive policies.

Many argue that the internet is fine as is, without any regulation, and as a result the FCC’s order is both unnecessary, and contrary to the goal of maintaining an open internet. These individuals claim that the internet has provided a home for creators and envelope-pushers from its inception in the 80s, and it did so without any regulation from the government. They view the FCCs order as an attempt of the FCC to implement unnecessary government control over a vibrant, free, ecosystem. However, the threats faced by the internet are new, they were not faced by the internet in its infancy. Because of this the internet requires a fresh and new approach, not a perspective shackled by an outmoded viewpoint. [10]

The internet has long been a valuable tool, a tool which fostered creativity and ingenuity, and allowed for transmission of ideas around the globe. However, this may no longer be the case, as companies hope to impose increasing amounts of control over the internet, its content, and the ways in which it reaches consumers. Government enforced network neutrality is the open internets last refuge in the United States, the last hope of the internet surviving this wave of grabs at control. If the FCC can pass effective and efficient legislation to maintain the open internet the world has come to value so highly, then the goal of its creators can be upheld, and the internet can remain free.

Works Cited

[1] AT&T Inc. Annual Report. Rep. 2010. Print.

[2] Federal Communications Commission. “In the Matter of Preserving Open Internet     Broadband Industry Practices.” 23 Dec. 2010. Web.

[3] Hillstrom, Kevin. Defining Moments: the Internet Revolution. Detroit, MI: Omnigraphics,     2005. Print.

[4] Hastings, Reed, and David Wells. “Letter to Shareholders.” Letter. 26 Jan. 2011. Web.

[5] Lessig, Lawrence. “Law Professor Lawrence Lessig on Net Neutrality, the Rise of Google and His “Change Congress” Project to Take on Corruption in Washington.” Interview by Amy Goodman. Democracy Now! Democracy Now!, 17 Apr. 2008. Web. 4 Feb. 2011. <http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/17/law_professor_lawrence_lessig_on_net>.

[6] Page, Mark, Luca Rossi, and Colin Rand. A Viable Future Model for the Internet. Rep.     A. T. Kearney. Print.

[7] Verizon Communications, Google inc. “Verizon-Google Legislative Framework     Proposal.” 9 Aug. 2010. Web.

[8] Wozniak, Stephen G. “Net Neutrality.” Letter. The Atlantic. The Atlantic, 21 Dec. 2010. Web. 3 Feb. 2011. <http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/steve-wozniak-to-the-fcc-keep-the-internet-free/68294/>.

[9] Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Comments of Electronic Frontier Foundation.”     Publication. 14 Jan. 2010. Web.

[10] Tim Berners-Lee. http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144

I have read a number of the books on the list but I will re-read them in their appropriate placement (though they will be striked-out on the list). I will be skipping the “beginner” level books, so they too will also be striked-out. This post will simply provide a record of what I’ve read during the challenge and what I still need to read.

I think the challenge is an important one, but at the same time I’m saddened that many people require a ‘challenge’ to do this sort of thing. It seems to me that if one is going to firmly take a position on some issue, they should engage with the material that represents any alternative positions. As should be no secret to anyone who reads much of my writing, I think that many theists and atheists alike suffer from being poorly read in the philosophy of religion (some even question the importance of such reading!). Our positions on the existence of God, whether theistic or atheists, must be rational positions. They must be reasoned, coherent and comprehensive. Theists who never engage properly in the philosophy of religion are prone to formulate concepts of God that are incoherent or contradictory, and atheists who do not engage seem largely unaware of the relevant issues at hand, holding a position that is sometimes more irrational than the concepts of God that theists hold.

Personally, this couldn’t come at a better time for me. I think this challenge will be very useful in my preparation for graduate school, simply because whatever the outcome, I will be heading into graduate school with (hopefully) a clear cut position that I want to defend and perhaps clear ideas on which problems I feel need resolving.

At any rate, I thank Luke for putting the reading list together and for provoking a challenge that will hopefully move many out of a realm of intellectual comfort and into intellectual inquiry. I am very excited to see the results of other participants, and of course, my own results at the end of the challenge. Throughout the challenge I will be using perhaps the best piece of advice that can be given to any inquiring individual, “follow the evidence where it leads.”

After I complete each book I may very well write something regarding how I feel it has impacted my position. I may not post these here, though, as I think they might make an interesting collection for a book of its own!

So, here is the list!

The Reading List

Stage 1:

1. Guy P. Harrison – 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God (354 pages, beginner, skeptical)

2. Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli – Handbook of Christian Apologetics (406 pages, beginner, apologetic)

Stage 2:

3. John Loftus & others – The Christian Delusion (385 pages, intermediate, skeptical)

4. William Lane Craig – Reasonable Faith (416 pages, intermediate, apologetic)

5. C. Stephan Layman – Letters to Doubting Thomas (240 pages, intermediate, apologetic)

6. John Loftus – Why I Became an Atheist (428 pages, intermediate, skeptical)

Stage 3:

7. Greg Boyd & Paul Eddy – The Jesus Legend (480 pages, intermediate, apologetic)

8. Robert Price – Jesus is Dead (279 pages, intermediate, skeptical)

Stage 4:

9. Richard Carrier – Sense and Goodness Without God (444 pages, intermediate, skeptical)

10. J.P. Moreland & William Lane Craig – Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (653 pages, advanced, apologetic)

Stage 5:

11. Michael Martin – The Case Against Christianity (256 pages, advanced, skeptical)

12. J.P. Moreland – Scaling the Secular City (288 pages, advanced, apologetic)

13. Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism (184, pages, advanced, skeptical)

14. James F. Sennett & others – In Defense of Natural Theology (336 pages, advanced, apologetic)

Stage 6:

15. Richard Swinburne – The Existence of God (376 pages, advanced, apologetic)

16. Gregory Dawes – Theism and Explanation (222 pages, advanced, skeptical)

Stage 7:

17. Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God (352 pages, advanced, skeptical)

18. J.L. Mackie - The Miracle of Theism (278 pages, advanced, skeptical)

19. Michael J. Murray & others – Reason for the Hope Within (429 pages, advanced, apologetic)

20. Michael Martin – Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (541 pages, advanced, skeptical)

21. Paul Copan & others – The Rationality of Theism (304 pages, advanced, apologetic)

22. Graham Oppy – Arguing About Gods (472 pages, advanced, skeptical)

23. William Lane Craig & others – The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (704 pages, advanced, apologetic)

24. Jordan Howard Sobel – Logic and Theism (676 pages, advanced, skeptical)

25. Alvin Plantinga – Warranted Christian Belief (528 pages, advanced, apologetic)

“As technology changes, so go the times.” – Dr. D. Rosenberg.

It is the degree of interconnectivity amongst a people which determines their collective social consciousness’ desire to protect, or criminalize, expression which may be considered or portrayed as contrary to the public needs (dissent), subject to contextual consideration. This loquacious approach to annotate the old adage “Out of sight, out of mind,” as was more the case of older times, (since apathy is often attained as a consequence of ignorance, an unawareness administered by inadequate amounts of inhabitant interaction) arrives after ample attempt to apprehend experience of antiquity as authored by the (often idolized) ancestors of American affairs of state. As Alexis De Toqueville states:

It is difficult to draw a man out of his own circle to interest him in the destiny of the state, because he does not clearly understand what influence the destiny of the state can have upon his own lot. But if it is proposed to make a road cross the end of his estate, he will see at a glance that there is a connection between this small public affair and his greatest private affairs; and he will discover, without its being shown to him, the close tie that unites private to general interest.

When people encounter one another, experiences are shared and common bonds formed. Thusly, the faction(s) referred to by Hamilton in Federalist Paper #10 are provided an option whereby the previous mischiefs of united interest may then be said to extend for a conscientious cause to securing individual liberties, whether you agree with it or not. The self-interested inclinations of these individuals in question are dependent upon human connection. The more intertwined an individual perceives his or her life to be with those of others, the greater the predilection toward agreeing, in principle, with the convictions of Thomas Paine and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The sentiment is one which states we should not deny ourselves the right to listen to the views of other with whom we do not already concur, lest we be slaves to our current knowledge and opinions. Also, that the freedom of expression becomes meaningless if it is not extended to mean the right to speak differently.

As the nature of science is to progress and furnish for people new articles of habit, social implications are always a consideration when making discoveries or devices of invention. Also, history has demonstrated for us that -being the social creatures we are – the tendency of the human personality has lent itself toward the use of communication technologies at every available turn. From this, we see that the protections of speech, assembly and publications which may be unpopular have, notwithstanding socio-contextual variants such as war or the anomaly of isolation, increasingly been expressed as a mandate from the masses to be extended through legislation and the bittersweet gavels of magistrates as communication technologies have materialized. A chronology of events regarding these protections to disseminate ideas over the course of the American narrative declare precisely this sentiment. In sum, we can thank the exponential permeation of technology into our daily lives for a set of civil liberties we currently enjoy. The increasing availability of mass media, telephones, internet and publications have bestowed upon people a growing de-centralization of human correspondence, and the ensuing expression of desire by the the people to secure for themselves the free usage of these technologies. War and isolation act as a counter-weight, advancing a predisposition toward censorship.

As to the matter of citing example, we need merely examine the interrelated chronologies of communication technology developments, participation in military conflicts, supreme court rulings, and other protections regarding free expression on a time-frame beginning with the adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution up until modern day.

1791: The Revolutionary war had been over for 10 years. The first Amendment is passed.
1798: The Quasi-War is engaged. The Alien and Sedition acts are passed.
1798-1801: 25 people, primarily prominent newspaper editors, are arrested.
1801: Thomas Jefferson takes presidential office. The Alien and Sedition acts are not renewed.
1835: The House of Representatives passes the “Gag Rule,” effectively censoring abolitionist protests.
1837: Samuel Morse invents the American electrical telegraph.
1844: The “Gag Rule” is abolished.
1917: United States declares war on Germany.
1918: The Sedition act of 1918 passes, criminalizing “disloyal,” “scurrilous” or “abusive” language against the government.
1919: Shenck vs United States. Shenck’s conviction is upheld. Later that year, World War 1 ends at the treaty of Versailles.
1920: Congress repeals the Sedition act of 1918, citing it’s many abuses during World War 1.
1936: First fully functional television system.
1940: The Smith Act passes, designed to be a tool against communism. McCarthyist era begins.
1950: Korean War begins.
1951: Dennis vs. United States. The Smith Act was deemed constitutional.
1953: The Korean War unofficially ends.
1957: Roth vs United States. The test applied in Rosen is deemed to be too strict. Joseph McCarthy dies. Yates vs United States. The Supreme Court changed it’s interpretation of the Smith Act, stating that the Act was aimed at “the advocacy of action, not ideas.”
1958: NAACP vs United States. Freedom of Assembly is ruled to be a fundamental right protected by the first amendment.
1960: Talley vs California. The court struck down a law that barred anonymous distribution of fliers.
1964: New York Times Co. vs Sullivan. “although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history.”
1965: The Vietnam war begins.