Internet Governance? There isn’t Any

To begin, I want to express how grateful I am for the guest speakers we’ve been fortunate enough to have the past two seminars.  Last week, we had David Eaves, who gave us a unique, highly informed perspective on digital government and governments’ transitions to the digital space.  This week we were fortunate enough to have Scott Bradner, who has been on the forefront of digital governance and the regulation of the Internet.  It is astounding that we have been able to supplement our sometimes naive discussion of the Internet with individuals who are both highly knowledgeable and revered in their respective fields.

The main theme of our seminar this week was that there is virtually no governance on the Internet and it is unlikely that there ever will be any form of substantive governance on the Internet. It was an extremely eye-opening conversation in the fact that this is not a topic one would normally contemplate.  We often take the freedom of the Internet for granted.

I want to specifically discuss one possible direction the Internet could take in the future.  During a discussion on net neutrality, Bradner proposed a terrifying scenario in which ISPs create tiered service plans that are not based upon speed but based on the sites that a user is allowed to visit.   Similar to how cable television service currently works, this tiered plan would limit a user’s access to a great portion of the network, destructing much of the ideals of the Internet. This proposal is so frightening because it goes against everything that the Internet currently stands for.  In its state today, the Internet is a utopia. It’s a place for all inhabitants of the world to connect, disseminate information, and interact without restrictions.  The Internet is the best place to express your opinions, to be heard, and to become enlightened.  However, ISPs’ transitions to plans like the ones proposed above would destruct all of the qualities I previously mentioned.  The Internet would become quite dystopic.  The dissemination of information would be repressed and it would become much more difficult for individuals to publish their own websites to the web. While some may say this will never happen, ISPs have been attempting to move to this model through the throttling of network speeds to some services such as Netflix.  By doing so, ISPs are limiting users access to the network, which is violating a fundamental right of any Internet user.  It was only through the FCC’s net neutrality act  that the US government prohibited ISPs from discriminating against users and services in such a way.  However, the current standing of this policy is fragile.  The fate of the Internet could literally change tomorrow, as Bradner pointed out.  The elections tomorrow will determine who appoints the next leader of the FCC and what direction the FCC will take for the next four years in such a pivotal point in history.  Thus, building upon last week’s post, politics is playing an even greater role in the future of the Internet than I thought last week.  With that in mind, more anxiety revolves around tomorrow’s election than ever before, and it will be interesting to see how the next few years play out.