Internet Issue and Debate power point

Media Literacy 12/03/08
Prof. Reebee Garafalo
Joseph A. Bettencourt
Media Concentration
&
The Internet Debate

All through out this semester the Media Literacy course has prepared me to view, read and listen to all source of mass media critically. In doing so, I would be able to determine how words, sounds and images are utilized to create meaning or to persuade the public on issues faced by our society today. In addition it has shown me how to deconstruct media report be it in television, newspapers, magazines, videos and the Internet.
In this form I was able to track and analyze, and report on a media related issue and that is the Internet Governance Debate that is actively in progress now. First I will briefly give a summarized background of the origin of the internet, based on literature collected during my group research.

The Internet was the result of some visionary thinking by people in the early 1960s that saw great potential value in allowing computers to share information on research and development in scientific and military fields. J.C.R. Licklider of MIT, first proposed a global network of computers in 1962, and moved over to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in late 1962 to head the work to develop it. Leonard Kleinrock of MIT and later UCLA developed the theory of packet switching, which was to form the basis of Internet connections. (Howe, 2007)

Since the internet was initially funded by the government, it was limited to research, education, and government uses. Commercial uses were prohibited unless they directly served the goals of research and education. It wasn’t until the early 90’s when independent commercial networks began to grow. The first national commercial online service to offer Internet access to its subscribers was the Delphi it open up full Internet services in November 1992.
The Internet originally designed for government purposes has become a great educational tool. People no longer have to go to the library to seek information it is readily at their finger tips. The Internet has also become a venue for people to express their opinion on the web. Freedom of speech is really at a full swing today with the technology provided by the developers. All pretenses of limitations on commercial use disappeared in May 1995 when the National science foundation ended its sponsorship of the Internet backbone. (Howe, 2007)
During this period of businesses entering the Internet arena scrambled to find economic models at work. Free services supported by advertising shifted some of the direct coast away from consumers temporarily. The merging of Time-Warner was the largest merger in history.
The Internet debate originated in 2003 and that is whether to relax or eliminate long lasting rules preventing media consolidation at both the local and national levels. Two dynamic Internet software industries are emerging. One is the data-mining industry, producing software tools that firms use to analyze consumer behavior and preferences on the Internet. The other is the privacy software industry, whose products are designated to stop some or all of this individual information from being collected and analyzed.




What scholars think about the internet governance, this surrounding debate has generated a good deal of learned study, one example is the paper by San Diego University legal scholar Lawrence Solum. He cautions that any governance and law-making measures should respect the layered structure of the Internet, and not impose rules at one layer that have an unintended broader effect at another layer. (Solum, 2008)
Take for instance the white space issue:
Why have white space become on important issue at this point in time?
White space has become an important issue because we are living at an age where technology is advancing at a rapid pace, and for that advancement we require areas that were allocated for other things, such as the band with which was designated to prevent interference between network usages. Also with the internet debate about governance, these issues provided a venue for new ideas and entrepreneurship.
Who is in favor of the FCC proposal?
Of course we all know who would be interested. Those with the resources to make it happen such as: Microsoft, Google, Hewlett-Packard and so on. These are the giants that have the knowledge and resources to commit to such endeavors’. Innovation in technology is always looking for new ventures; of course with intentions to capitalize in those ventures, nothing is done for free anymore.
Who is against it?


According to the article those that are against it are the T V broadcasters and other user of the spectrum. And why not, Microsoft and the likes are trying to invade their territory, therefore creating a convergence between T V and the Internet.
The Internet is an electronic tool used to deliver messages and information. In this sense it is fundamentally the same as the radio and TV in terms of electronic communication networks. Some people believe because these networks are regulated that the Internet should also be regulated. The major problem and concern around harmful content on the Internet is child pornography. In most cases production of child porn involves child abuse, and in many of the bases the people soliciting and accessing the materials are interested in or have engaged in child abuse. All of this is legal and society permits access to such materials many people believe (especially parents, teachers, and those responsible for children) there should be limitation placed on access to Internet content and materials.
Internet is used for to allocate information of conduct commerce but many people use it for other disreputable purposes, many of which are illegal offline. Activities deemed unlawful offline include “copyright theft, credit card fraud, financial scams, money laundering, hacking, industrial espionage, cyber terrorism, actual terrorism, bomb making instructions, prostitution, certain forms of gambling, drug use, drug smuggling, suicide assistance, defamatory allegations, and cyber stalking.



We might argue that any system of control on Internet content on the Internet violates the Constitutions 1st amendment by taking away individuals right to freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is an absolute right, meaning it cannot be taken away without being “qualified” without irreparable damage to civil liberty in a free society.
But where do we draw the line violation of our constitution has been an ongoing issue for decades, the civil right movement, the right to vote, in fact if we look at our past history it has become a legacy. Infringement of laws created by men/women, I say women because looking at it realistically when any law is formulated there is a women behind the man making those laws as much as we men want to omit that fact it is still there.
Looking at it from another perspective:
How much are we sacrificing by not allowing the use of white space? Is there some knowledge that we might loose because of it? Who knows?
Historically there is a more regulation of videos, TV, and films in the cinema than newspaper and books because viewers have the power to rewind, view over, and distribute the material more widely. “This is because we recognize that moving pictures and sound are more graphic and powerful than text, photographs, and illustrations.” The Internet increasingly uses video and sound and so it should also be regulated with the same level of power and authority as TV, films, and videos. Simply because it is difficult to censor content on the Internet does not mean we shouldn’t try to do so. It is already difficult enough to prohibit the sale of illegal movies and hardcore pornography but the government does so because it is important to the longevity and safety of society. The same should apply to the online world as does in the offline world.
Restriction of the Internet should be avoided. Child porn is an extreme example and there is already legislation in play to address and deal with those who try to produce and distribute the material. Some forms of speech on the Internet may be offensive but the only way society can deal with those issues is through exposure. Once exposed to these evils society can deal with them accordingly. If we silence people and take away free speech on the internet extremist groups will be driven underground and become “martyrs”. The gap between regulation of print and broadcast media and Internet media is becoming more and more irrelevant. It is a real possibility that in ten years people will rely solely on the Internet for news and entertainment.

FCC Rulings

The media ownership proceeding of 2003 have returned to the table in 2007, the debate continues whether to relax or eliminate longstanding rules preventing media consolidation at both the local and national levels regarding TV, radio, newspapers and cable. The current rules prevent one broadcast network from ownin another broadcast network;limit the number of local broadcast stations that any one broadcaster can own to system serving 35 percent of the TV-viewing households in the U.S.; prohibit a company from ownong cable TV systems and TV stations in the same community, and prohibit ownership of newspapers and TV stationsin the same community. The original reasoning for these rules was to guarantee a multiplicity of voices anr prevent concentrations of power. Today's argument is many of these rule are out dated and need to be reexamined. Big media companies are complaining the rules are artificially constricting their ability to grow and serve their consumer base. Big media claims this damages their capacity to compete in the free marketplace. the Internet poses a threat, as a new source of competition claims the big media companies

The Evolving Technologies Of Internet Privacy

Two dynamic Internet software industries are emerging. One is the data-mining industry, producing software tools that firms use to analyze consumer behavior and preferences on the Internet. The other is the privacy software industry, whose products are designed to stop some or all of this individual information from being collected and analyzed.
Entrepreneurial firms are rushing to offer a variety of products to serve Internet advertising and data-gathering firms on the one hand and individuals and groups with privacy concerns on the other. Interested read more @ http://www.ncpa.org/bg/bg156/bg156.html extracted from the National Center of Policies Analysis 11/19/08.

What Scholars think about the internet governance

The surrounding debate has generated a good deal of learned study, one example being a 115-page paper by San Diego University legal scholar Lawrence Solum. Solum, following author Lawrence Lessig, cautions that any governance and law-making measures should respect the layered structure of the internet, and not impose rules at one layer that have an unintended broader effect at another layer. A crude example of bad law would be to propose cutting physical internet links (the bottom layer of at least six) to solve a problem with unacceptable content (the top layer). computerworld.co.zn.rss/compueterworld.xml

Democrats and Republicans alike seem to have an agenda to implement controls over the internet, from pornography to privacy. Telecommunication subdivisions of US economy are under being scrutinized on state, federal, and international levels. Some people are pushing for increased government control, whereas others, myself and my group included believe that the internet should remain deregulated and free of government control. In the recent past many policy makers were in favor of “hands off the internet!” If government does get involved there will be inadvertent consequences. “Lawmakers should exercise patience and humility in the face of ongoing change, and encourage industry to employ self-regulatory solutions instead of assuming Washington has the answers. Unfortunately, however, the impulse to intervene remains strong for many policymakers.”

It is a well known fact that Web sites collect information about who visits their sites, and then sell that information. Some lawmakers are pushing for regulations that would require online companies and even “main street firms” to disclose the information that they collect and then share, and also permit people to opt against collection and sale of personal information. Author, Michael Lewis, believes “when it comes to companies trafficking in personal information to better target what they try to sell, most people don’t care.” The free flow of information mean that people can get more stuff at a cheaper price. The idea of “privacy” is complicated and so is the relationship between privacy, consumers, and businesses. Federal regulation over personal information in order to more effectively move merchandise will hurt internet commerce and consumers. There will be more negative consequences for small businesses versus larger corporations, whom already have a assembled comprehensive databases (they have the same need to purchase information from websites to the same degree small businesses do.) In the post 9.11 world we live in even Washington seeks access of personal information. The USA Patriot Act allows government to monitor and access citizens emails, something that raises constitutional issues. Why should the whitehouse have regulation over the collection and sale of information to businesses when they themselves do not honor privacy? Businesses are responding to the consumers concerns surrounding privacy. Popular sites now feature privacy policies so that internet users can set their browser to reject the gathering of private information. There are also software tools that allow users to anonymously surf the web or warn then when their information is being collected. All of these privacy protection are further protecting the autonomy of consumers. This seems to be a more constitutional and democratic way of protecting and ensuring internet privacy than government regulations.

Government efforts to control content on the Internet can give people a false sense of security. Take for example the trade of mp3 music files via internet. This was stopped many years ago by a determined music industry that was irate and sick of piracy. However this did not put an end to illegal file sharing. “The trade of pirated music files continues through other, non-web avenues on the internet that are just as user friendly: peer-to-peer networks and email.” Keeping this example in mind let us return to the issue of child pornography. Government regulations cannot stop the sharing of child porn. Much of the pornography is traded through file-sharing that use websites which are not targeted by COPA. “In the name of protecting children, the law interferes with content that adults should have the right to see under the First Amendment. And laws like COPA can have unintended consequences: barriers to those who seek porn voluntarily will likely increase email solicitations for porn (spam), which COPA wouldn't regulate.” Parents, not government, can protect their children. If Parents choose to allow their children to access the internet, they must take on the responsibility to supervise. “Filtering-not just filtering software but filtered online services apart from the broader Internet that might be appropriate for the very young-is available” Tracking software is also available. This allows parents to monitor what their children do on the internet and where they go in cybersapce. Although some people would call such this spying it is less invasive than congress regulating the entire content of the internet for everyone.