Who controls the Internet?

For the past two weeks, this series has focused on current Internet issues, as outlined in the list shown in this article. One issue, the performance of America’s broadband carrier industry, was covered in an earlier series (July 31 – December 15, 2014) and bears reviewing and updating. A New York Times study claims the U.S. still lags behind other countries in performance/cost operations. Some examples are shown in the figure that accompanies this article (page A8).

In several American cities, conventional broadband carriers are not providing these high-capacity services. According to the Times study, Google provides this service in Kansas City, and publicly owned networks provide them in Lafayette, Chattanooga, and Bristol.

The broadband carrier industry cites its own studies that offer counter-claims, once again leading to the old saw, “Where one stands depends on where one sits.” In my travels last year across various American cities, I can report (anecdotally) that the U.S. broadband carrier industry performance is improving, but it is still spotty.

I recommend you contact your local broadband carrier to discuss performance and inquire if you are being given the full bandwidth that is available. A couple years ago, I did the same, and overnight my throughput doubled (for the technicians reading this article: from DS-1 speeds to DS-3 speeds, yet still very slow).

For other issues discussed in this series, we should be resigned to the fact that Big Data and metadata (bigmeta) are not going away. They will become more sophisticated in gleaning information from users’ Internet and cellphone traffic.

However, we should not be resigned to any party examining our private mail, text, and phone calls unless it is done through a court order. Conventional postal services will continue to decline and electronic correspondence will largely supplant the post office. Therefore, we users should insist on having privacy for what we wish to be private.

To that end, users should take time to encrypt sensitive data (as well as to communicate with congressional representatives and the FCC about the issue of privacy). Individuals and organizations need not learn the hard way by having their databases and software compromised.

Screen Control Equals Control of the User

Who is to control what appears on the screens of the user’s machine? The answer to this question affects how all users interact with their machines, the Internet, various clouds, and the people with whom they communicate. The answer to this question will affect the efficiency of using the Internet and the effectiveness of all Internet users.

As large Internet service providers expand their Internet clouds and remove their software from direct user control, the user faces an increasingly closed Internet. Perhaps the vendors believe they are making their operating systems and browsers more user-friendly. That might be the case, but they are also making their interfaces subject to more cloud influence.

An Iceberg: Net Neutrality or Balkanization?

The opening of the Internet envelope and the increasing intrusion of commercial messages onto user screens sit atop an iceberg. Resting below the surface of the iceberg lie the issues of privacy, security, quality of service, unsolicited advertising, and loss of control.

Other countries are involved in similar debates. What might be the outcome of these deliberations? Should Internet usage be subject to restrictions? Should Internet usage be priced? Using topical jargon, should certain parties be granted fast lanes on the Internet highway? Can others be placed in slow lanes and still receive adequate service to meet their needs? Will commercial clouds take over an Internet user’s sessions?

If the United States government imposes different rules on Internet usage than, say, the European Union, how will the Internet adjust its vast inventories of hardware and software — which reflect geopolitical leanings and associated cultures — to accommodate different philosophies? Because of political and philosophical differences that exist between countries, these divergences might lead to the balkanization of the Internet into different networks that are tailored to national boundaries. The result will be an awkward set of incompatible systems.

Unintended Consequences

The U.S. government surveillance operations are controversial — depending on one’s political persuasions. Apart from politics, U.S. businesses stand to lose billions of dollars in revenue because other countries are passing laws forbidding their citizens’ data to be sent across country borders. The Internet may be divided into fiefdoms as countries are forced to balkanize parts of the Internet to safeguard their own country’s privacy laws.

In October 2014, the European Court of Justice invalidated the Safe Harbor agreement. This accord allowed U.S. enterprises to move data about Europeans outside European borders. Companies such as Google have been placed in difficult positions. More than 4,000 U.S. firms will be affected negatively by the rescinding of this agreement.

America’s allies are now making reference to this nation as a surveillance state, an accusation that is both accurate and hypocritical. Compared to whom? China? North Korea? Iran? Even the EU countries have surveillance programs. The United States is just better at it than others.

In addition, like him or hate him, Edward Snowden’s actions forced Uncle Sam to come clean, leading to the cessation of illegal activities. America, like other countries, has “wire-tapped” since Mr. Bell asked his assistant for help. With the USA Freedom Act and court decrees, the U.S. is now doing it within the law.

Who Controls?

The title of this article is “Who Controls the Internet?” Perhaps the answer should be: no one. The Internet should continue to exist as a relatively uncontrolled dispenser of bandwidth and services. I use the phrase “relatively uncontrolled” because human nature leans toward taking control, often at the expense of other humans.

Humans created government many years ago to keep watch on themselves. We Americans do not like others looking over our shoulders, but most of us recognize the eyes of Uncle Sam can protect us from some bad actors. In this regard, the FCC Net neutrality rulings show both wisdom and restraint on the part of our government.

The Internet remains an extraordinary creation. Untold numbers of humans depend on the Internet for their personal and professional happiness and livelihoods.

If this multifaceted community, vendors and users alike will pay more respect for humans’ privacy on the Internet; if they will foster the creation of discourse extending beyond 140 characters; if they will acknowledge that the Internet’s effectiveness is based on fair treatment for all the passengers who use its highways; if they will support placing the user screen under the stewardship of the user, their actions will go a long way toward keeping this extraordinary creation a wondrous tool.

How we treat the Internet now will determine how the Internet treats us in the future.

Uyless Black is an award-winning author who has written 40 books on a variety of subjects. His latest book is titled “2084 and Beyond,” a work on the origins and consequences of human aggression. He resides in Coeur d’Alene.