Corporate AntiChrists and Other Footnotes to the Internet Armageddon

Of all the Google news instilling the fear of big brother in American businessmen and consumer advocates alike, the reports on Chinese censorship seem to be the most considerable. There’s a lot of political hoo-ha and corporate double-face, and the real dangers as I see them, are generally hidden from public view; at least, few people are able to connect the dots and express the urgency. In 10 years of Internet growth and proliferation, netizens in the West have become accustomed to using the Internet to obtain every little tidbit of information or content to their heart’s desire, at a price or for free, legally or otherwise. Indeed, we like to believe that the Internet is a virtual land of limitless possibilities and resources that has changed and should continue to change our lives for the better. Thus, Google’s, and Intel’s, and Yahoo’s, and Microsoft’s explicit compliance with the Chinese government’s censorship policies, seems a blow not just to civil liberties in China, but also to the general idea of Internet freedom and empowerment that Internet companies and online marketers eschew out here in the West for us Internet users to gobble up.

Yet, China is not in the least the only country to avidly filter and censor its Internet against perceived political and social threats. All oil-rich Middle Eastern countries such as Iran, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and others do so. In the Far East, Malaysia and Singapore are filterers, despite their flourishing technology industries, while on the other hand, troubled republics Indonesia and Burma also have stringent controls. The specific sites and search terms censored may vary but they share many commonalities (e.g. human rights, political issues, sexual education, religion), especially in Muslim countries. Some countries even impose limitations on who is allowed access to the Internet; others routinely use their authority for invasive surveillance. Open Net Initiative is a resource for further information on state control of national gateways to the world wide web.

On a fundamental level, the Internet is a communications technology. Enchanted in a magical cyber forest, most Internet users don’t even realize that there is a massive physical infrastructure required to pull off the miracles of the Internet. In the early years of public access Internet, the network relied on telephone lines and modems to convert electronic data to electrical and vice versa, through unsightly poles stretching across the horizon to infinity, and even through satellites we can’t see, yet see us continually. Now, we need cable, because it’s faster, right? Well, that means laying down millions of miles of expensive cable dug deep into the ground, from the trunk to the skinny wire sticking out of your living room wall. This lasts until we develop better, faster cable (e.g. fiber optic) or alternate transmissions media (e.g. wireless), and then we need to build and install the infrastructure to support these and further technologies. This is just the highway; now, in order to have information flow through it, we need lots of server computers, including some giant ones, plus tons and tons of physical hard-drive memory to house all the gazillions of gigabytes of words, sounds, images, video, and whatever else there is lurking out there on the Internet!

Each item of the entire abovementioned infrastructure is owned by some entity. In the beginning, circa 1962, J.C.R. Licklider of MIT came up with his “Galactic Network” concept. After much tinkering and toiling by university researchers, the idea proved itself in manifestations for the US Department of Defense. By the turn of the millennium, seven of the nine international gateway super-servers are still owned by the U.S. government. ICANN, the private organization that regulates and polices the Internet, is sponsored by the US Department of Commerce. Meanwhile, nations manage their own national gateways and backbone networks. (Last year, we saw a rally by the international community to wrestle control of ICANN; eventually, nothing changed, as the EU backed down.) It’s only at this point that the Internet Service Providers connecting the average consumers and providing various related services enter the picture. Thus, the Internet as we perceive it, the seemingly continuous flickering pixels on our computer screens, actually requires telecommunications through properties owned and/or operated by numerous intermediaries (government, corporate, industry association, non-profit organization, or some other independent entity).

Most other online articles attempting to answer the question “who owns the Internet?” don’t even acknowledge the physical base; they represent the Internet as merely software, content and information. Is this part of what leads to the illusion of the Internet being a tool for freedom and empowerment? Meanwhile, early warnings are appearing threatening an end to the golden age we’ve been enjoying. Of course, we expect for-profit giants to try to monopolize the market by taking control of assets and infrastructure, but as soon as January, 2008, the Internet as we known it may change radically with the end of network neutrality? Thanks to the short-sightedness (or imperialist motives) of the FCC, after that date, backbone network operators and ISPs will have tremendous power to dictate terms in the industry, potentially up to the point of deciding which sites and services to allow its internet users access to. There is much to fear, and much to ponder about how and why the FCC endorsed this development, that brings to mind the empire-building that consumers endure in too many major utility and infrastructure industries. first telecoms to the energy industry, the mass commercialization of any new “disruptive” technology.

In the case of the Internet, if our worst fears materialize, the game is just downright cruel to consumers. After unbridled innovation in the hands of hippy programmers and neo-liberal marketers who hand the reins over to the common person, only until the market reaches critical mass, so that greedy investors can snatch back the keys to the fun room… Say it isn’t so? However, if the Internet does turn into a lame, restricted, expensive, boring, useless virtual space, perhaps we might witness an exodus? There was life before the Internet, you know…