<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Link:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece">http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">Hyping one threat to hide another
<div class="moz-signature"> <span class="author"></span><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/">Opinion</a> » <span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/">Lead</a></span>
</div>
<div><span class="breadcr"> </span> <span class="dateline"> <span
class="upper"> </span> November 28, 2012 </span> </div>
<span class="author">Parminder Jeet Singh</span>
<div class="detail-info">
<div class="article-links"> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
id="click" href="javascript:toggle();">Share</a> · <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece#comments"
title="Comment">Comment</a> · <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece?css=print"
title="Print">print</a> · <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece#"
onclick="javascript:increaseFontSize();" title="Change Text
Size" id="inc">T+</a> </div>
</div>
<br>
The U.S. and dominant global Internet companies fear regulation
because it will adversely affect their control over the
communication realm
<div class="articleLead"> </div>
<p class="body"> A lot of global attention right now is focussed
on the World Conference on International Telecommunications of
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) which will get
under way in Dubai next week. This meeting is taking up a review
of International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). When the
ITRs were last reviewed in 1988, the Internet was not
commonplace and, therefore, did not find mention. In 2012, it is
difficult to think of global communication without the Internet.
The key question today is whether the remit of the ITU should
extend to the Internet or not, and if indeed it should, to what
parts and aspects of the Internet, and in what manner. </p>
<p class="body"> One summary view, quite popular in many quarters,
is that with the Internet taking over global communication
systems, there is no role for the ITU anymore. Unlike
traditional telecommunication — largely, telephony — global
Internet traffic is mediated entirely through commercial
arrangements among private players with almost no involvement of
a regulator. Free market proponents, having greatly dominated
the discourse so far, hold that the free market has fully
triumphed, and delivered, in relation to the Internet. This
model should not be disturbed. There is, therefore, no need for
any kind of regulation of the Internet. </p>
<p class="body"> <b>‘Free market’ view</b> </p>
<p class="body"> This ‘free market’ view has found a powerful ally
among freedom of expression groups, so much so that the debate
about the future of the ITU is almost entirely fronted by
evocative appeals about preserving the Internet as the ultimate
domain of free expression. Unlike market fundamentalism, there
are no two views about freedom of expression among most groups
and people, and thus such a strategy is understandable. Perhaps
for similar reasons, Hillary Clinton has spelled ‘Internet
freedom’ as a key U.S. foreign policy agenda. It may, however,
need deeper thought and analysis to assess whether the real
agenda here is to use the new Internet-based global
communication realm — with the unprecedented domination of U.S.
companies in it — as the key means for global economic, social,
cultural and political domination in the post-industrial world.
<i>Any</i> kind of global regulation of the Internet, or even
articulation of global principles of public interest, does not
serve this agenda. </p>
<p class="body"> The issue of freedom of expression vis-à-vis
regulation of the Internet is of course very real. States are
quite nervous about the transformational new means that allow
citizens to exercise voice and associational power as never
before. They are scrambling to get their hands on some lever or
the other to prevent the potential damage. And it is not only
the developing countries that are busy in this regard, so are
the developed ones, greatly enhancing their surveillance
capabilities. Nevertheless, at the ITU very few countries have
floated proposals that could increase governmental control over
Internet content. These proposals mostly pertain to subverting
the current globally managed Internet names and addresses
system, and the globally configured Internet traffic routing, to
create more controllable national Internet spaces, or ‘national
segments’ of the Internet, as one proposal calls them. There is
very little support for these proposals. Almost all developed
countries and most developing ones, including India, have not
supported these. </p>
<p class="body"> At the recently concluded U.N. Internet
Governance Forum at Baku, a reporter asked Terry Kramer, the
chief U.S. delegate to the upcoming ITU conference, what the
whole fuss is about when decisions can be taken only by
consensus and there is so much opposition to these problematic
proposals. Mr. Kramer was disarmingly honest in his response. He
agreed that there was not that much real danger of anything
happening at the WCIT itself. But, he said, this is a long-haul
thing. What is at stake are the principles that will guide
Internet regulation/governance in the long run. And in this
regard, he continued, Dubai was just one of the many
forums/meetings/crossroads, and many more are yet to come. </p>
<p class="body"> The U.S. and the dominant global Internet
companies, which are at the forefront of the anti-ITU campaign,
know their game and objectives quite well. It is important that
others do so too. This is about the <i>new paradigm of global
governance/regulation of the communication realm</i>. Most
hype around the WCIT seems to be missing this point, largely
because it is to a considerable extent orchestrated and misled
by the dominant powers. </p>
<p class="body"> The paradigmatic issue here is whether the
Internet, as the centrepiece of the new global communication
realm, should be regulated at all. Freedom of expression is just
one side of the story. The other, rather well disguised side is
about the political economy of the global communication realm.
It is about the division of resources within the communication
realm, and, even more importantly, the larger global and
sub-global division of resources — economic, social, and
political — which is fundamentally impacted by the nature of
regimes that govern the global communication realm. </p>
<p class="body"> <b>Closely regulated</b> </p>
<p class="body"> The communication realm — or more descriptively,
the information and communication realm, and its technologies —
has always been closely regulated in public interest. It is
generally understood that it is of vital and extraordinary
public interest, and cannot just be subject only to normal
commercial regulation, that for instance governs trade in white
goods. Every telephone company is obliged to carry the traffic
from every other company in a non-discriminatory manner, which
is called the common carriage rule. One can well imagine what it
would be like if this rule is not enforced. Long back, there was
a time when there was no such rule. The telephony revolution was
made possible because regulators forced common carriage
regulation on big companies in the U.S. and other places.
Similarly, the IT revolution began when regulators in the U.S.
forced software to be unbundled from hardware, whereby an
independent software industry could develop. The rest is
history. </p>
<p class="body"> There are universal service obligations in the
telecom sector whereby every telecom provider must service every
person/ household, etc., whether it serves its business model or
not. And then there are regulations on tariffs, quality of
service and so on. Telecom providers are forced to comply with
disability friendly features, and they also contribute to
Universal Service Funds that are used to universalise
communication services. All of this, and much more, will
disappear in an unregulated communication system. In taking a
collective political decision on whether the Internet is at all
to be regulated or not, we need to understand that we are taking
decisions on all these issues, and not just on freedom of
expression. </p>
<p class="body"> In order to understand the real stakes in the
‘regulation or not’ debate regarding the Internet, it is best to
look at what is happening in the U.S. right now. The U.S.
telecom market is dominated by two players, Verizon and
AT&T. Verizon has challenged the Federal Communication
Commission’s authority to enforce net neutrality (the Internet
equivalent of the ‘common carriage’ rule), arguing that the
Internet is not telecom and thus outside the FCC’s mandate.
AT&T went a step further. It claimed that since even
traditional telecom services, like telephony, increasingly work
on Internet Protocols (IP), the FCC’s remit should not cover
even telephony. In essence, more or less, the claim is that no
regulation of the communication systems is needed at all. The
FCC can close down! Markets have taken over, and are their own
arbitrators! </p>
<p class="body"> California recently became the latest of many
States in the U.S., mostly Republican-ruled, which have
deregulated Voice-over-Internet-Protocol, effectively removing
regulatory control over telephony service, disregarding the
concerns expressed by many public interest groups. There are
many deep implications of such changeovers. To give just one
illustration, unlike traditional telephony systems that are
obliged to have their own power-supply to account for emergency
situations, the new IP based systems do not have such
obligations. When most ‘new systems’ failed recently in the
aftermath of Storm Sandy, unlike earlier times, the FCC found
itself unable to question the disaster preparedness of the
companies providing much of the communication infrastructure in
the U.S. today. </p>
<p class="body"> What is happening at the ITU today, in good
measure, is this game of freeing our communication realm from
all public interest regulation. As mentioned, it is about a new
paradigm of ‘complete non-regulation.’ And once the victory is
achieved at the ITU, whereby the Internet and other IP networks,
which would soon be the basis of all communication
infrastructure, are considered out of any kind of regulatory
oversight, the game will then be replayed at the national level,
citing ‘global norms.’ In fact, during an on-the-side chat at a
recent Internet governance meeting in New Delhi, a telecom
company representative made a significant give-away remark. He
said to an official of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
(TRAI), ‘but isn’t net neutrality about the Internet, and
therefore TRAI should have nothing to do about it.’ </p>
<p class="body"> In presenting a view on whether or not the
Internet should be subject to the remit of the ITU and the ITRs,
India may be taking a position on whether it seeks to free the
Internet from all regulatory control, which logic would then
perforce also extend to TRAI’s remit at home. The least one can
say, and appeal to the government and other actors in the space,
is that this should be a considered decision after thoroughly
assessing all sides of the story. </p>
<p class="body"> Freedom of expression is not the only issue that
is involved here. There are so many other issues, involving
significant economic, social and cultural considerations, that
are at stake with regard to regulation of the Internet. It may
not be wise to throw out the baby with the bath water. </p>
<p class="body"> <i>(Parminder Jeet Singh is Executive Director
of Bangalore based NGO, IT for Change. Email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>)</i>
</p>
<div id="articleKeywords">
<p>Keywords: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece#">Internet
regulation</a>, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece#">Internet
freedom</a>, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece#">Freedom
of expression</a>, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece#">International
Telecommunications</a>, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece#">ITU</a>, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece#">ITRs</a>, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece#">global
Internet traffic</a></p>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>