Internet And The Nii: Opening Pandoranet?

by Adriana Lozada

Ahh, networks... or more specifically Computer Mediated Communications (CMC). The joy of being able to connect with people and databases all around the world, instantly obtain information, 'virtually' travel to faraway lands and converse with people who will love (or hate) you based solely on your computerized inner-self. :-)

Aaarrrh, networks! The frustration of sitting in front of a prompter that won't accept any of your commands, the sifting through electronic piles of trivial information which beg for a nonexistent menu, the fleeting delight of connecting somewhere (anywhere) at a rather sluggish pace, only to be denied access. >:-(

These extremes belong to the first level of CMC's potential effect on our lives, according to Howard Rheingold. At this level, CMC "appeal to us as mortal organisms with certain intellectual, physical and emotional needs (Rheingold, 12)." The other two levels are more community-related: the person-to-person level, and the political level. All levels are intrinsically interconnected within a hierarchical structure, ranging from the first to the third level. Although these levels describe most communication media, their close interconnection within CMCs and the infrastructure onto which they are built, has allowed for the Net's exponential growth.

Networks have become so successful because they allow for the versatility of the computer while fulfilling our social need for communication and knowledge. The individual user can customize the networks to obtain service and usage applications stretching beyond the scope of her/his three-dimensional, time-bounded reality. S/he can send electronic mail which will arrive almost immediately, retrieve information from databases in universities, libraries, scientific and research institutions or businesses, and even participate in elaborate discussions (on any topic imaginable), through computer bulletin-boards (BBSs). All of this is possible due to "computers and the switched telecommunication networks that also carry our telephone calls (Rheingold, 5)," the basic technological structure of CMC's.

The Internet is the largest CMC system, an unregulated web of 10,000 computer networks in 50 countries (Mills 830) which currently grows at a rate of one million users per month, and is estimated to have 20 million users by the end of 1994 (Littman 43, 44). With another enthusiast joining in every four minutes (Poole 53), the Internet remains an unorganized system with a certain anarchic atmosphere. An 'anything goes' attitude exists on the Internet, not merely because an immense number of distinct individuals connect every day, but also because it is a largely unregulated structure, extremely difficult to control or destroy.

The Internet's physical structure originated in 1969 at the University of California, where the Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was trying to link university computers over telephone lines (ARPANET). Due to interest and pressure from the scientific community, the U.S. Congress authorized the National Science Foundation to join the network, creating the NSFNET. The NSFNET, consisting of high speed super-computers, is the backbone of the Internet (Mills, 831). In the Net, information travels along copper and fiber-optic wires, from computer to computer, and node (the main super-computer of each network) to node, until its final destination. However, if a node is removed, the information simply takes a different route.

The original idea for the ARPANET stemmed from RAND's (a think tank in Santa Monica) concept of a "communication, command, and control network that could survive nuclear attack by having no central control (Rheingold 7)." It is this routing flexibility, due to the networks' lack of centralization, which makes it so difficult to destroy; "the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. (Rheingold 7)". That the Net was constructed to survive all adversity, increases the difficulty in regulating it because no one is in charge to simply 'pull-the-plug'.

Now this new medium is shaking society's structure at all levels, raising issues at a faster pace than lawmakers can keep up with. Issues such as copyright laws, libel, censorship, information security and freedom of speech are among the most urgent. The media repeatedly focus on the availability of hard-core pornography on the Internet, and the negative effect this may have on the avid under-aged users. But they seem to forget the important role Internet plays in reporting from inside war-stricken countries, where accurate news is difficult and dangerous to obtain. Existing copyright laws are often violated when texts are loaded onto the Internet (and quickly distributed for free), because of the difficulty in monitoring information speeding by in the network. But if the information is traced to one Local Area Network (LAN), is the Internet service provider legally responsible for the information circulating through its system? The quantity of information passing through a node in one day is unimaginable if we consider that an estimated 60 000 BBSs exchanged information on a constant basis this year alone (Rheingold 9). Making the service providers responsible for the information circulating through their LAN would certainly deter their existence.

No one who has ventured through the Net, would consider the provider responsible, but the Cubbv vs, ComPuserve case, a libel case, proves that serious consideration is necessary in negotiating Internet law. The judgment that Compuserve would be liable only if it had "actual knowledge" of the defamation, set an important precedent for Internet law. Under common law, both the person who makes the original statement, and anyone who repeats or "re-publishes" it is liable. Under these terms, book publishers would be responsible for the content of their books, while bookstores (who only carry the books) would not. In this case, Compuserve's role was compared to that of the bookstore. The publisher, expected to review everything prior to publication, is held responsible. In this sense, there is no clear equivalent of a publisher for network service providers, except for the few who state they do monitor messages. The value of the Internet is its immediacy; prescreening all information passing through the web would significantly eliminate it (Godwin 6669).

As more people and businesses around the world join this electronic odyssey through cyberspace, the speed of information transport becomes sluggish. Telecommunication companies are attracted to the potential profits of updating the structure, by providing services handling anything from e-mail to (possibly) taking part in an on-line animation class given by Tim Burton where you would ask (not type) questions and receive answers through your digital surround-sound system, as explanatory images dance away on your HDTV (maybe even 3-D).

Far-fetched though this may seem, it is exactly what the Clinton-Gore administration is proposing with the Network Information Infrastructure (there's no guarantee on getting Tim Burton, though). The NII would, ultimately, bring fiber-optic telecommunications into every household in the U.S.. Still, despite the U.S. government's promised "Information Superhighway," there is a great deal of controversy over who will be in charge of building what and, more importantly, who will pay for it. The government does not have the money, and of the $5 billion allotted for the Internet over the next four years, $3 billion will be spent in building super-computers. The telephone and cable companies (who have the money) are pitted against smaller providers, who have the experience, in the battle to provide the infrastructure. Internet users would prefer to have smaller companies because they have the experience to provide expert technical guidance. Also these smaller companies, who have been on the Internet since its emergence, can relate to its original principles of openness, freedom and diversity (Poole 54-56).

Vice President Al Gore, a loyal proponent of the "information superhighway" understands the need for all (Americans) to "be able to 'connect' at an affordable price (Biesada 59)." However, this is not a priority for the cable or telephone companies, who's business it is to increase the value of their shareholders' wealth. These companies "undoubtedly would make a fortune if they controlled access, pricing, and content (Bieada 59)." Yet both the government and the telecommunication companies share one goal: making the U.S. the first country with an information infrastructure, thereby giving them an edge over the rest of the globe. This self-imposed time constraint is pressuring the government into considering the removal of the legal and regulatory disincentives which currently keep the telephone and cable companies out of each other's business. The government believes that if regulations were removed, these telecommunication companies would rapidly invest the money necessary to lay down the infrastructure.

The phone and cable companies, on the other hand, do not want the government to take part in the creation of the NII. Some of the computer and telecommunication companies believe the $2 billion budgeted by the Clinton administration to "assist doctors, educators, and manufacturers to use computer networks and help schools, libraries and other public institutions tap into the existing networks would unnecessarily intrude in the marketplace by attempting to achieve what private companies are already doing (Mills 827)." Other governmental concerns include the terrorist and subversive potential of the worldwide CMC, and the attitudes of existing industries (such as TV, radio, movie theaters, print publishers, etc.) who see the NII as a direct threat to their businesses.

The creation of the NII might open a 'Pandoranet', where present users are likely to suffer price increments and "firewalls" (electronic security measures which close-off access to local networks), changing the present configuration of the Internet. The immeasurable growth of this electronic web, and its allure for commercial enterprises, may just do away with two of its most enticing characteristics: its openness and accessibility. Internet's future lies in the hands of traditional decision-makers, rather than with the average user, who understands that the Internet can provide wealth beyond mere dollar bills. As Rheingold points out: "We temporarily have access to a tool that could bring conviviality and understanding into our lives and might help revitalize the public sphere. The same tool, improperly controlled and wielded, could become an instrument of tyranny (Rheingold,14)." For Internet users, the imminent arrival of the NII poses threats of extreme control regulations and monetary constraints. We must wander through the existing anarchic structure of the Internet while it is still `free'.

Bibliography

Biesada, Alexandra M. "Paving the Digital Superhighway." Unix World (December 1993): 58-62.

Godwin, Mike. "Internet Libel: Is the Provider Responsible?" Internet World (Nov/Dec 1993): 66-69.

Littman, Jonathan. "Commerce on the Internet: The Digital Gold Rush." Unix World (December 1993): 58-62.

Mills, Mike. "Clinton's Computer `Highway' to Spur Information Age." Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (April 3, 1993): 827-832.

Poole, Gary Andrew. "It's a Crunch-Time in Cyberspace." Unix World (December 1993): 52-56.

Rheingold, Howard. The Virtual Community. New York: Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1993.

"Networks: From a Defense Lab to a Worldwide Web of Users." Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (April 3, 1993): 830-831.