There’s much discussion here and overseas-especially overseas-about Internet governance, a succinctly ambiguous description apt to be at the core of controversy for years to come.
The Internet governance issue has played out on a number of fronts. There is the high-level debate over whether the United States-which created and commercialized the Internet-has too much control of cyberspace owing to its clout over domain names and root servers. It was-as is obvious from the conference name-a major focus at last week’s ITU-sponsored Internet Governance Forum in Athens. The IGF is an outgrowth of the World Summit on Information Society held in Tunis last November. At that time, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan defensively sized up the combustible political component of the Internet governance question.
“But let me be absolutely clear: The United Nations does not want to `take over,’ police or otherwise control the Internet. … The United States deserves our thanks for having developed the Internet and making it available to the world. It has exercised its oversight responsibilities fairly and honorably. … But I think you also all acknowledge the need for more international participation in discussions of Internet governance issues,” Annan understated.
While a legitimate policy issue on the world stage, one could make the case that all Internet governance-like politics-is local, so to speak. If you’re Google Inc., Yahoo Inc. or some other dot-com disciple, Internet governance equates with the principle of net neutrality. It was a major flashpoint in crafting a telecom reform bill this year. The legislation appears dead for the year and could be due for a facelift if Democrats win back one or both houses of Congress on Tuesday. Internet firms and others have locked horns with Bell telephone and cable TV giants over whether Congress should legislate safeguards to prevent profit-driven manipulation of Internet content by broadband duopolists. For their part, Silicon Valley types bankrolling the net-neutrality push were under fire in Athens over claims they’re a little too chummy with Chinese government censors.
Major wireless carriers might rightly regard the net-neutrality conflagration on Capitol Hill as an entertaining sideshow to a telecom-reform bill containing the big prize they seek: expanded federal pre-emption. However, there could come a day when Cingular Wireless L.L.C., Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel Corp. and T-Mobile USA Inc. become targets of net-neutrality scrutiny.
Consider this: On average, 29 percent of Internet users in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom access the Web from their mobile phones, according to London-based comScore Networks Inc. Germany and Italy each have mobile Web penetration of 34 percent. About 19 percent of Internet users in the United States connect to the Web from cell phones. And South Korea and Japan probably top them all.
All these figures likely will rise in the future because powerfully portable wireless devices are extensions-indeed, the future-of the Internet. Wireless carriers hold the keys to Web access, digital content and more. If not managed well, it could make for a bad scene for well-heeled operators and hormonally challenged teens.
