In “The Impending Demise of Net Neutrality,” the author, Elliot D. Cohen argues that the current system of American internet usage threatens to ruin the freedom of information among individuals. He examines the historical background of net neutrality and significant court cases related to it. However, his article focuses more on inciting fear among individuals than giving solid evidence to support his arguments. He appears afraid of the private corporations who offer internet; however, at the same time, he fears the government. At times, his rhetoric borders on conspiracy theories.
Despite its growth, all Americans still do not have access to the internet. The internet allows individuals to communicate and exchange information and ideas worldwide. Its autonomous use should be encouraged. However, the internet runs through internet service providers (ISPs). ISPs may use cable or dial-up to provide service.Corporations tend to own the large ISPs; as with all services, the ISPs face regulation from the government. Often, these regulations evolve from the decisions of courts.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Critical Review of “The Impending Demise of Net Neutrality” by Elliot D. Cohen".
Net neutrality refers to the ideal that ISPs and governments should treat all data equally. Information deserves a chance to spread; corporations and governments should not slow or halt this. Net neutrality suggests that ISPs and the government should not charge at different tiers for different types of information. Proponents of net neutrality argue that the large corporations seek to limit the speed of some information. By slowing some information transfer, while increasing the speed of other transfers, corporations and government may control what information spreads. Cohen correctly states that the freedom on information is at stake. Net neutrality does decide if anyone possessing legal information can easily share it.
Cohen argues that ATT, Verizon, Comcast and other ISPs, in agreement with the government seek to destroy the freedom of information. He makes several valid points on this topic. In 2005, the Supreme Court decided the Brand X case. With this decision, the Court ruled that the internet is private property. Public phone lines cannot discriminate against a person by providing poor quality intentionally. If the internet continued to fall under the same doctrine as a phone line, the Court could not allow discrimination. However, the Court ruled that the internet is similar to cable television. The ISPs had a legal right to control how quickly information flowed over the information highway. The George W. Bush Administration quickly determined that DSL providers fell under ISP rules. In other words, even if your internet access came through a phone line, it was not public property. Cohen is correct to challenge this notion. Almost everyone is on the internet. The internet surrounds us. If it does not belong to the public legally, it should.
Cohen continues to discuss why the ISPs and government are interested in the net. In the post-9/11 years, some Americans may question the need for excessive security. Some Americans believe that the “war on terror” gives the government unfettered authority to invade privacy. Cohen supports this notion with his discussion of the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act (FISA). FISA allows the government unlimited access to information passed through the ISPs. The government does not require a warrant as per the Fourth Amendment. However, at this point of the argument, Cohen veers into conspiracy theory without support.
Cohen states that “In fact, presently all email messages, telephone conversations, and internet searches of all Americans are being copied, stored and analyzed by federal agencies with the assistance of these companies.” First, he cannot claim it as fact. He may believe it. It is highly likely that the government analyzes internet patterns and Google searches for signs of terrorism. However, it is not likely that all of it is copied, stored, and analyzed. The amount of information that passes on the information highway daily is staggering. Surveillance requires sophisticated use of technology. Yes, the government may search for terrorist cells. It is not likely that the CIA cares if a niece emails her great-aunt Edna from Iowa. Edna may care; the President doesn’t.
He further believes that in exchange for the favorable rulings and everyone’s email access, the government offers the companies’ immunity. Based upon this, he decides that the government and the private companies are partners. If an ISP allows access to the government, the government likely would offer it immunity. However, there is a flaw in his logic. He desires the internets to be public. According to his argument, net neutrality will only occur when and if the internets are considered a public entity. Public entities cannot discriminate. As private, they can. Discrimination occurs because the larger, more powerful entities send information faster. The person with little power and money cannot access fast ISPs. In this scenario, the large corporations win. Also, private companies are allowed to dictate how they process their goods. If you send information over their private network, your information essentially becomes theirs.
As long as the government ruling that ISPs are private continues, net neutrality suffers. However, he does not trust the government as a public commodity. If he believes that the government wishes to read every email, why wouldn’t they make the internet public? If FISA allows unwarranted access to emails, it should still allow this under public bands. Public bands for ISPs should give the government easier monitoring access. He needs to follow his argument through.
In today’s digital age, Cohen is correct to question who owns information. Information and knowledge are abstract concepts on one level. No one can or should own something that is unrestrained with the potential to grow and spread. However, this spread occurs over actual hardware and technology. That is either private or public. Larger corporations and broadcasting networks do have quicker access. They own better technology than the little guy in his basement. If this person invested in the same technology, his information would have net neutrality. However, that is cost prohibitive to most. Only the government and large corporations can afford this. Cohen’s problem is that he doesn’t trust either of them; however he still needs to use their technology to spread his mistrust of them. In the end, they likely are watching him. Aunt Edna is probably still okay though.
- Cohen, Elliot D. “The Impending Demise of Net Neutrality.” In Censored. Ed. Mickey Huff and Project Censored. New York: Seven Stories, 2011. 337-349.
