Regulation of the Internet, Research Paper Example

Due to the threat of outside sources or other entities bringing harm to the freedom of the Internet’s content and expression of individuals’ civil liberties, the legislature implemented an act known as the Global Free Internet Act of 2012. The purpose of this act was to encourage the free flow of legal information as the information age continues to expand. It also was deemed necessary to ensure that companies and other private interest groups do not take advantage of information or services accessible on the Internet and use this information or these services for intentions that are only beneficial to a few individuals rather than serving the public interest. This article seeks to analyze the Free Internet Act more in depth and offer insight as to how the government has made strides to continue with internet deregulation during a time when the cyber era is becoming the future of public interest.

The Global Free Internet Act of 2012

This act, put into law by Congress in 2012, was written to encourage the freedom of expression and the increased flow of information on the Internet. Also, it was written to discourage obstacles in trade between entities that may threaten the operation of an open Internet (United States Congress). Congress found that a globalized Internet was an essential tool used for the limitless flow of information between groups and individuals without regard to geographical distances, time zones, or other such barriers that would have historically caused difficulties. They believe it is in the public’s best interest that the security of information and privacy of Internet users be respected as long as there are legal activities occurring, the innovation of Internet related tools should be encouraged and protected, and the flow of information on the Internet should not be limited by service providers due to competitive practices (United States Congress). Any actions that restrict or threaten to harm the flow of free information on the Internet, threaten to harm the United States industry and market base, or seek to bring an advantage to foreign competitive markets is deemed as a threat by the country and Congress has assembled a task force to investigate such matters (United States Congress).

The concept of the open Internet is also referred to by many individuals as “net neutrality’ because it theoretically allows consumers to make their own decisions about what products to purchase, what applications to use, and which services to utilize in order to make their Internet experience more enjoyable. The government has also made way for individuals to have the ability to be creative in their entrepreneurial endeavors, such as creating new applications and services for others to utilize via the Internet. Some examples would be blogs, web sites, and other applications that might be in the beta or testing phase (Federal Communications Commission).

Also, the Federal Communications Commission has made it clear that there is to be no regulation of Internet content or applications as long as these are legal applications. Because of this, Internet service providers must now openly report information pertaining to their management, terms, and quarterly performance as it is relevant to the broadband services they provide. Furthermore, they are not allowed to block any content that is legal. Mobile broadband providers are also not allowed to block legal content, even if it is in competition with their telephone video services (Federal Communications Commission). All of these practices and policies are part of the government’s attempt to deregulate the Internet and continue allowing users to utilize this service the way it was meant to be used—free and without restrictions.

Shifts in the Economy

Historically, the United States has always been a capitalist economy. This means it was founded on the premise of exchanging physical property in various markets such as the stock market, the farmer’s market, or other type markets. Through the years, citizens of the United States have been taught that everything is for sale and all things have a price (Rifkin). Yes, in some ways this is true. However, it is hard to put a price on knowledge and innovation when these are not tangible goods. As the world has evolved, so has our concept of the free market and the entire trade industry.

In the past, Rifkin reports that tangible property was bought and sold for the long term. It was meant to have for a lengthy time and such is not the case in a large majority of instances today. Now, there are more companies leasing property, more individuals renting homes instead of purchasing them, more corporations making the choice to outsource jobs rather than hire full-time employees to remain with the company for a lengthy time period. All of this has changed the way the United States conducts business and the way the entire population survives as a whole on a daily basis.

In the network economy, property that is often not tangible is much more capable of being accessed by businesses rather than be exchanged in a partner buyout or a merger. The concepts that individuals have and the ideas for marketing principles cannot be acquired as easily as they once could because the industry is so saturated with companies who are competing over the most capable individuals to do the job. Thus, one can see how easy it would be for a business or corporation to invest in a few Internet opportunities and take hold of the entire World Wide Web. This could cause a problem of epic proportions. If something such as this was to occur, citizens of the United States would be paying fees to watch YouTube videos and pay to perform individual searches on Google. It could potentially become a nightmare. This is why deregulation of the Internet is such a large scale endeavor and such a positive thing.

Internet deregulation was not the first instance of our government stepping in. The telecommunications industry became deregulated in 1996 and there have been as many complaints about this system as there has been praise. It seems that this would be a case of American democracy at its best because deregulation of telecommunications allows companies to invest in the free market and the government cannot control which companies are allowed to serve the people (Drale). The important point to remember, according to Drale, is that the government should be supportive of the standards they implement as well as the procedures required to enforce those standards.

In the protective model of democracy, there is a core value of personal liberty. This can be assumed that individuals are interested in themselves more so than others and the government’s responsibility is to allow these individuals the freedom to pursue their own interests while still living within a set standard of preset laws as deemed necessary by the legal system (Drale). The business world can be thought of like this. Companies have their own interests in mind and the bottom line is profit. Money talks and the more money a company earns, the better the reputation for success. It is up to the government, in some cases, to make certain the companies do not take advantage of loopholes in society and swallow up pieces of society that serve as an intellectual lifeline or a means of enjoyment to other individuals. Drale believes that all forms of communication media should be supportive of a good society. There is no clear definition of a good society, but it can be inferred that this form of society would be where citizens had the right to free speech and other civil liberties without falling prey to legal implications as long as their activities were legal.

Not all companies believe this and not all individuals in society deem this as the truth. There are countless other models for the way society should proceed as it pertains to democracy and the balance between allowing citizens the right to live as they wish and ensuring there is a system of checks and balances put into place. There will always be problems with any model of democracy. That is one positive aspect to democracy. It allows for problems. In a society ruled by one organization or individual, there is no room for error because there is no other option besides that of the ruling party. Given the choice, it is an easy one to make. Democracy with its problems is a much better way of life than not having a voice to be heard and not having the ability to speak at all.

Is Deregulation a Good Thing?

In this author’s personal opinion, the deregulation of the Internet is a positive step taken by the government. So far, it has ensured the freedom to have intellectual control over one’s innovative creations and also have the ability to browse, read, and gather information freely and without restrictions. With that being said, there are going to be instances where subscriptions and membership requirements must be met to access certain sites. This is, again, capitalism at its best and is the crux of our economic society. There is nothing wrong with subscriptions to magazines, newspapers, or other periodicals and communication media because companies must have some way of generating income to remain in business. However, the ability to have a mostly free Internet is a positive benefit to being a citizen of this society that many individuals never even consider.

When doing research for this article, it was found that other countries did not have deregulation policies in regard to their Internet usage and communications in general. Personally, this author cannot fathom a society where one is not free to access the news or other information when it is desired. One cannot comprehend a society where the news it only capable of being accessed during a certain set of hours in the day and only on preapproved stations where the news anchors speak about preapproved topics. Sadly, though, this is the case in much of the world. While the government makes decisions that cause extreme criticism from every political party during some period of time, there is one notion that is fact. The civil liberties the citizens of the United States have been granted are still in place and the government has taken great lengths to ensure they will not be jeopardized.

One reason for this, most likely, is due to global trading and the general globalization with other countries that have agreements with the United States. If the United States began regulating these practices over the Internet and did not allow the trades to take place or only allowed these trades to be handled between certain companies and/or countries, there would be an uprising from other companies or general interest groups that felt it unfair to not allow free trade inside of their companies the same way. The bottom line is that even though the Internet is deregulated and neutral in the fact trade is kept flowing between parties as long as nothing is illegal, money is still and always will be a large factor.

Rifkin and Drale both believe democracy is important to the succession of a society. Likewise, the succession of a society depends on its citizens having the capability of doing as they desire while living within the confines of the law. As long as the Global Free Internet Act of 2012 allows for both to coexist, this will satisfy both the government and its citizens as well as propagate the intellectual creativity of countless individuals over the course of decades to come.

Works Cited

Drale, Christina. Communication media in a democratic society. 2004.

Federal Communications Commission. Open Internet. 2012. Web. 4 November 2012.

Rifkin, Jeremy. The age of access: The new culture of hypercapitalism, where all of life is a paid-for experience. New York: Putnam Publishing, n.d. Electronic.

United States Congress. Global Free Internet Act of 2012. 2012. Web. 4 November 2012.