In January, several million Americans contacted Congress to stop passage of two bills that would have destroyed Internet freedom and stifled innovation. The twin bills, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), were meant to counter Internet piracy, a very real problem. But they both used a sledgehammer when a scalpel was necessary. The legislation would have done more than block piracy – they would have hurt Internet users’ ability to get content from their favorite websites and prevented new websites from being created.
The world needs a similar citizen uprising to stop another well-meaning but harmful attack on the ability of Internet users to access websites outside their home countries. A United Nations body, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), will be meeting in December in Dubai to consider at least two proposals which would dramatically affect the ability of Internet users to get the content they want to receive over the Internet.
One proposal would require that a website owner or service provider pay a fee as a “sending party” to the government of any country for the country’s citizens to view the content. This would mean that popular websites like Khan Academy or BBC World would not be available to people outside their native countries unless the website or service provider paid a fee to the user’s country. This would hurt people in developing countries who hunger for access to quality news and education.
The countries that are advocating for this were getting money for international phone calls and have seen that revenue fall off. They see foreign website owners and service providers as having cash to fill the gap in declining long distance telephone revenue. They say they need this money to pay for their broadband infrastructure. But there are other proven ways to encourage quick broadband adoption, including liberalizing market access, encouraging broadband competition, providing spectrum awards and insisting on transparency of ownership of awardees of government telecommunications contracts.
Another proposal up for vote at the ITU meeting would allow governments or some type of multi-government body to use “security” or other justifications to create new rules to regulate the Internet. Governments already have the power to censor some aspects of the Internet, but the proposed provision would make all global users subject to the whims of other governments. The result, or even the goal, would be to restrict their citizens’ access to various content. Russian President Vladimir Putin is upfront that this is valuable in “establishing international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the International Telecommunications Union.”
The problem with an international body being in the business of routing traffic and allowing deep packet inspection based on content is that it restricts access to information and encourages censorship. Indeed, the Internet has been a success precisely because it is not owned or managed by any single government. The slowest developing countries today are those that restrict their citizens’ access to technology and information, like North Korea and Cuba.
Today, more than a billion people benefit from the riches of the Internet because it is governed by a multi-stakeholder process. Old governments accustomed to geographic boundaries tremble at the loss of control the Internet represents. But the vast improvement in the human condition the Internet has created must not be choked by politicians seeking greater control of information. Instead, Internet users should be free to use the Internet for its cheap access to information, easy formation of new business and facilitation of innovation.
What will happen with the proposals to control and charge for the Internet is anyone’s guess. It seems their fate is mostly controlled by those who choose to stay quiet or simply trust their representatives to the ITU.
The U.S.’s position is to oppose these initiatives. Its team of more than 100 government and non-government representatives will not support these proposals. Whether other countries will seek to deny their citizens the freedom of the Internet remains to be seen.
The issue is whether citizens of the E.U., Australia, Argentina, Brazil, India, Kenya and all other countries that have informed citizens, reasonably open societies and responsive governments will have their “SOPA-PIPA moment” and let the world know that these proposals will hurt freedom and innovation. The power to access the knowledge, education, and joy of the Internet should remain unfettered by restrictive rules and bureaucrats.
Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)®, the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer electronics companies, and author of the New York Times bestselling book, “The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream.” Connect with him on Twitter: @GaryShapiro.
