Net Neutrality: Internet Protest about the Internet in 2014
The phrase net neutrality, although perhaps unfamiliar to some, has been a prevalent one in the discussion and protest rhetoric circulating throughout a large part of the last decade. It has taken the conversation of Internet rights to new highs in mass media, but also in more accessible social media. The concept of net neutrality was defined to many as the implementation of a neutral internet where access and information would remain untampered allowing fair use among all its users. This is the goal that set in motion a decade of legislative stagnation in attempts to assure net neutrality as a protected right, as well as protest among those outside the political system who became concerned with the issue.
The full events of the protest movement rose to its conclusion in early 2015, after a long effort in 2014, when the legislative powers of the Federal Communications Commission finally applied the necessary safeguards on the Internet in order to secure net neutrality. This essay will explore the specifics behind the historical contexts that originally created the conflict, focusing on events between the Federal Communications Commission and Internet Service Providers that instigated legislative measures within Congress, and subsequently instigated public backlash against the failure to quickly implement protection for Internet users. What will then be explored are the contexts behind the protest, its active participants, its rhetorical methods, the identities involved around the protest, all with an emphasis on the use of electronic methods of protest rather than geographic focused protest. What will be of interest is how the Internet was used as a tool for protest, and the various forms of protest that aided the protesters within the movement spread their message, how the protest was responded to, and how it social media dynamic of the protest changed the way this protest was handled.
The Origins of Conflict
In order to fully understand the events that transpired during the 2014 net neutrality protests, and the subsequent court ruling in favor of stronger laws to protect net neutrality, the history behind the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and their constant legislative struggle against telecommunication companies and Internet Service providers (ISP’s), must be explored in a way that makes clear the timeline that took place, while also providing insight into the key players that were the center of attention during the 2014 protest. The Federal Communications Commission, or (FCC), was established by the United States Government in 1934 with the task to regulate and watch over the modes of communication available to the public, (Harpham). At the time of its creation the main concern of the FCC was communication over the telephone, which persisted until newer technology such as the television came into the framework of daily used technologies. However the mission this agency held, regardless of communication medium, was to keep the modes of communication open with fair access to all citizens of the United States, (Harpham).
Later in the 1990’s with the popularity of broadband Internet increasing, the FCC drafted a new piece of legislation, the Telecommunications act of 1996. The creation of the Telecommunications act of 1996 prompted the FCC to brand the Internet as either a Title I or Title II service, (Firth). The distinction between a Title I classification and a Title II classification would determine not only how the Internet would be considered, but the amount of power the FCC would have to regulate the Internet and the ISP’s who distributed it to the population, (Firth). It was the ruling by the FCC that the Internet would be considered an information service, which placed it under Title I giving the Government organization much less regulatory power. If they would have considered it a Telecommunication service instead, it would have gone under Title II classifications, allowing the FCC much more power to regulate the Internet providers, (Firth).
The debate on how the Internet should function under the Internet Service Providers (ISP) gained a new level of attention in 2005 when the FCC instituted what was known as the Open Internet Policy, which at its core was meant to create strict principles towards keeping the web a location of free expression and innovation, (Stiegler). This was most likely a response to allegations that in 2002 Comcast, the Internet service provider in question, knowingly blocked emails they deemed unfavorable from being received by Comcast email holders, as well as a legal case brought up in 2005 against a different service provider, Madison River Communications, when it became evident that they restricted their customers from using Vonage, a “Voice over Internet Protocol” that was in direct competition with their own service, (Stiegler). It was this tampering by the ISPs that put new life into the conversation of net neutrality, and the concern that the users of an unprotected Internet would suffer at the hands of these corporations if restrictions were not implemented over how neutral the Internet should be. The legal battles between Comcast and the FCC continued past this incident to also include a very relevant topic that played a crucial role in the 2014 net neutrality debate. In 2007 the FCC brought to Issue of “throttling” to the attention of Comcast stating that the practice of throttling, or purposefully slowing down the connection speed of certain websites, went against its clearly stated policy that the Internet should serve as an equal platform for all its users, (Stiegler). Through all this, case hearing after case hearing, the amount of control the FCC actually had continued to stay minimal. This lack of progress can be traced to the back and forth political sphere within the FCC, Congress and the service provider companies.
Although the debate of net neutrality continued with hardly any true progress, a main contributor to the topic, who would later become a source for the more outspoken calls to craft the net neutrality rules, was Barack Obama,(Stiegler). His position on net neutrality was the equivalent of most of the population. In response to outcries by the public he stood for clear protections on the use of the Internet, emphasizing an open Internet (“Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet”). His rise into the presidency allowed the influence of his rhetoric to align itself with the protest rhetoric of the general population, which all culminated in 2014.
The historical context of the movement doesn’t lie solely on the Government agencies and their inability to reign in the powers Comcast and other service providers took advantage of. It also is crucial to notice the spark of protest that grew out of interested parties outside of the legal argument. The involvement of the public, and various interest groups, can be placed starting around 2006. During this time one of the most notable attempts to get the public involved and informed about net neutrality was the Save the Internet campaign which was created by Free Press, (Stiegler). Free Press as an organization stands for its commitment to, “fight to save the free and open Internet, curb runaway media consolidation, protest press freedom, and ensure diverse voices are represented in our media,” (“Save the Internet”). Along with Free Press, an organization that continued its campaigns to achieve their goal of an open Internet from 2006 until the year in question, many other groups contributed to the inception and formulation of the protest movement from the side of those outside the Government establishment. Some of the most recognized groups include, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Consumer Union, the American Library Association to Public Knowledge, and various others who with their devotion to set up petitions, and direct their own campaigns towards net neutrality, created a whole new dynamic that established the issue as something the citizen needed to be concerned over. This was a product of the conflation between the rhetoric of net neutrality concerned with ISP tampering of certain types of communication, the concept of the implementation of a tiered Internet system that benefited those who ISP’s favored, and the moral argument which these interest groups pushed into the meaning of net neutrality dealing with the issue of freedom of expression, civil liberties and the democratic responsibility of citizens, (Stiegler). This connection to freedom and liberty played a pivotal role in the response individuals had to fight for net neutrality, joining in on the protest by signing online petitions, sending in comments and emails to the FCC, taking part in geographically strategic protests and getting in contact with members of congress in order to make their voice heard. Through all the prior efforts to protest the FCC into creating stricter net neutrality rules the events the occurred before 2014 represent the initial stages of the discourse. The efforts of all key players throughout this historical context led up to the creation of stronger net neutrality regulations, which appear stable for the time being seeing as the discussion on net neutrality has died down in conversation.
The Rhetorical Methods
The net neutrality debate had been established in the public sphere well before 2014; however the protesters had continued in very similar ways throughout the movement up until the turning point in the political atmosphere which the movement intended on influencing. The term public sphere, commonly defined as a social space where private citizens gather as a public body, must be altered to fit the frame of this digitally focused protest. Although there were instances were geographically central protest occurred, often the ways in which interest groups, large companies in favor for net neutrality, and common citizens, created a public sphere was through the interactions through social media and online platforms for communication, (Faris). The rhetoric of the movement that will be examined most critically, as a representation of the ways in which Internet protest and participation, will be the communications that took place on the Internet itself.
A key component to analyzing the rhetoric of net neutrality within the protests begins at how the understandings of what “net neutrality” meant formulated into a polarized issue among the various characters who played a key role in using it as a form of rhetoric. The two ideas that surrounded net neutrality were, “no selectivity by the carriers over the content they transmit and no blocking of the access of users to some websites,” (Lee). This would later influence the ways it would be representative of both, an Internet that stood for free economic trade, and an Internet that guaranteed freedom of speech and expression, (Lee). The consideration of net neutrality as both an economic issue, and a civil liberties issue, expanded the range of identities that had a stake in the FCC decision to strengthen the regulations on the Internet Service providers and carriers. Of course the rhetoric used in the movement as a whole created a streamline consciousness, an overall goal that united the proponents of the two sides of net neutrality, but it is important to consider the ways each side specifically chose to represent the debate, and who made up those sides.
On the side of the free market, the fear that if net neutrality regulations were not passed providers like Comcast and Time Warner would price gouge competitors or give certain benefits to companies who paid extra for faster connection speeds, drove both large corporations and small start up corporations to protest for a ban on any ability these ISP’s had to apply this type of dynamic on the Internet. Companies like Google, Netflix, Reddit, and Facebook make up a small portion of the loudest voices who were pro net neutrality rules, and during the 2014 cycle, gained a lot of media attention from nationally recognized outlets like the Wall Street Journal who published articles recognizing the efforts these companies made through online protests to make the issues more well known, (Nagesh). The specific protest detailed in the article occurred in the later stages of 2014. It had to do with websites implementing a loading circle on their websites so their users were given the chance to imagine what an Internet speed might look like if ISPs were allowed to privilege some content over other content, and this would link the users to another site that offered more information on the facts of net neutrality (Nagesh). In an earlier form of protest from these companies, a letter was written to the FCC to show a solidarity on the side of Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Netflix, Twitter, and Yahoo! that a lack of strict rules on the service providers would be a threat to the Internet, (Faris). These two instances of protest, on the part of the very specific identity that large corporations took on during the debate, show that they unified to collectively impose a presence on the FCC, while also aiding in the disbursement of information to the general population.
While the identities that surrounded business and the economic side of net neutrality used the movement’s goals and online resources to make known their position on the issue, the other side of the pro net neutrality protest was dedicated to the civil liberties issue, which seemed more prevalent when it came to how citizens came to understand the movement. Such groups like Free Press, the ACLU, and internet sites like BattlefortheNet, were only some of the most outspoken voices of the debate fighting for the human rights aspect of net neutrality. In a study performed by The Berkman Center for Internet and Society, the amount of coverage and recognition the net neutrality debate received at different times during 2014 was cataloged to plainly show the ways the movement traveled through the Internet. Free Press, who was responsible for establishing the website savetheinternet.com, and battleforthenet.com, set up by another organization, were seen and shared multiple times throughout the debate. In the study, statistics are drawn from counting the number of “inlinks”, (inlinks are a measurement of links that direct to a website or webpage), certain sites or news stories got during the debate, and in september of 2014 battleforthenet received the highest number of inlinks among other sites at 103, (Faris). The ways sites like these helped use their influence to gain traction with those users who were aware of them was through providing insight into how anyone can help, (“The People Beat Comcast..”). In the case of battlefortheinternet, “they counted over two million emails sent, more than three hundred thousand phone calls, and close to eight hundred thousand additional comments to the FCC,” (Faris).
The results the movement desired were also significantly aided by Twitter and the public sphere that followed the stories as they were published. Battlefortheinternet and savetheinternet received 174, 927 and 7006 retweets, respectively, on only a few of their stories, (Faris). In another study focusing specifically on how Twitter influenced the net neutrality debate, a small data pool was collected during the beginning of 2014. They collected 6,289 tweets that contained #netneutrality all in a span of two weeks, and it was found that 4,150 users participated, and 1,477 links were cited that linked to news articles, blogs, government agencies and interest groups, (Lee). The ability to share information and ideas quickly ensured that throughout the movement, the lack of large online protests or coordinated efforts, at whatever moment the media was not focused on the issue of net neutrality, did not curb the conversation in a way that the movement did not want it to be taken.
It’s most beneficial to employ the concept of cloud protesting to explain the ways this type of movement maintained a relationship with its audience and its members. The power in this movement was the ways that it allowed the individual to participate at any moment, in anyway they chose, “online action encourages diverse participation by permitting individual activists to select specific activities to reflect their individuality, (Milan). Milan continues to also argue that cloud protesting can in turn weaken the movement by not setting up a set standard of loyalty and commitment that a geographically based protest would but that was certainly not the case here. The practices these groups had been taking allowed new members to constantly join in at any moment from anywhere, which rendered loyalty and commitment pointless. The loyalty and commitment had to come from the identity leaders, which consisted of large corporations invested in net neutrality, and large civil liberties organizations focused on mobilizing the public to voice the concerns from the bottom to the top in order to be heard. The main protesters were those who shared via Twitter and other social media websites, those who participated in sending the FCC emails and comments on their website, which in one instance was enough to crash their entire website (Faris), called out to members of congress, and all those who signed online petitions to keep the matter relevant. While Milan believes the cloud comes at the cost of a weakening, this protest movement speaks directly opposite to that, although the issue in this protest has a much larger framework of identity that applied to almost every citizen in the nation, rather than a smaller more contained identity.
Petitions and the American Identity
The rhetorical approaches of the net neutrality movement have been laid out and explained through the clarification of two prominent identities. The first already presented are large and small businesses concerned with the conservation of a neutral Internet in order to ensure a free marketplace. The second identity includes activist groups concerned with the problems an unprotected Internet would impose on civil liberties. Although the identities seem clearly different, the combined efforts imply that a shared goal mobilized each of them in a cooperative manner, which leads to a conclusion that together they shared a set of standards and values. This overlap created a larger framework for the way the identity behind this movement should defined. If the boundaries of identity are redefined, it will facilitate the argument that the participants of this protest operated under one all encompassing collective identity. This newly established concept of identity will then directly influence the analysis of the chosen protest movement artifact, a petition signed and sent directly to the White House, which was only one of many petitions in the larger movement.
The reformation of the movements identity is best applied to the idea that the movements players did not solely operate as defenders of open economic opportunities or open information channels, but as defenders of the American identity and principles. Deborah J. Schildkraut published a study in the Journal of Politics, where fundamental traits of what constitutes an American identity in the 21st century are listed. The most applicable trait to this protest movement is the concept of American liberalism, “liberalism, in short, is the image of America that comes most easily to mind when people think about what it means to be American...it stresses minimal government intervention in private life and promotes economic and political freedoms along with equality of opportunity,” (Schildkraut). The larger collective identity of “American” incorporates the concerns of the smaller groups, as well as the obvious fact that the movement is concerned with a domestic issue that would affect the American way of life. This concern over the conservation of all three issues, economic freedom, political freedom, and equality ties directly into the petition sent to the White House insisting the FCC change that way the Internet is classified under the Telecommunications Act, as well as the petition process as a form of protest.
On January 14, 2014 through the “We the People” platform, an intended service providing citizens with access to creating petitions directed towards the government, a petition was started requesting, “The Obama administration to: restore net neutrality by directing the FCC to classify Internet providers as ‘common carriers’,” (“Restore Net Neutrality By Directing…”). This particular petition reached a total of 105,572 signatures before being closed. Although the amount of signatures to this petition seems relatively small, the fact that the White House’s website on net neutrality labels the petition as an important event on the 2014 net neutrality timeline, points to how large of a response it actually created in an institute of seeded power, (“Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet”). Although the petition was much earlier in the 2014 series of events, it stood as a prime example of an American way of using what is essentially a platform to vote, in order to voice their complaints and their goals in an organized referendum.
This smaller scale petition serves in a larger stream of community activism through similar petitions, which compiled the voices of the movement into quantitative packages visible to the entirety of the population. The message of the January 14th petition was usually very similar to other petitions that were set up throughout the entire net neutrality movement, which usually all had to do with the desire to see the FCC take action to ensure an open Internet. Other websites that allow petition creation, like Change.org, hosted equally successful campaigns aimed at high power individuals, one of them being aimed Tom Wheeler the head of the FCC in 2014, that reached 99,863 signatures, (“Tom Wheeler: Save Net Neutrality”). Other related petitions gained far more attention and signatures from the general population. In 2006 during that first ever mentions of net neutrality more than a million people signed a petition asking for the FCC to ensure an open internet, (Pickard).
The petitions as an act of protest directly coincide with the Identity of the protesters as American. Each petition stated its specific purpose, often they had very similar purposes no matter what time in the net neutrality debate they were created. They demanded that the FCC regulate Internet service providers in order to preserve the characteristics of the Internet as they stood at the time. These characteristics of free economic pursuit, and freedom of speech were also the characteristic mentioned earlier that most Americans believed were a basic component of the American Identity.
The rhetorical situation of the petitions involve ethos, pathos and kairos in order to attain their supporters but also spread their message effectively. The ethos of this petition pertains to how the movement and its supporters are made to be trustworthy and the ethics of what is being argued. The entire movement on its own uses the American Identity as a force for ethos because it broadly blankets every citizen with its two principles stated earlier, a liberalism of economic and political rights. The patriotic implications of the movement were imbedded into the petitions in order to draw in as many concerned individuals to sign the petition and at that particular moment join the collective identity. On the other side of things, the ethos of the petitions established authority for the contributors to the FCC and those who had the power to change legislation. The authority for the contributors stemmed from the multitude of voices in various petitions all fighting for the same cause, which established their fight as a legitimate concern to the American people. The American Identity through this form of protest was displayed in a form that clearly defined its goals and supported it through the referendum, in a similar fashion to the American democratic system.
Pathos, the emotional persuasive element of the movement, was incorporated by the same principles. The petition, because of the way it was presented and its content, wanted to play on the American identity to get it to work as best as possible. Although the other forms of protest in the movement allowed individuals to share information about net neutrality, in the petition format there was an added element of giving supporters a vote. The other forms of Internet protest may have represented the American Identity as equally as the petitions, but the added emotional tie to the democratic system Americans recognize as an established way to influence issues brought in another element of persuasion to those who created the petitions to employ in their rhetorical tactics.
The interesting ways in which the petitions were hosted online, while also being easily accessible to practically everyone, allowed participants to sign from anywhere at anytime which in this case will be examined as kairos. It was the setting of the petitions, or rather the lack of actual location, that played a crucial part in the participation of the protesters. Through the online platform the petitions worked more on a national level. The geographic freedom was used very effectively, especially when the largest petitions are taken into consideration.
In all the forms stated above the American Identity and the net neutrality protest melded into a powerful movement that worked harmoniously to draw in as many protesters as possible with petitions to voice the concerns of the many in an organized manner. Although it is difficult to determine if other forms of protest would have worked better to invoke the identity of American within the net neutrality movement, the petition format brought in several important qualities that social media platforms may not have represented in the same way.
Concluding Comments
The net neutrality protest reached its conclusion in February of 2015 when the FCC finally changed the classification of the Internet allowing for stricter regulatory power over the service (“Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet”). This conclusion for the time being seems to be one destined for longevity but several organizations behind the original protest movement, most notably Free Press, continue to follow the issue in an attempt of monitor the actions of Internet Service Providers with a concern that they will attempt to bypass legislative loopholes in anyway possible to regain control of the Internet, (“Save the Internet”). Although the protest movement succeeded in both showing support for net neutrality and Internet user rights, the future of both those issues is undetermined as of this point.
As stated before, legislation that would allow ISPs to impose a new form of control over the fate of the Internet will always be at risk of exploitation until they are sealed tightly. Although organizations like Free Press dedicate themselves to getting the word out to the public in order to bring to light the actions of ISPs to undermine Internet freedoms, there is a fundamental issue to their vigilance, the disinterest of the public sphere after the conclusion of the net neutrality protest. The actions of ISPs appear to only matter to parties that are directly invested in them. Before net neutrality was secured, the mass mobilization of protest online found its way into virtually all facets of social media with emphasis on securing Internet rights. Now that the issue appears resolved, the voices of protest have died down, which could prove to be detrimental to the future of net neutrality or other Internet issues. However, the determination and diligence of the net neutrality protesters during this protest movement speaks positively for the future of Internet protest pertaining to the strength protesters mobilize.
A second situation that may or may not present on issue to net neutrality in the future is the presidency under which it was secured as well as the FCC leadership. It was a Barack Obama administration that aided in supporting net neutrality. The question remaining unanswered is how a future presidency might affect, not only net neutrality, but Internet rights generally. There is not a direct threat in view from a change in the oval office, or in the FCC commissioner, but it can be inferred that if the outside forces threatening the longevity of net neutrality rulings are ISPs, then the internal factors determining how legislation will be considered lie in the hands of those in power.
The net neutrality conversation appears to have concluded after the events of 2014, but it is difficult to determine how secure net neutrality or any Internet rights will be in a changing landscape. The Internet’s importance in modern society increases year after year leaving citizens and companies more dependent on how it is managed. This only adds to the pressures and responsibility both of them take on in making sure the Internet remains as neutral and beneficial as possible. It is a fair assumption that if not in the immediate future, the farther removed future holds in store many other protests when it comes to the Internet and how it will operate. Issues concerning the Internet are often difficult to resolve, seeing that something as largely agreed with from a multitude of participants like net neutrality took so long to finally be resolved, so the outcome of those possible protests will be determined by how well protesters mobilize their resources, which may mirror those methods used in the net neutrality movement, but will also have room to grow and change because of the fluidity of online platforms.
Work Cited
Faris, Robert, et al. "Score Another One for the Internet? The Role of the Networked Public Sphere in
the US Net Neutrality Policy Debate." The Role of the Networked Public Sphere in the US
Net Neutrality Policy Debate (February 10, 2015). Berkman Center Research Publication 2015-4 (2015).
Firth, Andrew C, and Natalie H Pierson. The Open Internet, Net Neutrality and the FCC.
New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc, 2011. Print.
Harpham, Bruce. "Net neutrality in the United States and the future of information policy." Faculty of
Information Quarterly [Online], 1.1 (2009): n. pag. Web. 2 Apr. 2016
Lee, Kyung Sun, Yoonmo Sang, & Weiai Wayne Xu. "The Shaping of the Network Neutrality Debate:
Information Subsidizers on Twitter." International Journal of Communication [Online], 9
(2015): 19. Web. 2 Apr. 2016
Milan, Stefania. "From Social Movements to Cloud Protesting: The Evolution of Collective Identity."
Information, Communication & Society. Web. 4 April. 2016.
Nagesh, Gautham. "Corporate News: Websites to Protest Net Neutrality Plan." Wall Street Journal,
Eastern edition ed.Sep 10 2014. ProQuest. Web. 1 Apr. 2016 .
"Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet." The White House. The White House, n.d. Web.
04 Apr. 2016.
Pickard, Victor. “Media Activism from Above and Below: Lessons from the 1940s American Reform
Movement”. Journal of Information Policy 5 (2015): 109–128. Web.
"Restore Net Neutrality By Directing the FCC to Classify Internet Providers as "Common Carriers"."
Restore Net Neutrality By Directing the FCC to Classify Internet Providers as "Common
Carriers". WhiteHouse.gov, 15 Jan. 2014. Web. 04 Apr. 2016.
"Save the Internet." Free Press. Free Press, n.d. Web. 04 Apr. 2016.
Schildkraut, Deborah J.. “Defining American Identity in the Twenty-first Century: How Much “there” Is
There?”. The Journal of Politics 69.3 (2007): 597–615. Web.
Stiegler, Zach. Regulating the Web: Network Neutrality and the Fate of the Open Internet.
Rowman and Littlefield, 2013. Print.
"The People Beat Comcast and Won Net Neutrality." Battle For The Net. N.p., n.d. Web.
04 Apr.2016.
"Tom Wheeler: Save Net Neutrality." Change.org. Student Net Alliance, n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment