Some American politicians, human rights activists and advocates of internet freedom say that to regulate the Internet is to abandon it. The opponents respond: What is the difference between the Internet and the press/TV? If we regulate conventional mass media, we should do the same with the Internet, especially as the USA is already regulating its segment.
Other countries are planning to discuss the issue during the forthcoming conference of the International Telecommunications Union.
What do they mean by “internet regulation”? Why do some experts promote the idea of regulating the Internet while others oppose the idea?
UN Wants To Regulate Internet
The ITU conference will probably become a battlefield. On the one hand, a group of countries (ITU members) headed by Russia and China are going to demand the right to regulate the national segment of the Internet.
On the other hand, a group of countries headed by the USA, which is in control of domain distribution, seems to oppose the idea.
Arguments And Reasoning
Advocates of regulation:
The internet has become a major source of information and has a considerable impact on global economic and political processes. To leave it unregulated is to hand this powerful weapon to enemies, from terrorists to foreign secret services.
Moreover, today’s unregulated Internet is a home for cyber-criminals and scammers as well as various maniacs, pedophiles etc.
Social networks become dangerous as people can team up to drive other people to despair and even suicide. Journalists can violate people’s privacy and publish personal and intimate information about them.
Therefore, the Internet must be regulated to eliminate these problems.
The unregulated Internet (or regulated by the USA alone) has been the weapon of military cyber-attacks, not to mention manipulative technologies that provoke instability and disorder.
They say that any country has a sovereign right to regulate the Internet. So, they offer:
· To let the UN be the major regulator of the Internet
· To introduce universal identification of internet users (i.e. to eliminate anonymity)
· To regulate the Internet the way it is done with phone networks
Opponents:
The unregulated and decentralized Internet is developing fast. If to impose some regulation on it, the development will see a major slowdown.
Any “monetization” of the Internet will limit the access to information in numerous countries around the globe because providers will simply stop delivering costly info to certain countries.
All the reference to cybercrimes, fraud schemes, porno and other horrors of the Internet is nothing but a lame excuse for an attempt to impose censorship and to reduce freedom of speech.
The US stock market is currently showing an indecisive rally amid more optimistic expectations concerning the resolution of the “fiscal cliff” issue. In this aspect, the US Federal Communications Commission has become the most vehement adversary of internet regulation, along with Google.
By the way, Google’s stock declined by 8% in October after the company published a negative quarterly report. According to Lionstone Investment Services Ltd (a TOP member of ’s rating of Forex brokers ), Google’s net income declined by 20% (y/y).
Google openly condemns those states that vote for regulating the Internet.
In essence, al the counterarguments can be reduced to one thesis: internet regulation violates freedom of speech. Moreover, such offers are discussed through voting at conferences behind closed doors. If to consider the fact, that such offers are initiated mainly by Russia and Arab states, Western politicians definitely assume that freedom of speech is in jeopardy.
However, some experts say that there is no reason to treat those counterarguments seriously. Freedom of speech seem to be ignored by the very same Western powers (Is it Russia or China that prosecutes Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks?).
Expert Opinion:
We shouldn’t go to extremes. Russia, China and other states do not promote censorship on the Net. They want the USA to hand the existing control over the internet to the UN.
By the way, why don’t those human rights activists defend the openness and accessibility of information when it comes to copyright? If they view the Internet as a new reality with a free access to information, why do they blame file hosting services for piracy? Because copyright is all about money.
According to Eugene Olkhovsky, ’s leading expert, this discussion isn’t worth a bean. The Internet is currently regulated by a small group of countries. Others want to expand the list through the involvement of the UN. On the other hand, some countries do not need any conferences to ban certain websites (like in the case when Uzbekistan banned Market Leader).
Anyway, analysts expect the forthcoming conference to drive the stocks of major dotcoms. The direction of the trend will depend on the outcome…
