ARTS & FARCES internet

Until now all of the talk of a two-tiered internet swirled around voice-over-IP (VOIP) vendors and Google’s ad revenue. It was difficult to wrap a mind around the idea that the internet would ever be anything other than a fulfillment of its original design—an open and neutral network. In a neutral network, carriers treat all data traveling on the network equally. A two-tiered strategy would allow carriers to prioritize their own data traffic—or that of the highest bidder—over that of their competitors. Network neutrality is what has allowed carriers to argue that they are common carriers rather than publishers. Network neutrality allows the best products to bubble to the top; common carrier status allows the telephone companies and internet service providers to disclaim any responsibility for content carried on their networks.

But carriers—mostly the Baby Bell and cable duopolies—are starting to venture into the realm of tiered service, such as offering prioritized VOIP service at a premium. The not-so-clear implication is that other, non-premium, traffic will be relegated to a lower priority of service on the network. Some carriers were starting to block VOIP traffic until the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) forced them to stop. Some providers deny they’re prioritizing certain traffic (or more accurately, assigning what they call parasitic traffic such as VOIP and BitTorrent lower priority on the network). Others admit they’re using “traffic shaping” techniques to prioritize certain data traffic on their networks.

There’s some indication that providers may be gearing up to charge different rates for different types of traffic, including servers. BellSouth’s Chief Technology Officer, William L. Smith, recently broached the topic by speculating that charging premiums to websites for prioritized traffic—Yahoo might pay a premium to have its pages load faster than Google’s, for example—might constitute a viable business model.

Should internet companies be regulated to ensure free speech? That’s the question posed by Reporters Without Borders. And the organization’s answer is an unqualified maybe, but only as a last resort. Citing numerous examples of US technology companies—including Microsoft, Cisco, and Yahoo!—working with repressive governments to stifle free expression, the organization proposes six ways to force these companies to behave ethically:

1. No US company could host email servers within a country with a repressive government.
2. Search engines would not be allowed to use automatic censor filters.
3. No US company could host content servers within a country with a repressive government.
4. Either US companies could no longer sell censorware to repressive governments or it would have to be neutered.
5. US companies would have to obtain permission from the US Commerce Department in order to sell surveillance technology to repressive states.
6. US companies would have to obtain permission from the US Commerce Department in order to provide surveillance or censorship training in countries with repressive governments.

On the surface, this reads like an admirable proposal. But it’s a proverbial slippery slope of unintended consequences. Reporters Without Borders proposes that before legislation is enacted, “a group of congressmen formally ask Internet corporations to reach an agreement among themselves on a code of conduct;” namely its six-item ethical laundry list. The request would include a deadline for the companies to submit a draft code of conduct to the congresscritters. If the deadline is missed, only then would the legislation be drafted.

Politically, it’s a non-starter. As Dan Gillmor points out, Congress is heavily skewed to the interests of corporations and even though few congresscritters would like to get caught in a floor vote favoring censorship, such a measure would never come to a vote—for that very reason.

But more importantly, the regulation of expression, in any form—either by corporation or government—is something to be avoided at close to any cost.

“LSD spoke to me. He came to me an said, ‘You must find me.’ He told me, ‘Don’t give me to the pharmacologist, he won’t find anything.’” So said Albert Hoffman to Craig Smith writing for the New York Times. Hoffman, the Swiss chemist who first synthesized LSD-25 from ergot, is convinced that the psychoactive substance can help people reconnect to the universe:

“‘Outside is pure energy and colorless substance,’ he said. ‘All of the rest happens through the mechanism of our senses. Our eyes see just a small fraction of the light in the world. It is a trick to make a colored world, which does not exist outside of human beings.’”

Hofmann, who turns 100 next week, recalls the first planned psychedelic test when in 1951 he ingested the substance with German novelist Ernst Junger. Both individuals took 0.05 milligrams at Hofmann’s home “accompanied by roses, music by Mozart and burning Japanese incense.” The first psychedelic test was unplanned and occurred on 19 April 1943 when Hoffman and an assistant rode bicycles after taking a tiny dose. That day has since been universally known as “bicycle day.”

Congress’s research department, the Congressional Research Service, yesterday released a report indicating that President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping of American citizens “rests on questionable legal grounds,” according to Eric Lichtblau’s and Scott Shane’s account in the New York Times. Specifically, and most strikingly, the analysis disputes President Bush’s position that Congress “authorized or acquiesced” the surveillance activities.

Thomas H. Kean, the Republican chair of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, spoke for the first time on the issue, saying that the Bush administration had failed to inform the commission about the warrantless surveillance and that he “doubted the legality of the program.” “We live by a system of checks and balances,” Kean told the New York Times. “And I think we ought to continue to live by a system of checks and balances.”

In an even more disturbing development, Representative Rush Holt (D-New Jersey) released a letter stating he was “actively misled” by the director of the National Security Agency (NSA). Holt said that he attended a 6 December 2005 privacy briefing in which NSA director Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander assured him that surveillance of American citizens was being carried out only under warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

A Minnesota weblog libel case is brewing that may have national implications for purveyors of new media. Michael Brodkorb writing anonymously on his weblog, Minnesota Democrats Exposed, cited an unnamed source claiming that local public relations firm New School Communications had become publicly critical of Coleen Rowley’s congressional campaign after Rowley rejected a contract with the PR firm.

New School’s law suit claims that the source “may, in fact, be a fabrication” and that new media should be held to the same journalistic standards as traditional media. Brodkorb—former research director for the Minnesota Republican Party—says his source deserves protection, probably under the state’s shield law (scroll down to the section on Minnesota).

According to both the Minneapolis StarTribune and Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Rowley’s campaign maintains that the PR firm did submit a fundraising proposal but that it was subsequently rejected. New School insists that no such proposal was ever submitted to the campaign. As to the accuracy of Brodkorb’s claim that New School Communications was publicly critical of Rowley’s campaign, Brodkorb’s website cites a 27 October 2005 Associated Press report quoting New School Communications president Blois Olson: