Telegraph and Internet: Dawns of New Eras

Both the telegraph and internet signaled incredibly exciting new eras in information speed.  The US government’s general lack of action in the two services save for regulation has made for a rather open market, and has created the problems with net neutrality that we now face. When the telegraph was developing in the early 1800s, the US Congress was faced with a mode of communication with unheard of rapidity.  In 1843, Congress appropriated $43,000 towards experiments with telegraph technology.  This would be the extent of any significant interest by the US Government.  Clearly, they did not understand the magnitude of what was in front of them, and yet the telegraph was used by Congress to send Nevada’s state constitution to President Lincoln for his signature, an action which strengthened his support in Congress.

The US government took a similar approach to internet that it did to telegraph, with little interest in funding or controlling the service.  This has led to a very open market, with only a handful of regulations imposed by the government.  One sticking point has been that of net neutrality, but the recent events in court with Google and Verizon have thrown this area into choas as well.

Had the government imposed some kind of greater control, we may have seen better results in the interests of net neutrality.  However, had the government stepped in, a host of other problems could have occurred, services could have become slower and mediocre, and there would have been no market competition.  I think that they best course for the future of government regulation is one which regulates in law only, and refuses deals for the cessation of net neutrality.

Blog 14

There are many parallels between the development of the internet today and the development of the telegraph and later the telephone. The U.S government took somewhat differing approaches to its involvement in these new technological developments. The U.S government did not take a large interest in financing or encouraging the adoption of the telegraph and instead left it up to private industry. The Internet, however, was not devised by a individual and was instead a creation of DARPA, the military research branch of the U.S. government. It was early on used to connect research universities and later on began to enter the private sphere with the proliferation of email. Just like the telegrpah in the past, the U.S. government did not take a personal stake in proliferating the internet through goverment run/controlled enterprise and left it up to private companies to build and control the national infrastructure. There was then and still is now strong opposition from certain groups of U.S. citizens to government involvement in business of any kind. Such pressures have contributed to the current situation where the U.S. government oversees the communication infrastructure, rather than actively running and developing it.

To examine the alternative one need only glace across the Atlantic and look at the European nations and their infrastructure. The government exercises much tighter control and there is greater competition between competitors. This is opposed to the U.S where there are typically only a couple large companies that provide phone and Internet in any given area, the winners in the days of more fierce early competition. If the U.S. government had played a more active role in pushing nation-wide adoption of the telegraph, I feel that it would have been adopted early and been available to more consumers much quicker and at lower prices. That is of course assuming the government could run the industry in the interest of the people and not just those running it. Something businesses struggle with no less than government it seems.

To consider what the landscape would look like if the U.S. had done so with the internet, there is no better example than South Korea. The South Korean government took an early and a dedicated stake in the development of its national Internet infrastructure. It pushed ubiquitous coverage and the latest technology associated with it. As a result, South Korea has the fastest Internet speeds of any nation and does have not the digital divide in the U.S. where the urban centers have broadband and rural areas are forced to settle for dial-up. While this may not have been or be the most desirable solution for lining the pockets of the telecommunication companies, I see this as a much better solution for the nation as a whole and the citizens of the U.S.  The South Korean government has recently begun making plans to spread 1Gbs internet around the country when the U.S. can’t even get 1mbs internet to people in Nebraska. I don’t think anyone needs a commentator to tell them who is winning the Internet arms race.

Media Regulation Re-Write

In spite of the 9/11 attacks, I believe that the government should have the ability to restrict the media, if and only if, it could affect national security.  Media regulation today is one of the most difficult tasks to accomplish, especially given our nation’s advancement in technology.  Anyone with access to a computer can upload whatever information they please to the internet which makes it very difficult to regulate. 

Events such as the airtstrike video that Bradley Manning leaked should be censored from the general public.  Imagine if you were a family member of either the pilots or the journalists; is that something you would want the world to see?  Releasing videos such as that one may cause citizens to lose faith in the government and our national defense.  The government isn’t perfect and does make mistakes at times.  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 continues to uphold the requirement of the media serving in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity,” and this is not clearly defined.  The release of such a video (or one similar), in my opinion, does not meet the public convenience or necessity.

With an increase in regulation on the media for the benefit of our national security, people may feel that their First Amendment rights are being violated.  No one is ever 100% satisfied, and sacrifices must be made for the interest of our national security.  The FCC’s job is to regulate the media, whether it’s for television ratings, censoring profanities, or cutting out a program that may be found as offensive.  For all of the radicals who feel that the media shouldn’t be regulated period, why does the FCC regulate offensive language?  They allow you to bash the government as you please.  The FCC should only step in and regulate the media when it’s a potential threat to national security.

The shield laws mean well.  But if what the journalist publishes from a “confidential source” is related to a potential threat to our nation, then the shield laws should be voided and the journalist prosecuted unless the source is revealed.  Any media that could be potentially threatening to our national security should not be published or viewed by the general public.  First Amendment rights only go to the point where national security is involved.

Blog 4- Media Regulation Rewrite

Blog 4 Rewrite 

In light of the attacks on September 11^th, I think the US government should be allowed to block publication of material.  Many people would disagree with me on this, saying that allowing this would only segue into less free speech.  Allowing the government to control what is published on the Internet would, undoubtedly, lessen free speech, but it would also protect national security.  Which would you rather protect: free speech or American lives?

            This is most currently relevant in the Wikileaks debate that has been going on since the site first began in 2006.  Wikileaks was started by Julian Assange, as a site that was untraceable and uncensorable, and attempted to give society the real idea of what was going on and what was being hidden by the government.

            Personally, I think Wikileaks is awful and should be taken down immediately, for many different reasons.  Firstly, Assange has no right to post American government documents on the Internet that he obtained through treason.  Assange is Australian and has no stake in American politics, making him more willing to throw America to the dogs.  He posts documents and videos from governments other than his own, because if he betrayed his own country he could be tried for treason- something he cannot be tried for by other governments he betrays.  Some may argue that Assange has a right to make these documents public; it is not libel, they are actual government documents.  The matter still remains that Assange is making public classified documents and videos, things that were kept from the public for a specific reason, which he overlooks.  Secondly, Assange claims that he is trying to give the public the plain blatant truth about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.  Yet Assange edits the videos he uploads, and titles them with her personal beliefs of what occurred.  In the video about the Iraqi journalists being killed he titles it “Collateral Murder” and cuts the video down from 40 minutes.  The edited and titled video is released loudly and publically, while the raw footage is quietly added to the Internet.  Assange is doing exactly what he was attempting to prevent! He shows the public what he wants them to see, while leaving a small trail of truth.  His hypocritical moves demonstrate his deeper motives than freedom of speech and governmental truth.  He aims to destroy trust in the American government (for reasons currently unknown) and preach his off-kilter beliefs about what is happening in the war.

Government Regulation of Media

The US government should show restraint in investigating and potentially blocking written materials. It is written in the constitution that everyone is entitled to free speech.  I think citizens would be upset if the United States changed its core values because of one incident. There has always been a struggle over how much power governments should have, and the banning of certain reading materials deemed dangerous would give the government too much power. Past governments who have banned controversial reading materials were not very successful. Countries like the USSR and Nazi Germany banned reading materials, and they no longer exist. It is difficult for anyone to not react to a threat, especially the US government. It would also be difficult for people to that if a preventable tragedy occurred. A positive would be that more people’s ideas could be heard. A negative would be that there could be a possibility that there are more attacks that maybe could have been prevented. However, there will always be tragedies that cannot be prevented.

Governmental Regulation of the Media

Regarding the simple idea of the government regulating all aspects of the media, I do not think this is the direction our nation should be headed in. Our nation is based on freedom of speech and other core values that allow us to speak out and promote individualism. This is something that I think should never be obolished through control of the media. However, I do think that the government should have the right to play a vital role in regulation of the media. I think that yes, the government should be allowed to exercise more power for prior restraint and to block publication of material it feels might hurt national security interests. This seems obvious! Protecting the rights and safety of national security should be in our nation’s best interest. Of course, it should also be in our best interest to express ourselves, but only to a certain extent. Blocking publication of something that may be harmful can be a necessary move to protect national security, and the government should have the green light to assess the matter. A difficulty in doing this may be argumentation on what exactly is material that could be threatening. This may cause a lot of controversy. Nonetheless, despite the controversy and differing points of view, I feel that the government should ultimately be able to control threatening or harmful publications in the media to keep our nations ideals and practices in place.

Government and Media

Even with the events of September 11, 2001 and the recent Wikileaks debacle, the United States government should not be allowed to exercise more control over the media than it presently can.  Media regulation is an extremely slippery slope, especially in the eyes of Americans, who hold freedom of speech as one of the highest civil rights.  If the government were to start censoring websites, such as Wikileaks, it would be a direct violation of the first amendment.  I do not have any problem with the court martial of the private involved in the Wikileaks cables, because he essentially violated his contract of employment as a United States soldier.  The area that draws question for me is when Julian Assange and Wikileaks are being targeted.  This area of regulation is pretty new to me, but if laws have been broken by Assange, then these laws should be changed.  Though these cables may have a detrimental effect on US Foreign Policy, the results will not be permanent, and we will certainly be able to rebound.  The government should have no right to limit information that is true because it is damaging to foreign policy.  I understand that no government is perfect, but if secrets must be hidden then they should be hidden extremely well.

As far as media regulation of obscenity and violence, I do agree with the government regulation currently in place.  The media corporations should have some regulation so as to be held accountable to established standards of decency.  Clearly these standards are dynamic and will change over time, but it is important to always have that standard.

Media Regulation

I do not think the U.S. government should be getting involved in media regulation because the very act of media regulation goes against our right to free speech.  Plenty of people both good and bad have and deserve access to the Internet, and it’s impossible to determine what exactly is “hurtful” of national security interests.

The difficulty in allowing restriction of the Internet is that once an entity has the power of control, it will become increasingly difficult to manage their ability and choice to regulate beyond what is only absolutely necessary and relevant.  With the greedy nature of politicians and lobbyists today, restriction would quickly become just another tool in the government’s arsenal of ways to skew our mind, perception, and vote in their favor.  I think it’s a challenge to determine who and what group of individuals is given the power to execute such a strong authority.

If the government chose not to listen and began blocking material – on the positive side, our Internet would certainly become a cleaner, friendlier place with a more positive outlook on the United States.  However on the negative side, the government could be hiding the truth from us, people with peaceful albeit differing viewpoints could be silenced without just cause, and the reliability of information could become questionable.

If the government took my position and maintained net neutrality, the Internet would continue to mimic the harsh but true reality that our real life looks like every day.  By simply blocking Internet pages, the government wont be able to completely stop groups and persons that intend to harm the United States.  But they will make a lot of people even more infuriated with the U.S. government.  The Internet is a tool that is of equal importance and value to every person that chooses to utilize it, and the government should know its people would never stand for a regulated, restricted Internet space.

 

 

 

 

Regulation of the Media: A Happy Medium?

Since September 11^th, 2001, national security has increased significantly. At the time, we as a nation thought that our safety as a nation was imperative to our survival. That still holds true for me. The regulation of the media in our country must be closely watched by the people. Essentially, I believe that the government should have more power to block threatening aspects of our and world media. This power, however, must be precisely worded. The first amendment is central to what America is, and to change it would be changing what we all unified under. That said, the constitution was written in the late 1700s, I doubt our forefathers saw this digital age. We cannot literally interpret the constitution 100%. We must consider the ideals and basic human rights given to us in the Amendments. I am not suggesting that we change any of these pieces of legislature. Just that we add on to them. Did James Madison of Virginia think that women or African Americans would vote in 1787? Probably not. One of the things that makes America so great is that we adapt. There must be some way to compromise between two extremes: not suppressing any information and suppressing all information. I think the only possible outcome will be through legislature. Let’s face it; the government already blocks a lot of information, it would be naïve to think otherwise. Why not regulate that? People act in their own self interests in higher government because there are no, or not enough, checks and balances. We need more organizations to ensure that the nation’s interests are being upheld. We do have a multitude of safeguards- but we could use more.

When it comes down to it, it is a question of whether the nation is more important than the individual. Should the individual be educated about what is happening in their country, or just leave it up to the “upper management”? Could the people even handle the truth media would show? Without the individuals, there would be no nation. Yet, without a nation we wouldn’t have a government. So is anarchy the answer?  We are less powerful divided. As much as I hate to say it, therefore, the individual can be less important than the whole. Between personal freedom and national security, national security wins. Unless we make this system one of an “every man for himself” mentality, it will always win. Government restriction for security should only be used when necessary however. Those instances where government intervention exists need to be analyzed clearly, that’s where we run into the problem.

How do we decide what should be regulated and who gets to make that decision? Should we paint a good picture of the government? Or of the television companies? Whoever pays the most money? Should we regulate based on past experiences, like 9/11? Does the president get to decide, or perhaps congress? I guess it will all depend on the situations that we cannot foresee. The possible corruption is expected; we need to create airtight legislature and consequences for deviating from that legislature.

Media Regulation

I believe that the media should be regulated to a certain extent by the government. There are just some pieces of information that shouldn’t be revealed to the public, because if it was, it could jeopardize the integrity of our national security. Top secret informational leaks that are published or posted on the net would create a danger towards the U.S. because it would give other countries and enemies of the United States knowledge of our inner workings.

Restricting the media would be very difficult task though. The media has grown a tremendous amount in the past decade and shows no signs of slowing down. Regulating television shows and newpapers is hard enough for the government to control and the internet would be a bigger challenge to control since it is so large. For instance the government is having problems with trying to make sure sites like Wikileaks aren’t compromising national sectrets. A similar scenario occured with the Pentagon Papers where the NY Times was allowed to publish the Papers due to the First Amendment rights.  There would also be some problems in censoring the media. Some of these conflicts would be things like where to draw the line when it comes to block publication, also determining who will have the power to decide what to censor and what not to censor.  Another problem to controlling media would be the cost. It would take a tremendous amount of money to be able to regulate every part of the media.

Even though the job of controlling the media is very difficult, it must be done to protect the citizens of the United States. If the government didn’t regulate the media, enemies of the U.S. could obtain the innermost secrets of the U.S., and use that to their advantage. We can all sleep better at night knowing that the government is protecting our nation’s secrets. 

Overall I believe that blocking the media in certain areas is essential in creating a safe and secure nation. Though it may create conflict, in the larger picture, regulation does more good than harm.