PHASES OF INTERNET REGULATION

PHASES OF INTERNET REGULATION
Phase 1: The Open Internet (the 1960s to 2000).
The first phase, roughly from the Internet’s initial formation in the 1960s through about
2000, is the period of the “open Internet.” This term was intended to convey descriptive,
predictive, and normative meanings. During this initial period of the network’s
development, the dominant theory – to the extent that anyone was thinking seriously
about regulation at all – was that the Internet itself was a separate space, often called
“cyberspace.” The concept of cyberspace melded the creativity of the science fiction
writer with the aspirations of the democratic theorist dreaming of a fresh start. As a
descriptive matter, there was much truth to the argument: up until the late 1990s, most
states tended either to ignore online activities or to regulate them very lightly. When
states did pay attention to activities online, they tended to think about and treat them very
differently from activities in real-space. The term proved inaccurate as a predictive
matter. On a normative level, there is still salience to the concept of the open net that is
worth continuing to bear in mind.

Phase 2: Access Denied (2000 to 2005).
The second phase of development of the Internet, from roughly 2000 to 2005, is the
“Access Denied” period. During this second era, states and others came to think of
activities and expression on the Internet as things that needed to be blocked or managed
in various ways. The thinking was that certain acts of speech and organizing online
needed to be regulated like any other. The initial reaction, by states such as China and Saudi Arabia in the first instance, was to erect filters or other means to block people from
accessing certain information.

Phase 3: Access Controlled (2005 to 2010).
The third phase, from 2005 roughly to the present day, is the “access controlled” phase.
Access controlled characterizes a period during which states have emphasized regulatory
approaches that function not only like filters or blocks, but also as variable controls. The
salient feature of this phase is the notion that there are a large series of mechanisms, at a
variety of points of control, that can be used to limit access to knowledge and
information. These mechanisms can be layered on top of the basic filters and blocks established during the previous era. (Deibert and Rohozinski, in Deibert et al. 2010: 3 -
12.)

Phase 4: Access Contested (2010 and beyond).
Today, circa 2010, we are headed into a fourth phase, called “access contested.” The key
notion behind this new phase is that there is, and will be more, pushback against some of
these controls. There is an ongoing contest over what this hybrid environment will look
like over time. There is a growing political debate about the way in which these
regulations are carried out by states around the world. At a state-to-state level, the
militarization of cyberspace that has been happening over the last few years is an
important part of this emerging narrative.

Conclusion
Public reaction to Internet regulation also points to the contest that is beginning to play
out in public arenas around the world. Demonstrators in Pakistan in 2010 made plain
their disagreement with the state’s decision to increase the incidence of Internet blocking.
China’s mandate that hardware providers install Green Dam filtering software on new
computers before they shipped met with substantial resistance and was pulled back. The
Malaysian state has publicly struggled with political pressure to start filtering. Plans to
institute state-mandated filtering in Australia were shelved after extensive public
push-back. The last chapter has yet to be written in the back-and-forth between Google
and China about whether unfiltered search results may be presented to Chinese Internet
users. And in contrast to most other examples, there appears to be vocal public support in
favor of pornography filtering in Indonesia. (OpenNet Initiative Blog 2010) These and
many other contests like them will play out in the years to come.

      BY DAHAYE THERESIA 42544 BAPRM