The Loudspeaker of the 21st Century: An Argument for the International

Protection of Internet Access as a Basic Human Right

In 1948, Justice Douglas, in announcing the majority opinion of Saia v. New York, 334

U.S. 558, striking down a penal ordinance that required prior approval by the Chief of Police to

use loudspeakers in public fora, stated that “[l]oud-speakers are today indispensable instruments

of effective public speech.”1 In ruling that the ordinance was an impermissible restriction on free

speech in a public forum, Justice Douglas found that an instrument of expression is an element of

free speech. Since 1948, there have been number of significant changes in communication

technologies. While the radio continued to grow in popularity and the television was born, these

telecommunication devices would ultimately be no match against what was on the horizon

during the late 20th century. By far, the most important communication technology to have

emerged in the 20th century is the Internet. This paper argues for an international scheme of

protection for basic access to the Internet because of its increasing role as the premier tool for

accessing information, free speech, business transacting and human interaction. The paper will

start with a brief introduction to the related issues, give a historical and technological explanation

of the Internet, describe of the ways in which governments around the world restrict Internet

access and then define the ways in which an international framework would operate to protect a

free and open Internet.2

I. INTRODUCTION

1 Saia v. New York at 561

2 It is important to note that the word free in the phrase “free and open”—which is used frequently throughout this
paper—is meant to connote the idea of freedom as related to liberty, not free as in free beer.
 During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Internet in its current form began to gain

mainstream popularity. The first consumer Internet service providers were coming into

existence3 and the first graphic user interface browsers were developed.4 Over the last twenty

years, the Internet has grown from being somewhat of a novelty, with relatively few users, to a

worldwide phenomenon with nearly a quarter of the world's population having access to the it.5

Along with this raw increase in the number of Internet users came several fundamental changes

to the aspect of users' everyday lives. The rise of the Internet has changed nearly every facet of

modern life. People now communicate instantly via instant messaging, receive news on demand,

earn college degrees, watch streaming movies, keep tabs on their government and buy nearly

every type of good imaginable from an Internet-accessible device. Arguably, outside of the

printing press or the distillation of thought into the written word, nothing has changed the lives

of humans in the way that the Internet has.

One of the most important functions the Internet has come to serve is the de facto

marketplace for the sharing of ideas. The Internet has allowed for people with similar ideas,

beliefs and interests to congregate together on message boards, in Internet Relay Chat (IRC)

channels and social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter;6 it has provided a forum for

political debate; and it has allowed for individuals, instead of organizations, to report
3 There is somewhat of a debate as to what company was the first commercial Internet service provider. Some
claim that Professor Andrew Burt of the University of Denver was first in creating Nyx while others claim that
Spike Ilacqua's Internet service provider, The World, was first. Regardless of what firm was the first, both
claimed to have begun offering service in 1989.
4 History of the Internet, pg 153-154. The first graphic user interface web browser, WorldWideWeb (WWW), was
created by Tim Berners-Lee in 1991 while working at CERN. In 1993, a couple of University of Illinois
professors released the graphic user interface browser Mosaic. Both of these browsers were key for opening the
Internet to private individuals who were not able to use the prior-existing tools due to computer-illiteracy.
5 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER/countries?cid=GPD_58&display=graph
6 For a recent view on how social networking sites have played a role in international affairs, see
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-02-13/business/28532426_1_social-media-facebook-and-twitter-facebook-ceo-
mark-zuckerberg and http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-02-07-egyptyouth07_ST_N.htm describing
Facebook and Twitter's recent roles in the Egyptian revolution.
newsworthy events. For four hours following the 1991 bombings of Israel by Iraq, the “#report”

channel of an Israeli IRC server was the only source of information throughout Europe.7 In the

recent Egypt revolution, the Internet played an even greater news-reporting role. Throughout the

protests and gatherings, and when the Internet was available, protesters were sharing information

about recent events, the success of protests and the state's reaction.8 Seeing the importance and

power of Twitter updates, Qatar-based Al Jazeera, a prominent new agency in the Arab world,

created a Twitter dashboard that would incorporate Twitter updates from protesters and Al

Jazeera news updates, providing even more expansive coverage.9 Twitter had such an impact, in

fact, that a book recounting the Egyptian revolution will be written using only Twitter updates.10

In a less serious example, Internet reporting proved itself to be quicker and equally as influential

as traditional media during the reporting of the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton scandal, featured

on Matt Drudge's website The Drudge Report, which is widely viewed as the first big news story

to develop primarily on the Internet.11 These examples go to show the growing role of the

Internet in the reporting and delivery of important, newsworthy events.

More importantly, however, the Internet has allowed for Internet users to come together

and not just report news, but participate and significantly influence newsworthy events. While

there is some argument about how much of a role social media websites like Twitter and

Facebook practically played in recent revolutions in the Arab world,12 such websites have altered
7 History of the Internet, page 160. Due to the damage caused by the bombings and the potential dangers posed by
further bombings, mainstream news agencies were unable to report on the event. However, due to the Internet
and, specifically, IRC, Israelis on the ground were able to to keep the world abreast of the attack.
8 http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-02-07-egyptyouth07_ST_N.htm
9 http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Al-Jazeera-Plans-to-Tweet-the-Revolution-117596479.html
10 http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-07/tech/book.egypt.tweets.mashable_1_tweets-microblogging-platform-
revolution?_s=PM:TECH
11 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/clinton_scandal/50031.stm. While Newsweek had the first
chance of running the Monica Lewinsky story, the magazine decided not to report the story.
12 On one side of the argument, there are naysayers like Malcolm Gladwell who believe that social media sites are
“well suited to making the existing social order more efficient” and “not a natural enemy of the status quo.”
(October 2010 article, Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted). On the other side, you have on-
the-ground protesters like Wael Ghonim, an Egyptian activist and the head of marketing in the Middle East and
North Africa for search giant Google. In multiple interviews, Ghonim has highlighted the importance of not only
the way participants in such revolutions perceive and interact with the information related to the

uprisings.13 While protesters and revolutionaries of decades past had to rely on word of mouth,

physical transportation of notes and, perhaps, telephone systems, the Internet has allowed for

protesters to share information instantly from any Internet-connected device, thus changing the

balance between a government and its citizens.

Additionally, the Internet has changed the way governments interact with its citizens. In

2008, after President Obama took office, he elected for the first time in history to deliver the

weekly presidential addresses via video distributed via the user-generated video sharing website,

YouTube.14 Internationally, the Internet has played an even larger role in democracy. In 2007,

Estonia became the first country in the world to allow voting via the Internet in a national

election.15 In general, the Internet has come to play a significant role in the two-way

communication between governments and citizens.

In the same democratic vein, the Internet has allowed for citizens to keep check on their

governments in ways likely never envisioned before the advent of such a tremendous

communication tool. Rooted in the idea of democracy is the belief that democratic governments

are created by the people and only derive their powers due to the consent of the people.16 An

unstated premise of this fundamental belief is that people will have access to information in

order to give informed consent to government. This same principle animates the Freedom of the

Press proviso of the First Amendment. As Justice Stewart stated in his now famous speech about

the first amendment, the founders established the constitutional guarantee of free press to create

social media websites like Facebook and Twitter, but the Internet in general in the Egypt Revolution. See
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/11/i-meet-mark-zuckerberg-personally-google-exec-tells-cnn/ and
http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/ghonim-our-revolution-wikipedia for Ghonim's view on the Internet's role in
democratic revolutions.
13 http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/01/the-twitter-revolution-debate-the-egyptian-test-case/21296/ .
14 http://news.cnet.com/obama-to-deliver-weekly-address-via-youtube/
15 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/technology/22iht-evote.4691301.html
16 Declaration of Independence
a fourth institution (outside of the three political branches) as an official check on government.

In plain terms, Justice Stewart stated that “[t]he public's interest in knowing about its government

is protected by the guarantee of a Free Press.”17 While the traditional press has served such a

function and continue to do so, the Internet in general, the traditional press using the broad

capabilities of the Internet and other organizations like Wikileaks have bestowed individuals with

power to more keep check on their government.18

As the role of the Internet in users' lives continues to increase, so does users' reliance.

Like anything else, with more reliance comes more or greater issues when existence on what you

are relying becomes unavailable. For instance, in many places throughout the United States, a

car is a basic necessity for everyday life. For some people, getting to and from work, traveling to

the grocery store to buy food and visiting friends and family is contingent on the functioning of

their car. If these people were to suddenly be without their car or any viable replacement, such

activities would be impossible.19 Arguably, current reliance on the Internet is not as great as

people's reliance on things like cars or plumbing, but there are instances where a serious

disruption in Internet service could harm a moderately-active Internet subscriber. For instance,

many Internet users rely on email and company webportals to receive and pay bills, respectively.

If Internet connectivity were to be severed completely or if there were to be a malfunction in the

processing of email on the client's end, there could be a lack of payment and, potentially, a

17 These statement originally were given during an address on November 2, 1974 at the Yale School
Sesquicentennial Convocation. It was reprinted in The Hastings Law Journal. 26 HASTINGS L. J. 631.
18 Some people would say that this argument alone justifies a free and open Internet. The argument goes: 1) A
government only exist because its citizens grant it power 2) Only an informed citizenry can legitimately grant
power to a government 3) A free and open Internet is a powerful tool in the citizenry knowing about its
government 4) Thus, like the freedom of the press, the Internet should be made free and open in order for there
to be a legitimate government.
19 These examples or endless. Since the Industrial Revolution, people have become less self-sufficient and thus
more reliant on pre-made clothes, reliable food sources, external sources for energy needs, etc. While pre-
Industrial persons would have likely not needed a car or pre-made clothes nor been significantly impacted by the
brief introduction and removal of such niceties, the average 21st century person would be severely negatively
impacted by the removal of such things.
disruption of water, gas, electric or other basic utilities. Similarly, as more individuals become

reliant of the Internet for news, a disruption in Internet access could interfere with their ability to

know about the workings of their governments, keep check on their government or possibly even

vote.

The importance of the Internet has not been lost on the world's governments. A number

of courts, legislatures, executive bodies and international organizations have exhibited their

belief in a free and open Internet. In France, for example, the high Court announced that

broadband Internet access is a basic human right.20 In Finland, telecommunication companies

are required by law to provide at least a one-megabit broadband Internet connection.21 In the

United States, while there have been no court decisions decreeing Internet access a basic human

right or laws passed providing all citizens with access, there have been statements made by the

State Department favoring an free and open Internet22 and failed legislation towards the same

end,23 all for the sake of human rights. Additionally, the United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has called for a study of the diverse and complex legal,

ethical and societal issues raised by the Internet which will, if necessary, serve as the framework

for a new international agreement.24 Thus, governments and organizations across the world have

realized the important role that the Internet plays in democracy, survival and the everyday lives

of individuals, and have attempted to protect the right of access. However, due to the global

nature of the Internet, ad-hoc regimes created by individual governments are not enough.

Because open access in France is completely independent of access in China and a one-megabit

20 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525993,00.html
21 http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-15/tech/finland.internet.rights_1_internet-access-fast-internet-megabit?
_s=PM:TECH
22 http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/cip/netfreedom/index.htm#hr
23 A Global First Amendment? 6 JTHTL 509 at 509 – 510 speaking generally about the Global Online Freedom Act
(GOFA) and the Global Internet Freedom Act (GIFA)
24 The International Dimensions of Cyberspace Law, The Possibilities for a Legal Framework for Cyberspace –
Including a New Zealand Perspective, page 9
connection in Finland is independent of Internet speeds in Burma, ad-hoc policies run the risk of

creating dangerous sub-Internets, where everyone's experience is degraded due to lack of true,

international participation.25 For that reason, the developed nations of the world must come

together and draft an international agreement that protects a basic level of Internet access. In the

following pages, this paper will briefly give a historical and technical description of the Internet

in order to fully explain the problem, highlight some recent and current infringements on the

right to Internet access and try to develop a framework from which an international standard for

Internet access as a basic human right could emerge.

II. HISTORICAL AND TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERNET

The History of the Internet: How Sputnik Launched the World Wide Web

In 1957, Russia launched the first human in space aboard the Sputnik satellite. In

response, President Dwight Eisenhower created a government agency known as the Advanced

Research Projects Agency (ARPA). From this agency would grow a computer network,

ARPAnet, which would be the precursor to the Internet as we know it. After Sputnik, it would

take a little more than ten years for ARPAnet to come to life. In late 1969, after working on

same-site computer networks (known as time-sharing systems, where multiple local terminals

were connected to one mainframe) for a number of years, members of ARPA and other entities

successfully made the connections for the first multi-site computer network. Eventually the

needs of users outgrew the traditional ARPAnet and its daughter, civilian network, TELEnet.26

In response, in 1979, a group of graduate students at Duke University and the University of
25 See http://ahumanright.org/blog/about/ for arguments about why the Internet and the world would be objectively
better places if everyone where to have access to the Internet.
26 While ARPAnet did become less relevant over time, it always was present as the core network that would
eventually become the Internet.
North Carolina created Usenet, a computer network of different news and discussion groups.

While not nearly as popular as it once was, Usenet is still exists as a forum for users around the

world. In the same year, ARPA, which became known as DARPA, created the Internet

Configuration Control Board (ICCB) to lead the charge in Internet standardization procedures.

Though a number of other networks came into existence during the interim and a number

of standards were written, the next big leaps forward for the Internet came in 1983 and 1984.

Over the course of those two years, TCP/IP became the official networking protocol of the

Internet; the name server was invented and the Domain Name System was implemented.27 With

these final pieces in place, the Internet as we know it was born. Thus, out of a government

project came the most prolific communication forum of all time.

How the Internet Works

To fully understand some of the issues affecting Internet access like Net Neutrality,

bandwidth shaping and firewalling, a basic understanding of how the Internet functions must first

be established. The best way to explain how the Internet works is by way of example. In the

example, the technical aspects of John accessing Google.com from his home Internet connection

will be explained. The example will confer a basic technical knowledge upon which the

explanations of Internet access rights will be explained. In short, it will be explained how John

will use Google to search for and receive back information about kangaroos.28

When any user accesses information on the Internet, the information being requested is

stored on another computer, known as a server. The first step in accessing any webpage is
27 Name server and the Domain Name System are both defined and explained in the following section, “How the
Internet Works”
28 There are a number of other important technical aspects of the Internet that, while not necessary for the scope
and understanding of the arguments presented in this paper, are interesting and impact the Internet on the
international level. For instance, the separate Internet tiers and the principle known as “peering” would need to
be addressed for certain aspects of a truly integrated international Internet.
making a request to the server. In this example, the information John is requesting is located on

a Google server and the request is a search about kangaroos. The first step in John's search is to

access Google. When John types Google.com into the address bar, a number of events occur.

First, the data encoded in John's request is broken into smaller packets each containing a portion

of his request. These packets are sent from his computer and through his home router to the

Internet. The first stop on the journey is at a Domain Name System (DNS) server, also known as

a name server. The DNS is one of the most important aspects of the consumer Internet. This is

the system that associates domain names (like Google.com, Facebook.com, CNN.com, etc.) with

their physical location, which is signified by a series of numbers known as a Internet Protocol

(IP) address.29 When John's request of Google.com reaches the name server, the DNS associates

the plain English address, here Google.com, with its IP address, 74.125.65.105. John's browser

is then routed to a page on another server, which displays the Google.com homepage.30 Once

John reaches Google, he is then able to search for kangaroos. This request is processed the same

way. All along the way, there are a number of other routers that ensure that John's request

reaches the correct server. Routers communicate with each other, and then send the information

along to the appropriate receiving server. While there are a number of other facets that control

the transmission of information across the Internet, only a basic understanding of the process is

necessary for the purposes of this paper. Below is a simplified diagram that depicts what is

explained above.

As mentioned above, all Internet connected devices are assigned an IP address by their

ISP. In order for your computer to withstand attacks originating from the Internet, a firewall is
29 Every Internet connected device is given an IP address. Some ISPs give each individual consumers unique IP
addresses, while other ISPs reassign IP addresses to consumers each time they connect to the Internet. The
former category are known as static IP addresses while the latter are known as dynamic. These specific locations
on the Internet are also known as uniform resource locators or URLs.
30 While webmasters can host their own DNS servers, many choose to use free services like EveryDNS or Google's
free DNS service. Also, many ISPs provide DNS service, providing faster and more reliable service to their
customers.
implemented. There are two key types of firewalls, software and hardware. Software firewalls

are pieces of code running on the Internet connected device (usually a computer) that blocks

unwanted access from the Internet to the computer. While some information must pass between

the computer and the Internet, firewalls prevent unwanted access. Hardware firewalls work very

much in the same way, but instead of software running on the receiving computer, the router's

built in software is employed in preventing unwanted access. With the basic understanding of

how the Internet functions, it is now possible to discuss some of the more recent impediments on

the free and open Internet.

III. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTION OF INTERNET ACCESS

Regardless of the importance of the Internet to individuals, governments across the world

have nonetheless limited or interfered with citizens' access to it in a number of instances. In fact,
since the Internet's inception, there have be quarrels between governments and citizens.31 The

ways in which governments limit Internet access are as numerous as they are egregious. Some

countries like North Korea hardly have any Internet access to speak of (low Internet penetration

rate), while other countries like China have widespread Internet access (high penetration rate)

with heavily regulated and censored access. A third restriction is beginning to appear in

countries with higher penetration rates, like the United States and Canada. In such countries, it is

not the government, however, that is limiting or curtailing Internet access, but rather private

corporations implementing tiered Internet access plans32, caps in Internet traffic33 and bandwidth

shaping34. While there are a number of other ways governments restrict Internet access, most

restrictions would likely fall under one, multiple or all of these broad categories. To properly

formulate a workable framework that will lead to an international protection of Internet access,

one must first discuss the ways in which governments have restricted access to the Internet. In

general, however, such a framework would aim to protect and maintain a free and open Internet

accessible by all citizens of the world.

1. Complete or Near-complete Internet Blackout

The most egregious violation a government can perpetrate against its citizens in relation

to Internet access is obviously completely preventing access or limiting it in such a way that it is

practically a total prevention of access. At the very minimum, any international measure must

first aim to prevent the complete shutdown of Internet access. As the high court in France and
31 From its inception in 1969 to 1975, ARPAnet basically existed without the public's knowledge because of its
limited scope. However, ARPAnet came to the forefront when it was reported that other parts of the federal
government were using it to purposely hide files relating to political persons of interest that it had claimed to
have destroyed. The reports resulted in Senatorial investigation. Sadly, this first government-citizen quarrel
seemed to have set the stage for a continued confrontation between government and its citizens relating to access
to the Internet.
32 http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/04/09/article/time_warner_adds_tiers_to_new_internet_pricing_plan
33 http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/08/its-official-comcast-starts-250gb-bandwidth-caps-october-1.ars
34 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-9769645-46.html
the legislators in Finland have decreed, there must be, at minimum some basic level of access to

the Internet on the premise of it being a fundamental human right. However, this general

statement must be adapted for particular situations. For example, there are a number of countries

that generally restrict or prevent Internet access, not only in times of revolutions or other states

of emergency, but all the time and primarily for political reasons. The most recent examples of

Internet shutdowns in the Arab revolutions do not fall in this category.35 According to Reporters

without Borders, an organization who, among many other activities, produces a yearly list of the

“Enemies of the Internet,”36 there are four countries that fall into the former category and are

deemed to be the worst “enemies of the Internet”: Cuba, Burma, North Korea and Turkmenistan.

Each of those countries either completely prevented access to the Internet, or restricted it in such

a way that it was practically blocked.

Of the above listed countries, the worst offender of Internet censorship is, unsurprisingly,

North Korea. Access is so restricted, that many North Korean citizens do not even know that the

Internet exists. The North Korea situation raises an important issue: in countries like North

Korea where citizens are primarily concerned with mere survival, how truly important is it that

an international framework exists to guarantee Internet access. Asked in another way: Should we

really be concerned with requiring governments to provide basic Internet access when it cannot

even feed its population? While this approach may seem appealing at first, such a zero-sum

game approach is not proper. As already exhibited by the use of cellphones by North Korean

citizens in cities on the China/North Korean border, access to technology is not limited in such a

way that accessing Internet, if provided by an outside source, would be impossible. Thus,
35 That's not to say that the Internet shutdowns in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya are objectively less egregious, but
rather the distinction is made because there is a significant difference between systematically preventing Internet
access and resorting to an Internet shutdown during a revolution.
36 The most recent list was released in March 2010. On the list are twelve countries that the organization believes
are the most egregious Internet censors: Saugi Arabia, Burma, China, North Korea, Cuba, Egypt, Iran,
Uzbekistan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan and Vietnam. Interestingly, two recently toppled dictatorships, Egypt
and Tunisia, are featured on the list.
requiring a basic level of Internet access would not exact a large cost on poor governments like

North Korea. Further, it is arguable that any cost or harm that would result by the North Korean

regime implementing an Internet system could be offset by the positives gained by a greater

access to information by its citizens. For example, one could argue that if North Korean citizens

were granted Internet access, they would be able to increase their farming knowledge and thus

have more plentiful harvests.

The other three countries on the worst offenders list are in a somewhat better position

than North Korea with their citizens at least knowing of the Internet. However, each of the

countries still have very poor penetration rates, with only 1% of Turkmenistan citizens having

Internet access. Unlike North Korea, however, each of these countries have relatively widely

known bi-Internets: one for the common citizen and one for those who are allowed to access the

full, World Wide Web.37 Burma, while having an relatively open and speedy Internet38 shows

why it deserves its place on the worst offenders list when it comes to election time and periods of

civil unrest. In the 2007 national elections, the government completely shut down the Internet in

order to fully control the dissemination of information. Further, during times of civil unrest, the

Internet slows to the point of being practically unusable.39

In the case of Cuba, Burma and Turkmenistan, implementing an Internet access policy

would be a bit more feasible than with North Korea. Each of these countries obviously already

has the infrastructure in place to provide free and open Internet access, it is just a problem of

scaling it and making sure that the government does not interfere with the right. Below there is a

more in-depth discussion of what such a framework might look like and how it may operate.
37 The governments of Cuba, Turkmenistan and Burma all have full Internet access which certain people and
groups are allowed to access. For instance, in Cuba, tourist and high ranking government officials are allowed to
access the uncensored Internet. In Turkmenistan, some businesses and government agents have access to a
relatively open Internet. The Burmese Internet is the most open, with only a powerful firewall in place.
Conversely, access to the open Internet in North Korea is limited to a highly selective few.
38 256 – 512 Kb/s
39 During a period of high political tension, it was said that it took nearly a half-hour to send a plain-text email.
 In more recent events, dictators across the Arab world have shown they are not afraid to

completely shut down their country's Internet access.40 As Egyptian and Libyan protesters

battled against their repressive governments, the state struggled to maintain control. In a move

to stop the revolutions, each of the governments decided to throw the kill switch and disallowed

any telecommunication. Due to the nature, scope and manner of the telecommunication black-

out, the actions taken by Egypt and Libya are novel. However, the choice of neutralizing an

opponents communications is not.41 It is novel because it is citizen's own government that is

restricting or eliminating Internet access. In such circumstances, there seems to be a greater

violation of a right and thus, a greater need for protection. When nations are warring, such

actions as attempting to shut down communications are allowed as long as the do not violate

international treaties. But a government shutting down its citizens' right to communicate seems

more akin to an internal international violation like the systematic starving of citizen groups.

Along the same lines as the discussion of the recent Internet blackouts in the Arab world

is the proposed Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act in the United States, colloquially

known as the Internet Kill Switch Bill.42 If passed, the bill would allow the President to

disconnect any private-sector computer from the Internet.43 Such an action by the government

would surely have to be blocked by any viable international framework aimed at maintaining a

free and open Internet. It is clear that a kill switch, censorship to the point of Internet blocking

and severing a country's access to Internet would all be banned under even a lax international

framework.
40 Egypt - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8288163/How-Egypt-shut-
down-the-internet.html and http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-29/business/27090014_1_internet-access-
egyptian-people-facebook-and-twitter. Libya - http://www.english.rfi.fr/africa/20110313-libya-internet-blackout-
uprising-rages
41 In the 2008 war between Georgia and Russia, Georgia claimed that Russia was engaging in cyberwarfare by
actively trying to bring down Georgian government websites.
42 http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/security/showArticle.jhtml?
articleID=225701368&subSection=News
43 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
2. Heavily Regulated Access to a Free and Open Internet

Most countries are featured on the Reporters Without Borders “Enemies of the Internet”

list due to their countries' censorship (not complete ban) of Internet access. The best (or worst)

example of a government regulated censorship of the Internet is the firewall implemented in

China, known as the Great Firewall of China. Unlike the pure Internet blackouts experienced

recently by people of Egypt and Libya and the crude Internet restrictions employed by Burma,

North Korea, Turkmenistan and Cuba, the Great Firewall of China is somewhat respected for its

technical complexity. Unfortunately, the technical complexity also complicates any international

framework that would aim at relaxing the restrictions posed by such a firewall. In order to flesh

out a framework that would protect and maintain a free and open Internet, one must first study

the known methods employed by the Great Firewall of China.

The table below outlines the primary ways in which China restricts access to the Internet.

The Ways in Which China Restricts Internet Access

IP Blocking The practice of blocking certain IP numbers after the domain name has already
be resolved by a name server. If the IP address matches with blacklisted IP
address, then the user will not reach the website requested. This method can be
over-inclusive in instances where censored and non-censored information are
on a shared server. The common way to circumvent this is by using a proxy
server.44
DNS Filtering Works in a way similar to that of IP blocking. When the server request reaches
and the name server, the requested domain is check against a table of restricted
Redirection websites. Under this method, unlike the IP blocking approach, the user does
not end with a server error page, but rather is redirected to a site per the
instructions stored on the name server. This blocking technique can be
circumvented by user changing the DNS service they are using. However,
when DNS services are changed, the new request must still pass the IP blocking
method. 45
44 A proxy server is a server that is used as an intermediary between the desired server and the user's computer. It
can only work when the proxy server is not blocked. If this is true, then the user can access the desired website
by accessing the proxy server that is outside of the firewall which can access any site it wants for it is not bound
by the rules of the firewall.
45 A proxy server is a server that is used as an intermediary between the desired server and the user's computer. It
URL Filtering Under this approach, the router that is transferring the response from the server
scans the URL and determines whether the information on the page and the
domain itself is banned. The best and easiest way around this blocking method
is to use some sort of encryption so the router is unable to read the data being
sent from the server to the user.
Packet Works much like URL filtering, but instead of reading the information
Filtering regarding the domain name and website page information, packet filtering reads
the TCP packets directly and censors on the basis of the website's content.
Thus, even if nothing in the domain name or URL is offensive (like
Google.com), a page could still be censored due to the information on the page
(like firewall-offensive search results).

This category of Internet access restrictions should be the focus of any international

framework three reasons. First, destroying firewall schemes like the one used by China would

have the biggest impact on users being that China has the biggest Internet user-base with over

400 million active users. Second, only requiring a basic level of Internet access that would

benefit the citizens of nations like North Korea and Burma would only end up creating more

China-like firewalls.46 Third, overriding the Great Firewall of China would also accomplish the

Internet piercing the veil of nations like Turkmenistan and Cuba.47 For these reasons, the portion

below regarding the international framework focuses on defeating the Great Firewall of China.

3. Commercial Restrictions on Free and Open Internet Access

The third and final infringement on the free and open Internet poses the greatest challenge

for regulation because it deals not with governments, but with private corporations. However,

can only work when the proxy server is not blocked. If this is true, then the user can access the desired website
by accessing the proxy server that is outside of the firewall which can access any site it wants for it is not bound
by the rules of the firewall.
46 Imagine for a moment that a nation like North Korea was forced merely to provide some basic Internet access to
its citizens. Likely the first thing it would do would be to implement a firewall similar to the one used in China.
47 A necessary condition for the tearing down of China's firewall is that there will be a functioning free and open
Internet that is left standing. That is, a basic level of Internet access that would satisfy the human right argument
for nations like North Korea is a narrower goal that would automatically be met if China's firewall were to be
brought down. Conversely, if it were found to be impractical to bring down China's firewall, the only choice left
would be to go over the wall and provide unfettered Internet access via satellite. Providing Internet access via
satellite would likely apply equally well to countries like North Korea, thus meeting the narrower goal.
even when the restrictions are not discriminatory on their face, their impact in practice can be

equally infringing as firewalls or Internet blackouts. In this section, packet shaping and tiered

Internet packages will be discussed in terms of Net Neutrality and Internet access in general.

In general, the idea of Net Neutrality is that all content, sites and platforms should be

treated equally and traffic on the Internet should all be treated the same. Net Neutrality

proponents are so vigilant about a federal protection recognizing Net Neutrality due to the way in

which the Internet has been classified. This classification has lead to number of unique issues

related almost exclusively to the Internet. In this section, I will explain why the classification of

the Internet has left the door open to and facilitated a number of abuses perpetrated by ISPs in

the United States.

In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the regulatory

body that oversees the Internet along with other telecommunication channels.48 Originally

created in 1934, the FCC was the result of the consolidation of power already being exercised by

a number of other federal agencies. When first conceived, the FCC's primary duty was to govern

interstate communications—primarily telegraph and telephone communication As time

progressed, however, a number of new technologies challenged the FCC in terms of its authority

and ability to adapt the existing framework to accommodate the changes in the

telecommunications landscape. Due to either the FCC's inability or refusal to properly address

broadband Internet and regulate it in a timely fashion, the state of broadband has been left in a
48 The FCC derives its authority from the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996. In pertinent part, the purpose of the act reads as follows: “For the purpose of regulating interstate
and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the
people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a
rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at
reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and
property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective
execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting
additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is
created a commission to be known as the “Federal Communications Commission”, which shall be constituted as
hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.”
questionable position.

To understand the problems that underlie the current paradigm, it is important to look at

the history of how the FCC has regulated telecommunications. Central to this analysis are the

first two titles of the Telecommunications Act and the historical treatment of computer

communication by the FCC.49 The current regulatory treatment can be traced back to 1966,

when the FCC began its inquiry regarding regulation of communications between computers.

During the first twenty-five years of computer communication regulation, there were three key

regulatory documents produced by the FCC that controlled computer communication. This

trilogy, known as the Computer Inquiries, outlined the ways in which telecommunication

companies were allowed to treat traffic on different types of networks. Understanding these

three documents and the regulations that followed are key in understanding the current issues

related to the free and open Internet in the United States.

Computer Inquiries

As mentioned above, the first computer networks were the time-sharing systems that

resulted from the technological limitations of computer hardware of the time. Instead of each

user having access to his or her own computer with an individual computer processing unit

(CPU), users' computing needs were processed by one mainframe computer from one of a

number of terminals. While owners of the mainframe computers would typically be the entities

that would engage in such computing practices,50 as mainframes became more widespread, the

time-sharing business emerged.51 For a number of businesses like banks, aircraft manufactures

and telephone companies, the mainframes they owned and used during business hours were
49 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 draws a distinction between “telecommunications service” and
“information service.” The former is regulated by the FCC under Title II of the act and subject to the mandatory
common carriage provisions, while those services categorized in the latter group do not have to abide by the
common carrier provisions.
50 The original mainframe owners and users were government institutions like ARPA and universities.
51 Reg. and Policy Problems Presented by the Interdependence of Computer and Comm. Servs., Notice of Inquir y,
7 F.C.C.2d 11
sitting idly during off-peak hours. While the computers were indispensable during the day for

account computations, design iteration computations and the operation of telephone networks,

the mainframes were sleeping giants at night. These private institutions learned from educational

endeavors like Project MAC, however, that these off-peak computer hours could be rented to

other users who needed the processing power of a mainframe computer but could not afford to

buy one. Thus, instead of needing to buy a mainframe or needing to go to a physical location for

serious computing needs, one could rent time on mainframes and transmit the computer

instructions over the already existing telecommunication lines.

Computer I

The transportation of computer instructions over telephone lines presented a problem,

however. Because telephone companies were one of the industries leasing their mainframes,

there arose a question regarding incentives. The important point of Computer I is the distinction

that the FCC drew between computers that ran the network (the data processing computers) and

the computers or terminals at the ends of the telephone lines with which people interacted (the

communications computers).52 Viewing the data processing market as highly competitive and

innovative, the FCC saw no need to regulate the mainframes. In the end, the FCC regulated the

telecommunication lines on which the data processing market of the time relied. In the diagram

below, points 'A', the terminals, and points 'B', the telephone lines, are regulated, while point 'C',

the mainframe, is not.

52 The Legacy of the Federal Communications Commission's Computer Inquiries, Federal Communications Law
Journal, March 2003. 55 FCLJ 167.
 Example Time-Sharing System

Computer II

The second computer inquiry continued the distinction between the two separate

categories. In Computer I, the categories were split as to processing and communications.

Computer II introduced a new dichotomy, of basic and enhanced services. The FCC defined

basic services are those processes that are directly tied to the movement of information, while

enhanced services were any other processes occurring over the communication lines.53 Using the

same logic as seen in the first computer inquiry, the FCC held that basic services were to be

regulated under the traditional common carriage rules, while the enhanced services—citing again

the innovative and competitive nature of the market—were to be unregulated.54 (The third

computer inquiry is not important for the scope of this paper.)

While the Computer Inquiries served the function of regulation for their day, the trilogy

has created a host of problems regarding regulation of today's Internet. For one, the analysis

53 Id. at 184
54 Id. at 188
underlying the trilogy is no longer relevant.55 One of the key concerns of the Inquiries was the

monopolistic tendencies of telecommunication companies. The FCC was primarily concerned

with telephone companies like AT&T taking advantage of their strategic position as the owners

of the mainframe computers being leased under the time-share agreements and the lines of

communications.56 In response to this concern, the FCC determined that regulating the lines of

communication using traditional common carriage provisions was best in protecting consumers

against the potential for abuse. While originating in late 1960s, this rationale and the regulations

that flowed from it worked successfully well into the 1990s. For instance, the dichotomy

established in the Computer Inquiries helped facilitate consumer choice among dial-up ISPs,

because telephone companies were barred from discriminating what services used their lines.

The rationale fell apart, however, as broadband Internet service became popular. Whereas before

Internet service and the lines which carried the service were separate and thus only the lines

needed regulation, broadband Internet service collapsed that separation. Now the owners of the

lines also provide the service; the delivery method is the service being provided. Unfortunately

for Internet users, the common carriage protections did not carry over. Now, because there is

some leeway as to how ISPs deliver content, broadband providers have blocked or degraded

disfavored content, endangering the free and open Internet. In the final substantive section of this

paper, I will discuss in more detail the ways in which current broadband ISPs are like traditional

common carriers and why it is important for the FCC to reclassify ISPs as common carriers for

the free and open Internet.

55 The last final order of the Computer Inquiry trilogy was published in 1986—three years before the first
commercial ISP and well before broadband Internet was in existence.
56 While the worry of monopolistic tendencies still exists in relations to telecommunications, the worry now has
more to do with the content being delivered. See www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/.../DOC-
303745A1.pdf for a brief discussion of the current monopolistic dangers.
IV. THE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK: HOW TO GUARANTEE A FREE AND

OPEN INTERNET

As stated above, there seems to be a consensus among developed democratic nations that

there is some human right associated with the Internet access.57 At this stage, however, it is

unclear exactly how much of a protection should be afforded to users across the world. By

analyzing current ad-hoc, country-specific measures and by analogizing the right to Internet

access to other already existing international human rights, we can construct a international legal

framework that not only guarantees Internet access to all citizens of the world, but creates a set

of standards that prevent material access disruptions.58 As exhibited by the illustration below,

each level of protection builds on the one below it, forming a complete international framework.

57 See footnotes 19-23

58 Because the regulations necessary to protect a free and open Internet in the United States are different due to the
concerns focusing more on network neutrality and openness, the section regarding the United States will
analogize the protections argued for in this paper to laws and court holdings of United States courts instead of
international law.
 International Internet Framework

The best starting place in creating such a framework is to look at the pre-existing court

decisions and laws and the reasoning underlying their existence and function. To best facilitate

analysis of the issues, the following portion of the paper is split into two sections. In the first

part, the existing international human right body of law will be discussed as it relates to the

Internet on a whole. The second part will focus on what regulations could be implemented in the

United States to ensure free and open Internet.

1. An International Look

The two primary pieces of law that protect the right of Internet access are both found in

Europe. In the fall of 2009, Finland legislators passed a law that requires all ISPs to provide

broadband Internet to Finland citizens. Earlier that same year, the Constitutional Council,

France’s highest court, ruled that Internet access is a basic human right. In the decision, the court

cited the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, a document written during the French
Revolution.59 Further, the court wrote that “[f]reedom of expression and communication is so

valuable that its exercise is a prerequisite for democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for

other rights and freedoms.” The French court did not go as far as to call for a proactive access

right, but both Finland’s and France’s laws point to eliminating all impediments to Internet

access.

The United Nations had also enunciated the importance of Internet access rights. In

general, Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights seems to recognize some sort of

informational right.60 Further, during the World Summits on the Information Society of 2003

and 2005, held in Geneva and Hammamet, respectively, world and industry leaders gave political

support to the Geneva Declaration of Principles and Geneva Plan of Action and the Tunis

Commitment and Tunis Agenda for the Information Society.61 In pertinent part, the first of these

two summits sought to “ develop and foster a clear statement of political will and take concrete

steps to establish the foundations for an Information Society for all, reflecting all the different

interests at stake.”62 The second summit aimed to “put Geneva's Plan of Action into motion as

well as to find solutions and reach agreements in the fields of Internet governance, financing

mechanisms, and follow-up and implementation of the Geneva and Tunis documents.”63 In

essence, the two summits aimed to create a basic level of access to the Internet world-wide. In

total, the UN's declarations and actions, France's judicial treatment and Findland's legislation

point to some international right of access to the Internet. The problem of basic unfettered

access, however, does not present itself in developed nations like Finland, France or the United

59 http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2355
60 Michael L. Best, Can the Internet be a Human Right?, Human Rights & Human Welfare. “Everyone has the
right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” United Nations
Universal Declarations of Human Rights, Article 19.
61 http://www.itu.int/wsis/basic/about.html
62 Id.
63 Id.
States, but rather in developing nations like China, Cuba and North Korea. As the problem being

such, some way to implement, enforce and protect the right of Internet access must be

established.

As mentioned earlier in the paper, there are two types of severe government restrictions

on Internet access: complete or near-complete Internet blackout and heavily regulated Internet

access. Both of these restrictions require different approaches that would ultimately achieve the

same solution using similar technologies. Both approaches begin with a brief analysis of the

pertinent international law.

Internet Blackout

There are two primary groups of countries that experience Internet blackout. The first

group—mainly countries in Africa—completely lacks access for practical reason. Many

governments across the globe can simply not afford to build the infrastructure to supply their

citizens with basic Internet access. While the Internet is the largest forum of communication in

the world, there are still nearly 5 billion people who have no access.64 Helping this group of

countries attain Internet access is one of the key goals of the UN's World Summits on the

Information Society and the UN agency, International Telecommunications Union.65 The second

group of countries are those countries listed earlier in the paper (Cuba, North Korea, Egypt, etc.)

that has the ability to provide basic Internet access but limits access for political reasons. Unlike

the countries that are simply unable to provide access, the countries falling in the second group

actively choose to divest their citizens of Internet access, thus creating a different problem that

invokes international law.

64 http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
65 There are also private, non-governmental organizations attempting to provide basic Internet access to those who
do not yet have it by buying a satellite. See http://buythissatellite.org/about.php and
http://ahumanright.org/blog/about/ for more information. Because this group of countries are actively being
advocated for, this paper will not focus on the ways in which international schemes can provide them with
Internet access.
 In the most extreme instances of countries being hostile against international help in

providing Internet access, I believe that the use of force should be allowed in building Internet

capabilities under the humanitarian intervention branch of international law. In general, the UN

Charter prohibits the use of force.66 However, there are three general exceptions to this principle.

Where there are threats to sovereignty, human rights violations or general security issues,

countries acting in self-defense may individually or collectively use force.67 The use of force is

most clearly permitted in response to threats of sovereignty as noted in Article 51 of the UN

Charter.68 The use of force is more controversial as it relates to human rights and in cases of

humanitarian intervention.69 Some scholars argue that the right of humanitarian intervention was

implicitly made international law when NATO waged war in Kosovo in the name of

humanitarianism.70 Additionally, in arguing that humanitarian intervention permitted the use of

force against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office

outlined a four factor doctrine that would permit humanitarian intervention: “1) There is a

compelling and urgent situation of extreme humanitarian distress; 2) the state targeted by the

intervention is unable or unwilling to act; 3) there is no practical alternative; and 4) the

intervention is limited in time and scope.”71 This test presents two problems that strike against

my belief that willful Internet blackout justifies humanitarian intervention. First, many people

would likely argue that lack of Internet access is not a “compelling and urgent situation of
66 UN Charter, Chapter 1: Article 2(4)
67 Alston, Philip and MacDonald, Euan. Sovereignty, Human Rights, Security: Armed Intervention and the
Foundational Problems of International Law. Human Rights, Intervention, and the Use of Force, 2008. At page
7.
68 Id. Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-
defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken
measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of
this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect
the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action
as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
69 Id.
70 Corten, Oliver. Human Rights and Collective Security: Is There an Emerging Right of Humanitarian
Intervention. Human Rights, Intervention, and the Use of Force, 2008. At page 88.
71 Byers, Micheal. War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict. 2005. At page 99.
extreme humanitarian distress.” While lack of Internet in a vacuum may not rise to the level of

this first factor, when contextualized with other human rights violations, I believe that the

absence of Internet access would rise to the level of extreme humanitarian distress.72 There

would also be a problem with the last factor. Internet-hostile countries that have a complete lack

of modern infrastructure would be forced to indefinitely house Internet infrastructure equipment

against its will if it were to be subject to a humanitarian intervention. While this would seem to

be an indefinite violation of the country's sovereignty, such a violation should be allowed

because there is no real harm. For example, such countries could simply refuse to power the

equipment and fall into a category where the only punishment would be UN sanctions.73 While

there would likely be serious debate about such a humanitarian intervention to restore or

establish Internet connectivity, I believe that the recent UN enunciations and actions, French

court decisions and Finnish legislation provide support for such a practice.

Highly Regulated Internet Access

Internet access restrictions that only reach the level of highly regulated as defined earlier

in this paper are more easily dealt with by currently existing international law. Like many other

violations of human rights, such Internet access restrictions could be punished via non-military

sanctions.74 One problem instances of Internet access restriction like the Great Firewall of China

present is classifying such practices as human rights violations. However, if such practices were

not classified as human rights violations, then humanitarian intervention would become pointless

and a waste of money, for all a country like North Korea would have to do is allow such an

72 For example, the lack of Internet access is accompanied by a number of other serious human rights violations in
places like North Korea. Additionally, in instances where governments severe its country's Internet connection
in attempt to quash revolutions (like in Lybia), this violation is usually one of many.
73 This is discussed in more depth in the next subsection dealing with countries like China who heavily regulate
Internet access.
74 For a general discussion of the use of sanctions, see http://library.thinkquest.org/C0126065/billsanctions.html#.
For recent example of such sanctions, see any number of news stories regarding the 32 Iranian officials
sanctioned by the European Union for various human rights violations.
intervention to take place and then either completely shut down the installed equipment, or

implement access restrictions like those used by China. Thus, non-military sanctions are not only

necessary for protecting Internet access in countries falling into the “heavily regulated” category,

but also for former Internet blackout countries post humanitarian intervention.

2. Free and Open Internet in the United States and Other Developed Nations

In the United States, there have been no court decisions or bills passed asserting Internet

access as a basic human right. However, there have been cases noting the important First

Amendment right issues implicated with Internet speech and there have been failed attempts to

legislate Internet access as a human right. Both the Global Internet Freedom Act (GIFA) and the

Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA) attempted to prevent “Internet jamming” and other means

of Internet censorship stating that Internet access is a basic human right. The two bills,

admittedly, are more business focused, but the premises on which they attempted to eliminate

Internet access impediments were essentially the same as those on which the Finnish and French

laws were premised.75 Even the United States State Department has commented on the

importance of Internet Freedom.76 However, most of these proclamations have been more

focused on the dangers of oppressive governments and their role in actively censoring the

Internet.77 That is, these bold proclamations have little, if any, to do with Internet access policies

in the United States. While the United States and other developed nations do not struggle with

complete lack of access or extreme censorship, this section will highlight how recent material

disruptions of free and open Internet access and the potential for abuse under the current

75 See footnote 23.

76 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/world/15clinton.html
77 Id. quoting Madam Secretary Clinton: “The United States continues to help people in oppressive Internet
environments get around filters, stay one step ahead of the censors, the hackers and the thugs who beat them up
or imprison them for what they say online.”
administrative paradigm calls for sincere analysis and change.

On November 28, 2010, the website Wikileaks.org release a series of United States

diplomatic cables, revealing embarrassing details of United State diplomacy. For two days

anybody on the Internet could point their web browser to Wikileaks.org and download the whole

trove of cable. However, on December 1, 2010, Wikileaks.org no longer existed—instead of

resolving the website as requested, users' browsers would return an error. Fortunately, nothing

was wrong with Wikileaks' webserver. The issue was that Wikileaks' DNS provider, United

States-based EveryDNS.net, dropped Wikileak's from its name server, essentailly removing

Wikileaks from the Internet.78 Though EveryDNS claimed to have been experiencing a web

attack, there has yet to be any proof of such.79 While this may seem somewhat unimportant,

especially in light of some of the more extreme access abridgments highlighted throughout this

paper, this material disruption of the free and open Internet users have to come to expect is

simultaneously the slide down a slippery slope to extreme government censorship and a prime

example of the ways in which the improperly administered Internet can be taken advantage. As

explained above, the way in which the FCC has regulated broadband Internet has been

unsuccessful. The current paradigm has resulted in a number of documented abuses and has left

the door open for severe abuses. For these reasons, for the general protection of the free and

open Internet and because it is logical, the FCC should reclassify broadband ISPs as common

carriers.80

There are a number of ways in which broadband ISPs are like traditional common

carriers. Primarily, ISPs tend to hold themselves out to serve all users in an indiscriminate way.81
78 As mentioned above, there was nothing wrong with Wikileaks' webserver, thus savvy Internet users could still
navigate to its page if it knew its IP address.
79 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334232/WikiLeaks-website-U-S-Europe-cyber-attack-China.html.
80 Net Neutrality basically calls for broadband ISPs to be treated like common carriers.
81 Speta, James B. A Common Carrier Approach to Internet Interconnection. Federal Communications Law
Journal. March 2002. At page 269.
Also, ISPs, under recent laws like the DMCA, are not held liable for the data that it transmits.

Further, there is the worry of monopoly power which usually confers duty of common carriage.82

In the case of broadband Internet service, there is usually only the choice between two providers:

DSL service provided by the telephone company and cable Internet service provided by the cable

company. There is also the worry that ISPs will degrade or altogether block particular content.83

These practices are extremely dangerous not only to general consumer choice, but to the free and

open Internet in general. Without a framework to describe what types of restrictions by ISPs are

allowed and what types of damages they are immune from, there will continue to be the problem

of material disruption of access, with the potential of turning into outright censorship. Thus, a

framework somewhat resembling common carriage is necessary.

V. CONCLUSION

Never has the world seen a communications platform as powerful as the Internet. As

mentioned a number of times throughout this paper, the Internet has come to play a significant

role in the lives of all of those people who use it. It is of paramount importance that a workable

international framework be implemented. Like the Library of Alexandria, the Internet stores a

vast amount of human knowledge. Even further, the Internet allows for users to share their

knowledge leading to even more discovery. Right now, the international community has a

choice: protect the rights of Internet user and create a framework protecting Internet access, or

watch as the free and open Internet as we currently know it disappears like the ashes of the

volumes of great Library of Alexandria.

82 Id. at 271.
83 http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2010/tc20101220_187821.htm highlighting the fight
between Comcast and Level 3, Netflix ISP. The fight arose when Comcast demanded special payment for the
delivery of Level 3's traffic. Many analyst believe Comcast was trying to drive the price of Internet service
purchase by Netflix up in order to make consumer prices rise so Comcast's own Xfinity offerings appear more
appealing.