Posted April 13, 2011
A Case Against Dividing the Internet
The Internet is a communal spider web. Its silk strands cover our entire world. Anyone can use it. Anyone can expand it. Where you step onto the web does not effect where you can go nor what you can do. That was the way it was designed and that is the way it should remain.
Troublesomely, several corporations with Internet sites and services have begun restricting their content to countries outside of where they are hosted. The restrictions often block content to every single country other than the one they operate in.
The practice of blocking Internet content is not new. Many countries have been practicing it for some time now. According to Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering (hereafter Access Denied), as of 2006 at least twenty six countries were blocked certain Internet sites and services. Access Denied identifies three motivations for this: political, social, and “conflict and security".
Companies do not appear to be restricting content for the same reasons as countries however. I will present examples of corporate imposed restrictions. I will attempt to provide insight into why the companies are imposing these restrictions. I will then analyze whether or not these reasons are valid.
TV Stations' Websites
Companies do not appear to be restricting content for the same reasons as countries. One example is a United States TV station websites. Namely FOX Broadcasting's fox.com (FOX) and National Broadcasting Company's (NBC) nbc.com and hulu.com. These websites blocks much of their content from being viewed in Canada. Politically both Canada and the US practice democracy. Many of the social values in Canada are similar to those in the US. As for “conflict and security”, as members of NATO, Canada and the US mutually agree to defend each other. None of the three reasons for censorship introduced in Access Denied seem to apply.
The defense US TV stations use for blocking foreign viewers on their websites is: They license content for use only in the US. In they're own words, hulu.com states: “we don't have international streaming rights for our content”.
This defense is invalid. In Canada for example, Bell, Shaw, and Telus all offer US cable channels – including FOX and NBC. Clearly the TV stations have licenses to display their content outside the US.
Another interesting point to note is that while US TV stations broadcast from within the US, their signals cross country borders. As an example, the US Federal Communications Commission website indicates that two US TV stations have strong signal strength in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. When DTV was implemented in the in 2009, no attempt was made to block supposedly US licensed content from Canadian viewers. Their license restrictions seem to imply as long as the content is broadcast from the US, it doesn't matter where all that broadcast reaches. Why then when this content is hosted on US Internet servers cannot it be allowed to reach Canada and other countries?
I find it highly distasteful of these TV stations to choose to implement more restricted access to their content on the Internet than on any other media. The Internet was designed to be globally open and accessible. Why are they trying to make traditional TV more international while trying to make the Internet less?
Online Content Distributors
Another pair of examples of corporate censorship can be found in the online distribution industry. iTunes is an online music and video service from the company Apple. Steam is a game download service the company Valve. Both of these services have restrictions on what they sell where.
Steam's restrictions are implemented subtly. Everyone sees the same main page. If they have restricted a product in the country the user is browsing from then a “Game Not Available In Your Territory” message. Most of there products however are available in most countries.
iTune's restrictions are more deeply ingrained. Before any products are presented, the user is required to specify their country. iTune's has separate stores for each country they serve. Inversely, if iTune's doesn't have a store for your country, they will not serve you. The content available in each store varies. Additionally before allow a user to purchase anything from one of their stores, they require the user to prove that they reside in the corresponding country.
This doesn't make economic sense. By refusing sales, Apple and Valve are outright refusing money.
Like the TV stations, Apple and Valve will likely state that they are not licensed to sell certain content outside of certain countries. Since I lack a counter example to disprove this (in the previous section, the TV stations being available on air and on cable outside the US) lets assume this to be valid. Instead let's ask why the content owners don't want their product sold to certain countries.
The content owners might provide the following rational : Not all companies operate in all countries. In the physical world this is quite reasonable. There is significant overhead in maintaining stores or offices spread across multiple countries. On the Internet however there is not this requirement. Websites and services can be hosted from within one country and then accessed from any other country. That was the way it was designed. Steam and iTunes already leverage this functionality. Refusing purchases from parts of the world is refusing money.
Further it is directly refusing profit. There is no cost involved in creating another digital copy of a song. There is practically no cost in delivering this song to a customer a quarter of the way across the world. They don't have to burn a CD. They don't have to mail the CD. All they have to do is accept the payment. Can you think of an easier way of making money?
In addition to going against the spirit of the Internet, this seems to go against the spirit of business.
The Internet is a communal spider web. Its silk strands cover our entire world. Anyone can use it. Anyone can expand it. Where you step onto the web does not effect where you can go nor what you can do. That was the way it was designed and that is the way it should remain.
Troublesomely, several corporations with Internet sites and services have begun restricting their content to countries outside of where they are hosted. The restrictions often block content to every single country other than the one they operate in.
The practice of blocking Internet content is not new. Many countries have been practicing it for some time now. According to Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering (hereafter Access Denied), as of 2006 at least twenty six countries were blocked certain Internet sites and services. Access Denied identifies three motivations for this: political, social, and “conflict and security".
Companies do not appear to be restricting content for the same reasons as countries however. I will present examples of corporate imposed restrictions. I will attempt to provide insight into why the companies are imposing these restrictions. I will then analyze whether or not these reasons are valid.
TV Stations' Websites
Companies do not appear to be restricting content for the same reasons as countries. One example is a United States TV station websites. Namely FOX Broadcasting's fox.com (FOX) and National Broadcasting Company's (NBC) nbc.com and hulu.com. These websites blocks much of their content from being viewed in Canada. Politically both Canada and the US practice democracy. Many of the social values in Canada are similar to those in the US. As for “conflict and security”, as members of NATO, Canada and the US mutually agree to defend each other. None of the three reasons for censorship introduced in Access Denied seem to apply.
The defense US TV stations use for blocking foreign viewers on their websites is: They license content for use only in the US. In they're own words, hulu.com states: “we don't have international streaming rights for our content”.
This defense is invalid. In Canada for example, Bell, Shaw, and Telus all offer US cable channels – including FOX and NBC. Clearly the TV stations have licenses to display their content outside the US.
Another interesting point to note is that while US TV stations broadcast from within the US, their signals cross country borders. As an example, the US Federal Communications Commission website indicates that two US TV stations have strong signal strength in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. When DTV was implemented in the in 2009, no attempt was made to block supposedly US licensed content from Canadian viewers. Their license restrictions seem to imply as long as the content is broadcast from the US, it doesn't matter where all that broadcast reaches. Why then when this content is hosted on US Internet servers cannot it be allowed to reach Canada and other countries?
I find it highly distasteful of these TV stations to choose to implement more restricted access to their content on the Internet than on any other media. The Internet was designed to be globally open and accessible. Why are they trying to make traditional TV more international while trying to make the Internet less?
Online Content Distributors
Another pair of examples of corporate censorship can be found in the online distribution industry. iTunes is an online music and video service from the company Apple. Steam is a game download service the company Valve. Both of these services have restrictions on what they sell where.
Steam's restrictions are implemented subtly. Everyone sees the same main page. If they have restricted a product in the country the user is browsing from then a “Game Not Available In Your Territory” message. Most of there products however are available in most countries.
iTune's restrictions are more deeply ingrained. Before any products are presented, the user is required to specify their country. iTune's has separate stores for each country they serve. Inversely, if iTune's doesn't have a store for your country, they will not serve you. The content available in each store varies. Additionally before allow a user to purchase anything from one of their stores, they require the user to prove that they reside in the corresponding country.
This doesn't make economic sense. By refusing sales, Apple and Valve are outright refusing money.
Like the TV stations, Apple and Valve will likely state that they are not licensed to sell certain content outside of certain countries. Since I lack a counter example to disprove this (in the previous section, the TV stations being available on air and on cable outside the US) lets assume this to be valid. Instead let's ask why the content owners don't want their product sold to certain countries.
The content owners might provide the following rational : Not all companies operate in all countries. In the physical world this is quite reasonable. There is significant overhead in maintaining stores or offices spread across multiple countries. On the Internet however there is not this requirement. Websites and services can be hosted from within one country and then accessed from any other country. That was the way it was designed. Steam and iTunes already leverage this functionality. Refusing purchases from parts of the world is refusing money.
Further it is directly refusing profit. There is no cost involved in creating another digital copy of a song. There is practically no cost in delivering this song to a customer a quarter of the way across the world. They don't have to burn a CD. They don't have to mail the CD. All they have to do is accept the payment. Can you think of an easier way of making money?
In addition to going against the spirit of the Internet, this seems to go against the spirit of business.
Post edited April 13, 2011 by lightnica
