Return to Cyberspace Law
& Policy Institute Home Page.
Yet from both a legal and a policy perspective this romantic image may amount to little more than a myth. For a close examination of the Internet today reveals a world that is arguably very much under control -- albeit not in the same manner as human behavior on this planet might be seen as "controlled" by organizing societies, governments, and cultural institutions.
Since very few cases and statutes directly address the online world at this point in time, it is vitally important that members of the legal community ascertain which persons and groups might be seen as "in charge" of the Internet so that the correct analogies to existing legal doctrine might be drawn.
In seeking an answer to this inquiry, those who have been following the explosive growth of cyberspace would probably begin with the government, the Internet access providers, and the phone companies. And there are valid reasons for starting with these entities.
Not only did the government actually participate in the "founding" of the Internet, but it maintains a significant presence in the online world, and through a variety of major policy initiatives continues to play a role in its growth and development. In addition, through its various efforts to regulate online communication, restrict encryption, strengthen copyright laws, and now -- particularly at the state and local level -- explore new modes of taxation, the government certainly cannot be ignored.
The Internet access providers (or "service providers") and the telephone companies continue to serve as gatekeepers to cyberspace. Most people who wish to send and receive e-mail and connect up to the World Wide Web must first sign up with a service provider and then establish a phone connection between their computer modem and the provider's local access phone number. These two gatekeepers thus profit directly from the use of the Internet, and will potentially make even greater profits as time goes by -- subject of course to such unknown technological changes as the possible shifting of at least some cybercommunications to television cable or satellite.
Other entities that may come to mind in analyzing who is in charge include the companies that create the hardware and software which enable all of us to enjoy the benefits of the online world. While these companies cannot be viewed as directly controlling cyberspace, they will continue to play major roles in shaping future directions.
In addition, any analysis of controlling forces in this area must include colleges and universities worldwide. The Internet actually began at the university level, and for many years was viewed as almost the exclusive province of higher education. Even today, colleges and universities play a dominant role on the Internet -- providing a large number of computers that serve as "hosts" for this network of networks, generating important policy initiatives, developing a variety of new programs, posting a tremendous amount of valuable information on web sites and gopher sites, and providing easy access for a very large number of regular users.
Less well-known but arguably just as important in this picture are those who directly control the Internet backbone lines and hubs. Backbone lines are the high speed fiber optic cables that transfer information through the Internet at speeds that can reach 155 million bits per second. These backbones -- originally controlled essentially by the National Science Foundation (NSF) -- are today developed and maintained individually or in concert by such companies as MCI, Sprint, vBNS, MFS Data Services/UUNET, and Advanced Network Systems (a subsidiary of America Online).
The backbone system also consists of large hubs through which all the high-speed lines merge to reroute billions of packets of data and send them either to a requesting Internet access provider or to another hub for further rerouting. There are two kinds of hubs: Metropolitan Area Exchanges and Network Access Points. The former are maintained for profit by companies which sell bandwidth to access providers. The latter are chartered by NSF to such companies as Pacific Bell, Sprint, Ameritech, and MFS. Both types of hubs do the same kind of work.
MCI in particular is investing heavily in the Internet backbone. It recently announced a joint venture with British Telecom that will combine the two companies' existing backbone services into eight new superhubs. This venture is expected to increase total Internet capacity by 30 percent. See Jamie Murphy and Charlie Hofacker, Explosive Growth Clogs the Internet Backbone, N.Y. Times CyberTimes Online, June 29, 1996.
Probably the least well-known but arguably among the most important persons and groups in this inquiry are those who participate in key Internet organizations. These organizations have been in the news lately because their representatives have gotten together in an effort to help resolve the controversy regarding the limits of the current first-come, first-served system for registering and assigning domain names (the root portion of all Internet addresses). See, e.g., Michael Richardson, Staking Out 'Classy' Real Estate in Cyberspace, International Herald Tribune, November 11, 1996; A. Michael Froomkin, Flood Control on the Information Ocean: Living with Anonymity, Digital Cash, and Distributed Databases, 15 J.L. & Com. 395, 444 (1996); See also Jere M. Webb, Trademarks, Cyberspace and the Internet, UCLA Online Institute for Cyberspace Law and Policy (Spring 1996).
The Internet Society (ISOC) -- an 18-member board of Internet experts initially chartered by the U.S. Government for the purpose of commenting on policies and overseeing other boards and task forces dealing with network policy -- has recently announced the formation of an International Ad Hoc Committee to "resolve issues arising from the current international debate" over a proposal to establish additional international top level domain names and a series of privately owned "global registries."
The interconnected groups forming the ad hoc committee will include the Federal Networking Council (an 18-member board with representatives from the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, and NSF), the International Telecommunications Union (a UN agency based in Geneva and founded originally in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union), the International Trademark Association (based in New York and founded originally in 1878 as the U.S. Trademark Association), the International Architecture Board (the technology advisory group for the Internet Society), the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (based at U.S.C. and in charge of all "unique parameters" on the Internet), and the World Intellectual Property Organization (a UN agency based in Geneva which administers various intellectual property treaties). See Alison Stuebe, Glossary of Internet Organizations, N.Y. Times CyberTimes Online, November 23, 1996.
Further complicating this interlocking network of groups is the current structure for accessing the Web by acquiring a domain name. Applicants must pay Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) $50 a year for a minimum of two years. NSI is a privately held company under contract with InterNIC (a collaborative project -- supported by NSF and including AT&T -- established in 1993 to manage the Internet domain name data base and registration process). NSI is required to forward 30 percent of its revenue to a fund managed by the Internet Society for the "maintenance" of the World Wide Web. See Christine Biederman and Jamie Murphy, Rebellion Over Who Controls the Net, N.Y. Times CyberTimes Online, November 23, 1996.
Netizens following the evolution of these organizations have expressed concern that ISOC's efforts constitute a real and palpable effort to "control" the direction of cyberspace. Critics have accused members of these groups of everything from "arrogating power" to fostering U.S.-centric policies to the ultimate sin itself -- attempting to govern the Internet. See id.
In light of these criticisms, the deliberations of the ad hoc committee are likely to be the focus of much attention in the coming months. At the same time, more commentators and jurists will begin asking whether anyone really is in charge here.
Return to Cyberspace Law
& Policy Institute Home Page.