JHU POLITIK
the
SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
VOLUME XVI, ISSUE III
the
JHU POLITIK EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Eliza Schultz MANAGING EDITOR Christine Server
HEAD WRITER Julia Allen
ASSISTANT EDITORS Katie Botto Dylan Etzel Preston Ge Abigail Sia
POLICY DESK EDITOR Mira Haqqani
CREATIVE DIRECTOR Diana Lee
WEBMASTER Ben Lu
COPY EDITOR Florence Noorinejad FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
2 the JHU POLITIK
MARKETING & PUBLICITY Maria Garcia
STAFF WRITERS Arpan Ghosh Rosellen Grant Rebecca Grenham Christine Kumar Shannon Libaw Corey Payne Juliana Vigorito
• September 15, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue III
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 7 9 10 11
Week in Review: Public Health Abigail Annear ’18 An Indonesian Spring?
President Jokowi and Indonesia’s Democratic Potential
Sathvik Namburar ’18
“Church and State Not So Separate in Ukrainian Crisis”
Olga Baranoff ’16 No Safe Haven?
The Growing Concern over Western Foreign Fighters in Syria
Abigail Sia ’15
Papers Please:
The Dalai Lama’s Immigration Issues
Shrenik Jain ’18
Down on Negawatts Dylan Etzel ’17 The FCC:
A Threat to Net Neutrality
Dana Ettinger ’17
Volume XVI, Issue III • September 15, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
Week in Review: Public Health by Abigail Annear ’18, Contributing Writer Rising Tensions over the Weaponization of Ebola An unknown perpetrator stabbed a U.S. federal air marshal with a syringe suspected to contain traces of an Ebola strain in Lagos, Nigeria. International media outlets and health organizations alike expressed concern over potential harvesting of the lethal virus by terrorist organizations for the manufacture of biological weapons. The assault spawned anxiety that subversive groups might employ suicide missions that would extend the scope of the disease and instill fear and rampant paranoia within society. Bioterrorism researchers countered these fears, assuring that Ebola is an extremely unstable pathogen transmittable only through bodily fluids. It could neither withstand the severe environmental changes involved in its isolation nor be effective as a weapon, because it cannot be spread through air or physical objects like other bioterrorism toxins and organisms, including anthrax, smallpox, and the bubonic plague.
Crucifixions, Decapitations, and the Bubonic Plague in the 21st Century ISIS, also known as the Islamic State or ISIL, commenced research on the construction of a weapon of mass destruction that would disseminate the bubonic plague throughout civilian populations via air-conditioning systems in congested public centers. ISIS aims to facilitate its objective of founding and commanding a Sunni Islamic caliphate by whatever means necessary. A manual, discovered on the confiscated laptop of a Tunisian member of the terrorist group, delineates the process of using infected animals to develop such a weapon, capable of infecting millions of people and causing widespread panic. In addition to the guide, a religious justification authorizing the weapon’s use according to Sharia law was found on the same computer.
Demand for International Leniency on Drug Policy The Global Commission on Drug Policy (GCDP), a panel of distinguished political and economic leaders, produced a forty-five page report condemning the current “war on drugs.” It called for universal reduction of incarcerations and convictions for most cases of drug use and possession. As an advocate for public health, the commission urged nations to proactively counter organized crime, drug trafficking, and addiction by legalizing specified medicinal and psychoactive substances, including cannabis and coca leaf, to allow for equal access to treatment. Former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, member of the GCDP, encouraged countries to “[treat] drug addiction as a health issue rather than a crime.” The GCDP recommended that the United Nations summit, occurring in 2016, reform the existing system after assessing global drug laws and initiatives.
4 the JHU POLITIK
• September 15, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue III
An Indonesian Spring?
President Jokowi and Indonesia’s Democratic Potential
R
by Sathvik Namburar ’18, Contributing Writer
emember the Arab Spring? It has been nearly four years since the self-immolation of a Tunisian street vendor in December 2010 sparked pro-democracy protests that rocked several Muslim-majority countries across the Middle East and North Africa. The West widely hailed these spontaneous uprisings as clear calls for democracy and hoped that the protests would generate new democracies to help combat extremism in Muslim countries long dominated by autocrats. Unfortunately, the optimism engendered by the Arab Spring remains largely unfulfilled. Many protests were brutally dispersed, and where protesters did overthrow their rulers (Egypt, Libya, and Yemen) they created power voids that left their countries vulnerable to extremist incursions and harsh military rule. Hundreds of thousands of others have lost their lives in the civil war in Syria. While the protests did lead to the creation of a fledgling democracy in Tunisia, overall the effects of the Arab Spring were more disastrous than they were beneficial. Other Muslim-majority countries continue to struggle with democracy as well, as extremism and rampant corruption threaten the political systems in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Iran has a democracy in name only. While Turkey does have a vibrant democracy, it has historically sought to distance itself from its neighbors in the Middle East and North Africa. Still, there is new cause for hope emanating from the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country: Indonesia. One might not consider Indonesia to be a bastion of democracy, since the autocratic ruler Suharto ruled the country for 31 years until 1998. However, the results of this summer’s democratic presidential election in that country were certainly encouraging. The election was contested between Joko Widodo (commonly referred to as Jokowi), who hails from an underprivileged family, and Prabowo Subianto, who was seen as the candidate of the elite – and is Suharto’s son-in-law. After months of campaigning, Jokowi emerged with a narrow victory, a result that Prabowo disputed unsuccessfully. This result is significant for several reasons. The election itself represented a conflict between the outsider, populist Jokowi and the elitist Prabowo, who as the head of Indonesia’s military tried to preserve Suharto’s autocratic regime as it crumbled in 1998. Jokowi’s success is seen as a victory for Indone-
sians, as he is the first person to hold the presidency who is not a member of the political elite or of a military background. He will face numerous challenges while in office and will confront great opposition in his stated quest to dismantle Indonesia’s inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy, but in his previous political post (as governor of Jakarta) he spearheaded an effective regime. If Jokowi is successful, he will demonstrate that democracy can thrive in Indonesia without an autocrat or general at the helm – and that ordinary citizens are more than capable of ruling the country. Regardless of his effectiveness, however, Jokowi’s victory alone is also a huge victory for democracy in Indonesia. Furthermore, if Jokowi is successful, his presidency could serve as a model for other Muslim-majority countries that have not established effective democracies. Inclusive regimes across the Middle East and North Africa could significantly abet peace efforts in the region. While democracy likely will not appease extremists, inclusive government could lessen religious conflicts and create a united front against extremism. For example, the United States actively encouraged the formation of an inclusive government in Iraq to reduce Sunni-Shia tensions and combat the emerging threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Indonesia – like Turkey – has historically played a minimal role in Middle Eastern and North African affairs, but Jokowi has expressed an interest in expanding Indonesia’s involvement in the region to fight extremism and support other Muslim-majority countries both politically and economically. However, Indonesia’s relative isolation will make it difficult for Jokowi to influence affairs in other Muslim-majority countries. Furthermore, Indonesia is a secular state whose rulers have historically downplayed their religious affiliations, further limiting its potential influence in the Middle East and North Africa. It remains to be seen whether other Muslim-majority countries will be receptive to Jokowi’s diplomatic efforts, but his fresh perspective and charisma could help him demonstrate the power of democracy to these countries. If Jokowi, the son of a working-class carpenter, can effectively govern the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country effectively, Indonesia could serve as a shining beacon of democracy – and perhaps incite an “Indonesian Spring.”
Volume XVI, Issue III • September 15, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
“Church and State Not So Separate in Ukrainian Crisis”
H
by Olga Baranoff ’16, Contributing Writer
istorically, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), also known as the Moscow Patriarchate, has been a forceful presence in the politics of the Russian Empire. Today, the church’s political presence remains highly relevant. The roots of the ROC can be traced back to Kiev (now the capital of Ukraine), when Prince Vladimir baptized his people as Christians in 988. Since then, the ROC has been closely tied to those in power in Russia, from tsars to current president Vladimir Putin. The Church has consistently influenced politics in Russia and other eastern European countries in which it claims jurisdiction over Orthodox Christians, including Ukraine, where it has exhibited a great extent of involvement in the current crisis there. The ROC is the largest of three Orthodox Churches in Ukraine and the only one to be officially recognized by the world’s main Orthodox churches. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate claims to contain up to 75 percent of the Ukrainian population. Although survey results are inconsistent with that figure, the Church is indeed made up of the majority of Orthodox Ukrainians. While the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is autonomous, its leader must still be approved by church leaders in Moscow. The head of the Church in Moscow, Patriarch Kirill, has been known for his close ties to the Kremlin and to Putin. He is said to share a “Russian world” or “russkiy mir” ideology with Putin, a worldview that combines both theology and politics in its belief of uniting ethnic Russians under one political system and under Russian Orthodoxy. The separatist conflict in Ukraine is, in part, driven by this ideology. The ROC has been closely tied to the conflict in Ukraine since its beginning, with images released earlier this year that show Orthodox priests standing between protesters and government forces. Prayer quickly became an integral part of the protests, and Maidan Square in Kiev, where the protests were centered, became a locus of religious – not just political and social – discourse.
the pro-Russian cause has begun to surface. Priests have blessed rebel fighters, prayed over separatists, and have otherwise aided pro-Russia fighters – stashing weapons and sheltering rebel fighters on church property. Pro-Russia rebels in Slovyansk and other parts of eastern Ukraine have used their power to remove rival Christian denominations, such as evangelical Protestants. The rebel fighters also claim to serve the ROC as they engage in murder, kidnapping, and general thuggery. While the Church does not explicitly support the separatists, the fighters are nonetheless, in their own view, advancing the cause of the Church. Somewhat more explicit has been the Church’s rejection of rebel leaders who have shown too much religious zeal; certain leaders have conformed to radical strains of quasi-xenophobic Orthodox traditions, which have given the separatist cause a fanatical and unpopular slant. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has said that one “cannot ignore the fact that the conflict in Ukraine has unambiguous religious overtones;” he sheds light on the efforts by the Ukrainian military to confront Russian-backed rebels as a religious war intended to “overpower the canonical Orthodox Church.” Rival churches, however, cite the Moscow Patriarchate’s close ties to Kremlin policy, suggesting that any religious struggle has its root cause in politics. Regardless of the religious politicking, it is clear that the ROC is deeply entrenched in the Ukrainian crisis, both for historical reasons, given that Kiev is where Russian Orthodoxy began, and currently, as the Moscow Patriarchate is tied to Putin, Kremlin policy, and the advancement of “russkiy mir.” While the lack of separation between church and state is, arguably, quite different from the role of religion in American politics, the United States is not as closely tied to the history of a religious institution. In light of the large political and social influence of the ROC, the sides that it takes – and does not take – are highly relevant to the crisis in Ukraine, and can deeply influence the outcome of the current conflict.
As the conflict escalates, evidence of the close ties between parts of the ROC, including individual Orthodox priests, and
6 the JHU POLITIK
• September 1, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue I
No Safe Haven?
The Growing Concern over Western Foreign Fighters in Syria
O
by Abigail Sia ’15, Assistant Editor
n September 10, President Obama finally unveiled a plan to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Along with announcing the continuation of airstrikes and the deployment of nearly 500 service members to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces, calling on Congress to grant authorities and resources to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels, and guaranteeing continued humanitarian assistance to displaced civilians, he promised that the United States would continue to work to undercut ISIS’s reach and finances. He also nodded to an issue that has received a lot of notice and concern in other parts of the West, but relatively less attention in the United States – the steady influx of foreign fighters into the Middle East, and especially Syria: “We will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent [ISIS] attacks. Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to … stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East.” His remarks are a welcome acknowledgement of the foreign fighters issue, an area important to national security where the United States has been significantly less aggressive than its allies. While the vast majority of foreign fighters in Syria are from other parts of the Middle East and North Africa, thousands of Westerners have traveled to Syria to fight alongside extremist rebel groups for a variety of reasons since the civil war began. According to The New York Times, many fighters are idealists who are grievously opposed to the Assad regime’s indiscriminate killing of fellow Muslim men, women, and children. Meanwhile, others have grown disillusioned with the West’s view of Islam. Logistically speaking, Syria is also easy to access – the border between Iraq and Syria is incredibly porous, and Syria is easily reachable from southern Turkey. The number of foreign fighters in Syria includes dozens of Americans, two of whom were killed in late
August: Douglas McAuthur McCain and Abdirahmaan Muhumed, both from the Minneapolis area that has become a fertile recruiting ground for Islamic terrorist groups due to its high Somali population. However, Westerners are also flowing into the Middle East from Europe and even from as far away as Australia. The Economist – after combining upper estimates from Eurostat, the IMF, the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, and The Soufan Group – approximates that up to 700 Frenchmen, 400 Britons, 270 Germans, and 250 Belgians (among other Europeans) have traveled to Syria to fight; Dutch authorities estimate that approximately 120 Dutch citizens have fought in Syria and 14 have been killed so far. Why all of the fuss over Westerners who choose to fight in a civil war in a distant land? As the United States and other Western countries do not have troops on the ground in Syria, the problem is not that these fighters pose a threat to combat forces. Instead, Western countries worry about what these fighters will carry out once they return to their home countries, given their new radical ideology and their jihadi training. Some people, like the eight arrested in Spain in June and the three arrested in the Netherlands in August may attempt to recruit others to join ISIS. Others may carry out terrorist-style attacks, like Frenchman Mehdi Nemmouche was accused of having done in May when he killed four people in Brussels’ Jewish Museum. But perhaps the biggest fear is that the European or other Western passports that most of these returning Western jihadis carry will allow them to easily traverse most borders. If their radicalization went unnoticed and they were not on a watch list, many of them would be able to enter the United States without a visa. Case in point: Moner Mohammad Abusalha, a radicalized man from Florida who became the first American to carry out a suicide bomb attack in the Syrian conflict, returned home to the United States for several months before traveling back to Syria to carry out his final act. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Volume XVI, Issue I • September 1, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
In his speech, Mr. Obama pledged next month, when the United States rotates into the presidency of the UN Security Council, “to further mobilize the international community” against the influx of foreign fighters. However, the fact is that the United States is late to the game, as other countries have already started to take steps against this threat. France is fast-tracking legislation through its Parliament to enable authorities to seize passports of returning jihadis. The Netherlands is actively going after websites that spread ISIS propaganda and is able to strip jihadis of their Dutch nationality. Australia has also unveiled its own counterterrorism measures, including strengthening community engagement programs to prevent young Australians from associating with extremist groups and creating a specific monitoring team to track returning fighters and their supporters. Harsher measures are also underway in Britain, whose foreign fighters problem was thrown into the spotlight after videos surfaced on the Internet showing a man, who appears to be British, beheading American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. Terror suspects who are subjected to court controls will be forced to participate in de-radicalization programs and could even be forced to relocate away from associates. Furthermore, polls show that the vast majority of British voters (67 percent) want the government to strip the citizenship of any Briton fighting for ISIS. The United States, by contrast, appears to be taking a less aggressive approach. Earlier this summer, the spokesperson for the National Security Council assured reporters that “we continue to use every tool we possess to disrupt and dissuade individuals from traveling abroad for violent jihad and to track and engage those who return”. Thus far, the US strategy to tackle the foreign fighters issue seems to be limited to investigations into Americans who have traveled into Syria or whom officials believe plan to travel to Syria to fight alongside the rebels. Silicon Valley firms such as Google and Twitter, on the other hand, have been actively removing extremist content aimed at recruiting
8 the JHU POLITIK
new fighters. Unfortunately, this is a “whack-a-mole” strategy at best. ISIS has already proven itself to be a new kind of terror group through its propensity and willingness to use social media, and it is unfathomable that taking down content will dissuade them from posting more and more propaganda. Mr. Obama was right to acknowledge the existence of this issue, but it still sounds like the United States government does not yet have a concrete plan to deal with people like Douglas McAuthur McCain, Abdirahmaan Muhumed, and the dozens of other Americans currently fighting in Syria. If we want to seriously weaken ISIS, we must do more than target them with airstrikes. We should consider following Europe’s example and increase the penalties for joining the fight in Syria in order to reduce the incentive to take up arms, especially because ISIS is estimated to now have anywhere between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters. Above all, we need to do more than what we are currently doing if we want to protect ourselves against this new threat – a point that has become especially salient around the thirteenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Mr. Obama claimed that aggression against threats to America is a core tenet of his presidency. He proclaimed, “We will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are… If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.” But given the absence of any sort of legislation like what is occurring in Europe and Australia, returning jihadis may very well find a safe haven within the country’s borders. And once they find a safe haven, there is no way to know for sure what they might carry out until it is too late.
• September 15, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue III
Papers Please:
The Dalai Lama’s Immigration Issues
T
by Shrenik Jain ’18, Contributing Writer
he air in Cape Town this month was rife with controversy as the city prepared to host the 14th World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates. Those invited include Muhammad Yunus, a pioneer in poverty-alleviating microfinance theory and Shirin Ebadi, the founder of the Defenders of Human Rights Centre in Iran. The most controversial invitee, however, was the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso. After the Dalai Lama applied for a South African visa to attend the convention, he found the processing of his application was severely delayed. Eventually, the Dalai Lama’s representative in South Africa announced that the visa would be denied, and the Dalai Lama reportedly cancelled his bid. While the West views the Dalai Lama as somewhat of a Buddhist Pope who preaches restraint and kindness, the position refers to the traditional head of the government of Tibet and the high priest of Tibetan Buddhism. Tibet is a region in Southwestern China, bordering Nepal and the Himalayas and is home to its own ethnic minority with a strong tradition of independence. Since the medieval kingdom of Tibet, the region has fluctuated between being an autonomous nation, a protectorate, or a direct territory of China. Many Tibetans consider themselves distinct from China, but many Chinese see Tibet as a part of China proper. The current Dalai Lama has had to lead in exile. Between 1950 and 1951, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) invaded and placed Tibet under its suzerainty, but left a local government in place. However, in 1956 the PRC invaded Tibet once more in retaliation to Tibetan guerrillas who opposed land reform, and dissolved the local Tibetan government completely. The then 21 year-old Dalai Lama fled to India and set up a government in exile. After exiling himself, the Dalai Lama founded the Central Tibetan Association (CTA) in Dharamsala, India. Initially comprised of a parliament elected by Tibetan exiles, the CTA has advocated for an autonomous Tibet for the past five decades primarily by collecting donations, and spreading Tibetan culture and language. In 2001, the Dalai Lama renounced his power to appoint the head of parliament and a series of CTA
structural reforms removed the Dalai Lama’s political power in 2011. He remains an eminent global spiritual icon and religious leader, and regularly speaks for human rights on topics ranging from chemical weapons to contraceptives. The PRC has repeatedly called for the deportation of the Dalai Lama from India, seeing the CTA as a threat to stability in Tibet. While the PRC’s occupation of Tibet has seen economic development and modernization, such as the proliferation of secular education, PRC rule in Tibet has been characterized as extremely repressive. The region has a history rife with unrest, from demonstrations to armed rebellions, with the most recent being a trend started in 2009: public self-immolation, usually performed by a young Tibetan monk to protest what Tibetans perceive as a systematic eradication of their culture. Many Chinese citizens, however, counter that archaic Tibetan traditions themselves were repressive, and that PRC-initiated modernization is for the greater good. As Chinese influence has grown, it has attempted to marginalize the Dalai Lama’s role internationally. India’s harboring of the Dalai Lama led to a deterioration of its relations with China and contributed to the Sino-Indian war of 1962. China has exerted pressure on nations from Germany to Thailand to not allow the Dalai Lama’s visits, and no foreign governments recognize the CTA’s legitimacy. While the South African government officially claims that the PRC had nothing to do with the Dalai Lama’s visa, most observers are skeptical: this recent instance marks the Dalai Lama’s third denial in five years from South Africa; in addition, a PRC official made a statement praising the South African government’s decision. The relevance of this denial is amplified by the global growth of Chinese influence, especially in Africa. China is becoming an economic and military powerhouse; it is already South Africa’s number one source of imports and the rapid expansion of its navy widens its ability to project power every year. China’s newfound weight in international relations means it will continue to put pressure on the Dalai Lama and the CTA—but this is no solution to the turmoil in Tibet today.
Volume XVI, Issue III • September 15, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
9
Down on Negawatts by Dylan Etzel ’17, Assistant Editor
J
immy Carter’s “Report to the American People on Energy” endorsed an energy policy that the whole world should no longer overlook. The idea of the “Negawatt”, or watts not consumed, is a one-word summary of energy conservation. American politicians and scientists showcase creative, structured technological plans for solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas based power, but these so-called solutions do nothing but reinforce energy dependency. Many countries have substantially invested in alternative forms of energy. Spain has eight of the ten most capacious solar plants in the world. The Three Gorges Dam in China has a 20,300-megawatt capacity, and Brazil’s total hydroelectric capacity reaches a similar figure. South Korea has made strides in nuclear fission, while American scientists laud nuclear fusion as the world’s next power generating process. All the while, the United States is slated to become the world’s biggest exporter of hydrocarbon fuel due to discoveries of natural gas. The problem with all of these strides in energy generation is that they keep the policy discussion centered on investment in creating energy as opposed to reducing energy usage. The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) has predicted that energy consumption will increase by 56 percent by 2040. Renewable energy would change the world in theory, but in practice, energy conservation produces real results without hundreds of million dollars more of research and development. Although it seems that aspiring engineers dream of discovering a renewable energy phenomenon, conservational technology is both possible and available. In fact, investment in energy efficiency has exceeded investment in conventional fuels and electricity, despite not yet surpassing money spent on renewable energy technological development. Though the majority of the American populace understands the benefits of fluorescent light bulbs, it shies away from larger energy efficiency purchases, like more efficient cars, all of which run at least partially on electricity. But consumers are not the only decision-makers; federal and local governments need to invest in enhanced energy conservation as well. New York City is a prime example currently under fire for inefficiency. Other than during the summer, half
10 the JHU POLITIK
of the city’s energy capacity goes unused. Power grids account for much electrical inefficiency on the state level, but new power grid engineering could vastly improve efficiency. Moving gridlines underground, which many localities are considering, would also help. With various grid improvements, Negawatt investment is projected to lead to a 20 percent reduction in national energy use by 2020, says the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, world energy policy has run into even more trouble in developing countries, where energy inefficiency is high, but large amounts of energy are necessary to continue development. According to the EIA, countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), most of which are not considered developed, will double energy consumption by 2040. This represents a huge opportunity for energy-efficient improvements. An information barrier exists: developing countries neglect to invest in energy-efficient technology due to perceived costs and inability to reach individual consumers. At the state level, however, numerous papers have indicated that being more energy efficient would decrease both labor costs and costs of materials for manufacturing. According to a 2011 United Nations Industrial Development Organization study, firms in developing countries do not invest as heavily in planning out energy use, but firms in developing countries that do invest in energy efficiency are highly likely to increase their investment later. They also found that firms’ managers are hesitant to invest due to a perceived escalating future cost of improving efficiency, for which they prescribe government policy that endorses and mandates improving efficiency. Therefore, the question of efficiency in developing countries may be as political as it is microeconomic. The investment discussion focuses on renewable energy, which gets more capital investment than energy efficiency measures. Renewable energy, however, has produced fewer tenable solutions to the growing world energy crisis. Even if efficiency proves its case in developed nations, developing nations often neglect energy efficiency in favor of maximizing energy production. The goal needs to be redefined—what is more important? Increasing energy, scaling up infinitely as demand grows, or increasing efficiency, at least before investing in production? Efficiency and renewable energy are not mutually exclusive, but one should be prioritized right now.
• September 15, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue III
The FCC:
A Threat to Net Neutrality by Dana Ettinger ’17, Contributing Writer
T
he Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been making new rules lately, and those rules are going to have a big impact on the way we use the Internet. In April, the FCC proposed a rule that would allow broadband Internet providers to build special, faster connection lanes and charge companies more for the right to use them. This new rule claims to protect net neutrality, but in reality it is a big victory for its opponents, namely Internet service providers (ISPs). On the surface, this might seem like a simple regulatory quirk, hardly worthy of a heated debate. The implications, however, are staggering. The new rule essentially creates a “pay for play” system in which ISPs could charge more for faster download speeds. So what is “net neutrality”? Net neutrality is the generally accepted principle that all traffic on the Internet – email, websites, the newest viral cat video – should be treated equally. In 2011, the FCC passed a rule that required ISPs (i.e. Verizon and Comcast) to enforce higher transparency of network management practices, prohibit the blocking of lawful content, and prevent discrimination in transmitting legal traffic. These were part of the effort to preserve a “free and open Internet,” or net neutrality. However, Verizon brought the regulation to court and, in a blow to free Internet advocates, the regulation was voided by a U.S. District Court. If approved, the proposed rule would have several key effects. First, broadband companies could slow down Internet speeds for companies that do not pay the premium. This has already happened: while in negotiations over a proposed “fast lane” (made possible by the court decision), Comcast actually did this to Netflix customers using its connection. Download speeds dropped by 30 percent according to a graph published in The Washington Post. Once Netflix reached an agreement with Comcast, speeds skyrocketed by 50 percent to even faster levels than before the slow-down. This is blatant extortion: Comcast was holding connection speeds hostage in order to force Netflix to pay them more money.
Even more insidiously, charging a premium for faster download speeds acts as a barrier to entry for new Internet startups. Industry giants like Facebook, YouTube, Netflix, and Amazon can obviously afford to pay for faster connections for their customers. A new startup, however, will have a much more difficult time paying the premium. Consequently, competition would be drastically reduced because new startups would not be playing on a level field. Furthermore, Internet services might start being more expensive, and some sites might start charging for content that in the past had been able to operate for free. YouTube is one of the most commonly cited examples: currently, we can watch cat videos and talk show clips to our hearts’ content without paying a dime. If YouTube had to start paying a fee in order to maintain their fast internet speeds, they might decide to pass that cost on to the consumer and start charging people to watch their videos. Would Gangnam Style have reached such a high view count if it cost $1.29 or more to watch? This rule, if passed, will make the Internet inherently unequal. Those who can afford to pay will have faster Internet, while those who cannot will see their speed significantly reduced. In addition to indirectly pressuring websites to charge consumers for access, this would effectively create a two-tiered system of access to Internet content. One of the Internet’s greatest blessings is its ability to freely disseminate information – but if some people couldn’t afford access to that information, we would lose a significant tool for education. The new rules proposed in April have not yet been approved. The new rule would allow ISPs to extort internet companies, which would both reduce competition might force previously free websites to charge users. The rule has not yet been approved, as the FCC invited public content until September 15. However, should it decide to proceed, the internet as we know it would cease to exist. Hopefully, the FCC will reject this new rule and protect net neutrality.
Volume XVI, Issue III • September 15, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
11
WRITE FOR the JHU POLITIK
PHOTO COURTESY: UNITED STATES LIBRARY OF CONGRESS’S PRINTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS DIVISION
JHU Politik, founded in 2008, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins community with student voices and perspectives about important issues of our time. Rather than hide within a cloistered academic bubble, we know we must critically engage with the world that surrounds us. That, we believe, is at the heart of what it means to be learning. We are lucky to be situated in the city of Baltimore, a city with a rich history and an ever-changing politics. We aim to look at the politics of the Homewood campus, the city of Baltimore, the domestic landscape of the United States, and the international community . While we publish the Politik weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues which come out once per semester. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. We have run issues covering topics like the political nature of research, the Arab Spring, and our city Baltimore.
If interested, e-mail us at
JHUPOLITIK@gmail.com Or find us online at
jhupolitik.org
12 the JHU POLITIK
• September 15, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue III