Are you playing games on the Internet? Are you addicted? That depends who you ask. At least one government is considering jumping into the fray.

23 04 2010

There is no denying that the Internet serves a myriad of uses. In large part, the Internet has grown into an incredible productivity generator for people all over the world. Furthermore, the Internet has become an increasingly necessary tool to carry out critical tasks that can carry serious consequences if ignored.

With that being said, concern has been mounting about the possibility of Internet addiction. This controversial topic is a difficult one to grasp. What qualifies as excessive Internet use? Who decides these criteria? What are consequences for excessive use?

These are some of the very questions that governments are beginning to scope out as a means of building a regulatory framework to limit excessive Internet use that can be deemed harmful.

South Korea is at the forefront of regulations applying specifically to Internet gaming. A leading regulatory idea  is a gaming curfew where blocks of time are deemed periods of no play or at least limited play in order to encourage people to pull away from computer screens and get some rest. Granted, South Korea is in somewhat of a unique position due to the country’s advanced Internet infrastructure that allow tremendous bandwidth and speeds for all Koreans who are online.

I have some concerns about these proposals stemming from the South Korean government. Sure, actions that are harmful should be studied to determine the real, as opposed to perceived, threat that may be present. However, where does personal freedom factor into these scenarios, particularly in the United States? If people are in their own homes, using their own property to access the Internet and utilize it as they please, what right does the government have to step in and say essentially “Turn it off! Go to bed!” If South Korea were to fully embrace regulations about Internet gaming activities, will these actions translate into regulatory actions in the United States that are comparable to restrictions on tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption?

One of the principle problems with the idea of regulating Internet time use is the controversy around the concept of Internet addition. Some experts feel that abundant use the Internet is not classifiable as a true addition under widely acknowledged medical definitions. Others, such as Dr. Kimberly Young, founder of the Center for Internet Addiction, claim the exact opposite based upon symptomatic criteria. The following list reflects some measures by which she deems addiction to exist in Internet users:

  • Neglecting friends and family
  • Ignoring sleep in order to stay online
  • Euphoria when engaged with the Internet
  • Lack of behavior control
  • Being dishonest towards other people
  • Physical changes stemming from long periods of Internet use such as weight gain, carpal tunnel syndrome etc.
  • Absence in pleasure that previously resulted from other activities

Sifting through a variety of perspectives that exist on this issue, some major themes seem clear. First, spending too much time on the Internet either playing games or visiting pornography websites, can result in harmful health effects. The main effects cited tend to center around social isolation resulting from the deterioration of real life, face-to-face social skills. Second, the idea of excessive Internet usage needs to be scientifically proven as an addiction. Transparent studies to determine the validity of these claims should help clear the air on this topic. Finally, only after both of the aforementioned themes have been addressed can governments realize a more clairvoyant perspective on possible regulatory approaches to consider for Internet gaming and excessive Internet usage. 





Net Neutrality and the Appellate Court: Reasons for Concern and Praise in FCC Defeat

10 04 2010

A recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia regarding net neutrality standards raises a bunch of far-reaching consequences for Internet users. The court’s decision stated in no uncertain terms that the Federal Communications Commission does not have the authority to regulate how Internet service providers (ISP) restrict access to content that is accessed over their electronic networks. In essence, the court handed a victory to the big media companies in this country in so far that they can decide as private industry players what you and I view online.

If this potential power grab by media companies scares you, rest assured you are not alone. At first I was one of those who felt very uneasy about the effects this decision could have on my Internet surfing. However, the more I looked into the topic, the more I realized this issue has many, many sides to it.

It is likely a safe assumption that most people who have grown nervous with the Appellate Courts decision feel this way because of possible restrictions towards online content. This is a valid concern. I also do not want one company, such as Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner or any other Internet provider, to decide what I can and cannot check out online in my home on my time. Whenever public freedom to access information is restricted, there is a problem. My own ability to judge what I want to see, read or hear online should be my decision. If this recent court ruling erodes my ability to carry out this activity, I will be one unhappy camper.

When reading about the Appellate Court’s decision, I realized that there is a hypothetical elephant in the room that must be acknowledged. The elephant -–rather issue—is in regards to what the FCC can regulate. If the FCC does not possess the regulatory power for ISPs, then who or what does? Where are the safety measures, the checks and balances to power, that are meant to secure the interests of the public at large? Sure, some claim that as a private industry, self-regulation will ensure that the public is treated fairly when it comes to Internet access. However, we have seen numerous examples of corporate debacles stemming from deregulation activities in this country and the serious ripple effects the public experiences when they occur. Considering the FCC has been sidelined in terms of regulatory activity on the Internet, this leads to my next point.

The justice system that exists today in the United States is overburdened in many ways. Political leaders, judges and citizens have cried foul over the length of time it can take for court cases to be decided in this country. If there already is a problem of case overload in our judicial system and the FCC has now been ordered to stand down from regulating Internet providers, who then will have to step up to the plate and take on these regulatory duties? It would seem that by default, the United States’ courts are set to become the go-to entity in regulating Internet accessibility, as if the courts did not have enough on their plates already! This is a particular concern because it seems this will have far-reaching effects as this massive responsibility will only clog an already over burdened justice system. Additionally, if one were to factor in the increasingly partisan politics in our nations capital, the ideological differences among politicians has slowed the process of filling vacant federal court judgeship’s to a crawl. Yet another example of what may help to further strain the administration of justice across the country.

In conclusion, I must be fair in highlighting a major point of support I have towards the Appellate Court’s ruling against the FCC. From a strict business perspective, the claim by ISPs that it is neither fair nor reasonable for bandwidth hogging applications to be charged the exact same fees as normal bandwidth users is correct. If someone is using a program online that takes up a disproportionately large amount of bandwidth so that it infringes upon the Internet experience for other users, that one user should be charged more. In simplistic terms, this concept is similar to the way taxes are determined in the United States. The more income you make, the more you pay in taxes. Similarly, the more Internet bandwidth you use, the more you pay for that usage. Conceivably, the ISPs can reinvest the extra funding generated in this way for higher bandwidth capacity cables so that the Internet experience can be consistent and reliable for all users.

Stay tuned for future developments on net neutrality as the Appellate Court ruling is a beginning, not an end, to a significantly important issue facing the future of Internet use in the United States.