Discussion 2.1

I believe when it comes to the sovereignty of the Internet, there is no true way to govern. It is to me as John Perry Barlow said in his Declaration; there is no true way to govern in the real of Cyberspace. In his article, he illustrates how there is a true dichotomy between how governments are trying to impose traditionally styled regulations upon an entity which they cannot possibly hope to ever contain. The speed at which the virtual world has grown has far outpaced anything that could be contained by or monitored with known regulatory practices. It is essentially lawless and governed only by the users whom frequent it and fully grasp that significance, the true 'digital natives'. Personally, I find his view a bit idealistic. There have been large concerted efforts to impose control on the internet, and there has been little success. The innovation has come predominantly from businesses in the free market, large tech companies such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple have made many great strides in implementing safe web practices that have now become standard and do much more to protect the user. I do think, however, that people have allowed themselves to be spoon fed what is good for them when it comes to the net. I see it as next to impossible for a government protect or regulate anything on the internet; you may as well try to rope the sun. I find the thought interesting in Henry Story's conclusion regarding the "web of nations", where he concludes that governance of this entity can only be done if it is started at the lowest level through cooperation. It is very interesting that his conclusion is essentially where Francesca Bria states that Barcelona is standing firmly. In the adopted approach where citizens are taking control of web access as a utility, Barcelona is able to return a large portion of control to the people. She goes on to explain how embracing this approach is making transparent the functions of their local government, but also allowing the people to allocate when and where resources are used. This increases people's involvement in government exponentially, but also their level of responsibility. In the US, I'm not sure if anyone is ready to treat the internet as a public utility, as there seems to be a mindset of focusing nationally rather than locally. Not only does this model make it more affordable for everyone, but it allows much more flexibility in remaining fiscally solvent. Wilson, North Carolina is one of the few cities in the US to offer community owned Internet service, and provides this on an extensive fiber optic network. Another city doing this is Chattanooga, Tennessee, and both towns are offering high speed internet access at prices that are cheaper than private providers. Their main resistance has not been from the citizens, but from the large corporate service providers that are now having to compete with community owned entities. I'm all for the proliferation of smart cities. We might be able to begin talking to actual people on the phone again, rather than having to answer prompts for an hour with a 5-minute problem. Sovereignty would be returned to whom it rightfully belongs.