As a result, all traffic on the Internet was configured to be routed through two major gateways in Beijing and Shanghai, where the communications system is designed to pass through a few key "choke points", making censorship relatively easy. As well, Chinese police actively patrol cyberspace and keep track of Internet users in the country. Working from this system, Chinese authorities have managed to block access to a number of sites and areas on the Internet that they believe offer material unsuitable for its citizens or that run contrary to its rigid culture.

Over 100 sites have been screened out by Beijing, including those which express dissident viewpoints from Hong Kong and Taiwan; major media organizations from the United States of America, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Cable News Network (CNN); sexually explicit sites such as Playboy; and politically-sensitive sites dealing with Tibetan independence and human rights issues. Additionally, many Usenet groups, including those classified as alt, rec and soc, are reportedly not allowed on Chinese Internet host computers.

Although China announced in early 1997 that it had relaxed some restrictions on Internet access and that it planned to be more selective in regard to Internet censorship in future - perhaps recognizing that users are able to circumvent many of the edicts imposed by authorities, and access banned information - no other government has been as politically sensitive as China's. The government learned all too well the power of technology during the 1989 Tienanmen square massacre when fax machines gave citizens access to images they never would have seen otherwise, and Beijing does not seem prepared to allow the Internet to serve as a new threat to its power.

Elsewhere in Asia, similar extensive measures have also been invoked in Vietnam. In March 1997, a government decree announced that it would control and censor all Internet communications in the country. Among other things, the government manages domestic use of the Internet by refusing to allow legislative, judicial and research organisations to connect and by making diplomats and foreign organisations seek approval beforehand. As well, an Internet "firewall" has been installed to screen out transmissions from specific senders or news resources, removing much of the anti-government commentary by dissident groups as well as sexually explicit material that are transmitted from foreign countries. The government also requires that all information servers be based in Vietnam, and that incoming content on the Internet be supervised by the government.

For its part, Burma has instituted draconian measures against the Internet and other forms of communications technology. The ruling military regime, fearful of the democratizing power of the Internet, has reportedly outlawed its use as well as the ownership of an unregistered computer with networking capabilities or membership in an unauthorized computer club. Anyone who contravenes these edicts faces prison terms ranging from seven to fifteen years.

The ominous move to crack down on the Internet has also reached the shores of Indonesia, where, in June 1997, the Minister of Tourism, Posts and Telecommunications announced that the country was planning to control access to the Internet as it went ahead with its programme to build the infrastructure to make the information superhighway accessible to many of Indonesia's 200 million citizens. The minister reportedly declared that "pornography [and] things that hamper or threaten national security" would be controlled. He added that "the values of the nation would definitely have a bearing upon the application of the Internet," and that Indonesia would not have an "anything goes" attitude toward the new technology.

To be sure, it is not just in Asia where undemocratic regimes have imposed restrictions on the Internet which impact on free expression. With the Internet growing more popular in the Gulf states, those countries' leaders are preoccupied with how easily accessible information on the Internet might contravene the rules of their strict Islamic societies. As a result, almost all of the region's states are attempting to limit access to certain areas of the Internet. In 1997, Etisalat, the state-owned service provider to the seven emirates of the United Arab Emirates, instituted software blockade measures, or national proxy servers, after government officials complained about free access to the Internet. These servers route all Internet traffic and censor selected Internet sites that conflict with local moral values and traditions. Elsewhere, Qatar and Oman are attempting to block access to pornographic sites using Internet filtering software programs, while Kuwait's Ministry of Communications is working on a system of blocking access to banned Web sites. Bahrain has installed a system to block access to certain Internet-related sites. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has not yet officially linked up to the Internet and, considering the great number of taboos in this deeply conservative country, is not expected to do so soon.

State Control in Democratic Countries

Whereas the authoritarian regimes of the above-mentioned countries restrict access to the Internet in the name of either politics, national security or cultural values, other countries that are generally considered to be at least nominally democratic have attempted to impose their own form of control, usually in the form of a state monopoly on service. This trend is apparent in countries whose governments are manoeuvring to assume complete control of the new technology so as to maintain sole economic benefit and advantage of its development as well as, for some, to exert a measure of control over users. In these instances, free expression is also adversely affected.

In Zimbabwe, Internet service providers (ISPs) and the state-owned communications company (PTC) are feuding over control of the entity that registers new Internet sites. The ISPs claim that the PTC wants to assume control of the country's top level domain and that the government, through the PTC, is attempting to monopolize the Internet service business so that it can, among other things, control who gets registered and who does not. The ISPs further say that the PTC's charges for a bandwidth are among the highest in the world and may be designed to keep away potential suppliers from entering the market, which would ensure a government monopoly and a reduction in the number of potential service providers available to the public.

In another southern African nation, Malawi, privately-owned ISPs also fear that the government is creating an information monopoly to serve its interests. Their concerns were expressed after the government this year rejected several ISPs' applications and instead granted one to the state-owned Malawi Post and Telecommunications Corporation (MPTC). The MPTC already controls all telecommunications services in Malawi on which the Internet depends; it will also continue to be in charge of the allocation of Internet service licences on behalf of the government as well as provide competition to those it licenses. However, the ISPs fear that the MPTC will use its position to control the market and award licences only to providers less likely to offer it meaningful challenge. Amid the controversy over the delay and the rejection of applications by private ISPs, the government dispelled concerns that it was creating a monopoly, saying that four private ISPs were already operating in Malawi. However, these four ISPs must dial out through South Africa at what they describe as "prohibitive costs."

A case involving state monopoly of the Internet was recently played out in South Africa. A debate arose in 1996 when the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) challenged the role of the state telecommunication operator, Telkom, as an ISP before the Competition Board. The ISPA questioned the extent to which Telkom should be allowed to be an ISP, as well as the sole provider of telecommunications services. The private ISPs claimed that Telkom was abusing its position as the sole provider of the telecommunications infrastructure in order to undercut prices of private ISPs who had to bear the expense of leasing Telkom's lines for the clients, whereas Telkom did not have to carry that additional expense in offering ISP services. Telkom maintained that, as the state telecommunications operator with a self-proclaimed obligation to provide Internet access to the "masses," it was likely the only ISP that had the resources, capacity and instruction to provide sufficient infrastructure to provide on-line services in rural areas. It claimed that revenues generated in the monopoly over the provision of Internet access would facilitate this. However, the private ISPs claimed to have built the dynamic Internet industry in South Africa and to have established excellent service and delivery. This ability of the ISPs to build a vast Internet industry in South Africa is significant, the private ISPs asserted, because without sufficient service, capacity and bandwidth, the possibilities for promoting freedom of expression and access to information were quite minimal. For its part, Telkom maintained that the exclusivity period with the sole right to provide Internet access would allow it to build and develop the infrastructure to achieve the same result.

In October of this year, the South African Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (SATRA) decided that Telkom did not have exclusive right to provide Internet service in South Africa. Private ISPs would therefore be able to continue to buy bandwidth, which enable Internet access, from Telkom and re-sell it to end users. The decision was made to uphold South Africans' constitutional right to access to information; it was also seen as a victory for freedom of expression on the Internet, as it would ensure that as many people as possible would be able to hook up to the Internet easily.

Corporate Control

Beyond the realm of government, the ability of free expression to thrive on the Internet is being thwarted in societies where private sector control of the Internet has led to corporate domination - even monopolization - of the new technology.

In 1995, the Internet became a commercial operation when the U.S. government pulled out of the business of supporting its major transcontinental telephone lines, which transmitted information on the Internet, and handed over its operation to private corporations such as American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T), British Telecom and Deutsche Telekom. In spite of this, small, independent Internet service providers still operate in the market and are able to offer access rates at a reasonable price - generally ranging from US$20-30 a month. Nevertheless, as use of the Internet grows and more servicing capability is needed, these small ISPs will see their profit margins shrink. Fears are widespread that the big communications conglomerates could underprice them and force them out of the market, leading to greater concentration. In doing so, many non- mainstream views, which are often given a voice through these small service providers, could find themselves marginalized on-line or even silenced completely, and many important issues could be subject to a one-sided, even non-existent debate.

Popular communication on the Internet is also threatened by the fact that these conglomerates own the infrastructure on which the Internet operates. Yet, because the Internet is "running out of room", these companies and others, including cable companies, are investing in providing more, and more advanced, capacity. However, the estimated cost of doing so runs in the neighbourhood of hundreds of billions of dollars. Since these companies are in the business of making profits, users can therefore expect to see a significant jump in their Internet access rates. Another possibility is that the companies will turn to advertising for revenue. If either, or both, of these changes come into effect, then the number of voices heard on the Internet, particularly those which conflict with certain advertisers or even the communications companies themselves, will likely be reduced substantially.

Fear of corporate control of the Internet is also manifested when assessing the role of the biggest player in the computer software market, Microsoft. The U.S. giant controls well over 80 per cent of the software industry and is currently attempting to dominate the web browser market where its main rival, Netscape, still retains a healthy share. Microsoft is attempting to change that. It forces computer manufacturers to whom it licenses the Windows 95 operating system also to pre- install its browser, Internet Explorer. In 1996, when Compaq removed Internet Explorer from some of its personal computers, Microsoft ordered the company to restore its browser to a series of precise locations on the computer screen. If not, Microsoft would withdraw Compaq's Windows 95 licence - a virtual death sentence in the world of personal computers. Compaq capitulated and, today, Microsoft's Internet Explorer is the sole web browser on the company's computers.

Already in possession of a virtual monopoly in the computer operating systems and software market, what are the implications for free expression as well as the diversity of information if Microsoft controls the Internet and its accessibility? [See also discussion of ratings systems and filter software programs, below.] Could Microsoft conceivably control all information in the future? What would be the effects on free and open communication on the Internet? These questions need to be expressed when the danger is real that one person, group or corporation could have such complete control on power and information in the so-called Age of Information.

© The Canadian Committee to Protect Journalists (ccpj@ccpj.ca)