Networks and Communication Studies NETCOM, vol. 17, n° 3-4, 2003 p. 139-148
Real Places and Virtual Spaces Mark I. Wilson1
Résumé.— Lieux réels et espaces virtuels.— L’Internet et le Cyberspace sont souvent interprétés comme des mondes n’ayant ni zones de contacts ni frontières. Cette représentation ne doit pas affaiblir la signification de “lieux” ou “localisation” dans ce type d’espace. La fréquentation quotidienne de lar réalité d’Internet montre que la “topographie” du monde réel continue à marquer puissament le monde du cyberespace. Les discussions académiques ou populaires des impacts sociaux des technologies de l’information et de communication (TIC) ont généralement souligné les dimensions globales et l’importance décroissante de la distance et des lieux. L’importance réelle de la localisation et de l’organisation spatiale émerge. Dans une perspective géographique, le but de cet article est d’illustrer la place des lieux et des frontières dans un phénomène apparemment a-spatial. Mots clés.— Cyberespace. Géocyberespace. Internet. Localisation. Technologies de l’information. TIC. Abstract.— The Internet and cyberspace are often interpreted as a seamless, borderless world, but this image should not be confused with a diminished meaning of place or location. The daily reality of Internet use is that, appearances aside, the topography of world institutions continues to emerge dramatically and powerfully through the seemingly seamless web of cyberspace. Both popular and academic discussion of the societal impacts of information and communication technologies (ICT) generally have emphasized the global dimensions and the seeming decreasing importance of distance and place. As ICTs become more ubiquitous and permeating, however, the actual importance of locality and spatial organization emerges. The goal of this article is to take a geographic perspective in order to illustrate the importance of places and borders in a seemingly aspatial phenomenon. Keywords.— Cyberspace. Geocyberspace. Internet. Location. Information technologies. ITC. Regulation
1. INTRODUCTION
The proclamation of cyberspace as a frictionless realm of social and economic interaction suggests a supra national phenomenon where borders and barriers no longer remain. While the Internet and cyberspace present the image of a borderless world, this image should not be confused with a diminished meaning of
1. Associate Professor, Geography/Urban Planning, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI 48824
[email protected] Acknowledgements - The author would like to thank an anonymous referee for comments.
140
NETCOM, vol. 17, n° 3-4, 2003
place or location. The daily reality of Internet use is that, appearances aside, the topography of world institutions continues to emerge dramatically and powerfully through the seemingly seamless web of cyberspace. Both popular and academic discussion of the societal impacts of information and communication technologies (ICT) generally has emphasized the global dimensions and the seeming decreasing importance of distance and place. As ICTs become more ubiquitous and permeating, however, the actual importance of locality and spatial organization emerges. The goal of this article is to take a geographic perspective in order to illustrate the importance of places and borders in a seemingly aspatial phenomenon. Geographic perspectives on cyberspace offer many insights into the operation and potential of linked information technologies. In fact, there are several geographies associated with cyberspace. First, there are the geographies of the physical infrastructure that allows electronic interaction, of the flows of information and finance that rely upon electronic infrastructure, and of the economic activities that depend and derive from information technologies. The patterns of fiber optic cables, wireless towers and antennae, and server hotels all point to a spatial distribution of telecommunications and Internet infrastructure. The geography of cyberspace infrastructure is raised by a number of scholars, such as Hepworth (1990), Brunn and Leinbach (1991), and Kellerman (1993, 2002). The second element is spatial variation and disparity, essentially the boundaries between “have” and “have not” areas in virtual space and in real space. What neighborhoods, cities, provinces, or countries experience good access to information resources, and where are the disadvantaged locations without suitable access? The equity implications of cyberspace emerge in many ways, such as the variation in access between different groups or between urban and rural areas in the United States that emerged from the Falling Through The Net reports (NTIA), and Castells (1996, 1997, 1998). At a global level, differences emerge between the developed and the developing world, as illustrated by Wilson (2001b), and Leinbach and Brunn (2001). The third dimension is the nature of places in cyberspace as defined by their cultural characteristics. Cyberspace captures these cultural geographies through the development, languages, design, and form of website content, representing the interests and preferred modes of interaction of different societies. Corey (1997, 1998) points to different leadership styles in southeast Asia in the formulation of information technology policies and priorities, while Kavanaugh (1998) addresses the local characteristics of IT in North Africa, as does Rimmer (2000) for Indonesia, and Barme and Ye (1997) for China. Finally, geography also is concerned with demarcation of places and interaction, and the role of boundaries and borders in cyberspace. No longer an unregulated frontier, cyberspace must now pay attention to jurisdictional boundaries as they define political space, and therefore, real space. The spatial organization of regulation, taxation, and enforcement of law critically raises the element of space in analysis of cyberspace. As market pressures are applied to the seamless
REAL PLACES AND VIRTUAL SPACES
141
blanket of cyberspace, the underlying topography of place and border emerges. The legal and jurisdictional elements of the geography of the Internet are discussed by Hudson (1998) in terms of regulatory spaces, while Biegel (2001) explores cyberlaw and the diverse legal treatment of a single phenomenon with many dimensions. As Biegel notes, web sites can have many meanings, including roles such as schools, broadcast media, a living room or a library, and these interpretations can vary by country and jurisdiction. This paper explores several geographic dimensions of cyberspace to show how places and borders remain an important element in the development and functioning of cyberspace. The paper addresses the three facets of global Internet development and use. First is a discussion of the development of Internet infrastructure and the global dimensions of access to electronic communications and interaction, illustrating the geographies of physical infrastructure and also the equity issues of access to cyberspace. The second section deals with cultural and content issues associated with global Internet use, while section three examines legal and regulatory dimensions of Internet geography. 2. INFRASTRUCTURE AND ACCESS
The geographic context of the information economy is based on global networks of telecommunications and computing systems. When shown on maps, it seems that every country has links to the rest of the world, and maps of Internet use suggest that it is a truly global phenomenon. The rhetoric of global systems may be true for some, but for many people, access to the Internet is impossible. In fact, for many, even access to a telephone is a difficult task. The presence of telephone or Internet service may well be possible through the use of personal satellite dishes, but presence alone does not translate into use. When infrastructure and users of technology are counted the disparity is very clear. In 2001, the International Telecommunications Union estimated that the world’s population of over six billion people share 1.05 billion telephone lines, or 17.2 telephone lines per 100 inhabitants. This varies considerably across the world, with a dramatic contrast between affluent and poor countries. The most connected countries are also the richest, such as the United States (66 telephones per 100 inhabitants) ; Denmark (72 telephones) ; Germany (63) ; France (57) ; United Kingdom (58) ; Hong Kong (58) ; Japan (60) ; and Australia (52). The highest level of telephone infrastructure is for the financial center of the Channel Islands with 87 telephones per 100 inhabitants. The experience of affluent countries with information technology infrastructure contrasts dramatically that of the telephone infrastructure in developing countries. Overall, Africa averages 2.6 telephone lines per 100 inhabitants, and many of those lines are concentrated in South Africa and Egypt, which account for over a half of all telephone lines in Africa. At the lowest levels are the Democratic Republic
142
NETCOM, vol. 17, n° 3-4, 2003
of the Congo with 0.04 lines per 100 people ; Chad (0.14) ; Niger (0.19) ; and Rwanda (0.27). A number of Asian countries also have low levels of access to telephones, for example Bangladesh (0.39) ; Cambodia (0.25) ; Laos (0.93) ; and Myanmar (0.58). The poorest countries have less than one per cent of the telecommunications lines available to inhabitants of the richest nations. Different patterns emerge when cellular services are included, although the disparity between rich and poor persists. The ITU estimates that there are 941 million cellular subscribers worldwide, for a rate of 15.5 subscribers per 100 inhabitants. Cellular access is lowest in Africa (2.93 subscribers per 100 inhabitants) and Asia (9.25) ; the level is far higher in the Americas (26.1) and Europe (43.75). The relative ease of establishing cellular services compared to fixed telephone lines means that in many developing countries cellular services are far more important forms of communication. In Rwanda, more than 75 % of all telephone services are cellular subscriptions. In many countries, cellular services account for a significant share of all telephone subscribers, for example : Cote d’Ivoire (71 % cellular) ; Guinea (69 %) ; South Africa (65 %) ; Paraguay (80 %) ; Venezuela (70 %) ; Cambodia (87 %) ; Hong Kong (59 %) ; Japan (49 %) ; Finland (58 %). The United States has a cellular rate of 40 % ; Germany (52 %) ; UK (58 %) ; and France (51 %). Globally 47.4 % of all telephone subscribers are cellular services, which show significant relative presence in both the most and least developed nations. The infrastructure of the Internet is harder to capture due to the very nature of the phenomenon, and the lack of central data gathering forces the use of proxies to capture levels of interaction and commerce. One way to illustrate the presence and scale of the Internet is to measure the density of hosts. The spatial distribution of hosts follows an even greater level of concentration than the telecommunications infrastructure, with less than a dozen countries accounting for most of the hosts globally. In 2001 the ITU estimated 141.4 million hosts worldwide. The leading countries in terms of hosts include the United States (106.2 million hosts), Japan (7.1 million hosts), United Kingdom (2.2 million), Netherlands (2.6 million), Germany (2.4 million), Canada (2.9 million), and Australia (2.3 million). To provide an indicator of host presence, the number of hosts per country is presented in terms of population. The leading countries are the United States (3,714 hosts per 10,000 inhabitants), Iceland (1,904), Finland (1,707), Netherlands (1,634), Australia (1,183), and Denmark (1,045). Many of the largest economies make up in scale for the number of hosts, such as the UK (371), Japan (559), and Germany (295). Access is not just a matter of the physical presence of Internet services, as personal satellite access makes universal access a technical, although not necessarily a financial, possibility. When analyzing Internet access, most important is cost, which varies widely across the world. According to the OECD, the lowest rates tend to be in the United States at US$20 for unlimited monthly service, with low rates also available in the United Kingdom, Mexico, Australia and Canada. These countries
REAL PLACES AND VIRTUAL SPACES
143
offer low cost access in part because telephone and Internet access and use is not metered. Once time is metered, costs increase significantly and rates can exceed US$200 per month for unlimited access. For Internet access in many countries, the fixed and time costs of telephone access are far greater than the cost of the Internet service being used. The term ‘digital divide’ is commonly used to refer to the disparity in Internet access and use by residents of a city or country. The digital divide is even more apparent when seen globally. The international disparity in access to information technologies such as telecommunications and computers shows a dramatic gap between the developed world and the developing world. This means that the rhetoric of a global system, and our assumptions about access can be deceiving and cause us to miss the important fact that for most of the world’s inhabitants, the Internet remains as a future possibility rather than a current tool for daily life. 3. CULTURE, CONTENT AND IDENTITY
The Internet is a product of many societies and cultures, and has the power to offer new ways to interact across cultures. The potential of the Internet is that it allows low cost publication and audio/visual transmission in any language, and so can be used to maintain and advocate for different cultural and linguistic groups. On the other hand, the dominance of English language and American content on the web has made it a force that only recently is gaining its local voice. The potential for cultural expression is barely realized, exemplified by the fact that a small city in Europe or North America can have more Internet hosts than all of Africa. At this stage in its development, it is valuable to consider how culture and identity form on the Internet. As a global system the Internet reflects cultural and linguistic characteristics. During the initial years of Internet and e-commerce use English was the dominant language on the web, but recently this has changed with other languages gaining in use. In a 2002 study of language use online by Global Reach, almost 60 % of the world’s online population did not speak English, comprising European languages (non English) at 34 % and Asian languages (26 %). The changing linguistic patterns of Internet use are a reminder of the importance of cultural sensitivity and multilingual content for web sites in the future. As the Internet grows more content will be needed in multiple languages, yet in many cases this is not apparent. A 2001 study by Wordlingo found that only 5 of the 50 most visited web sites responded correctly to foreign language e-mail requests. The same year, the Aberdeen Group found that 57 of the Fortune 100 had multilingual web sites, and their study concluded that “…Internet users will stay up to twice as long on a site, and are four times as likely to buy from that site, if the content is available in their own language.”
144
NETCOM, vol. 17, n° 3-4, 2003
Identity in cyberspace can be seen as a locational issue with a domain name being a metaphor for territory. The domain name system offers many choices for an online identity or brand, but the challenge is not just a place in cyberspace, but a good location on the net. A good location often means use of a generic domain name rather than one that has a country associated with it. The domain name system (DNS) is a way to identify and regulate individuals, firms, and organizations in cyberspace. Domain names are constructed as a hierarchy, with the highest order being the top level domain names (TLD). These take two forms. The generic TLD (gTLD) refers to seven domains, .com, .net, and .org can be used by any entity, while the remaining four are limited : .int for international organizations ; .edu for four year colleges and universities ; .gov for agencies of the United States government, and .mil for US military use. While the seven core domain names may appear spaceless, they are overwhelmingly claimed by entities in the United States. The second naming format is the use of country level TLDs (ccTLD), with 242 country TLDs established between 1995 and 1998, with Bangladesh added in 1999 and Palestine in 2000. When domain names were allocated for each country, the choices were conveniently associated with two character terms tied as closely as possible to the locations they represented. In this allocation, .us for the United States or .uk for the United Kingdom, or .de for Germany, the terms captured common elements of each nation’s identity. Zook (2002) notes that in mid 2001, of the 37.5 million domain names in use, two thirds were generic (gTLD) and only one third carried geographic identification (ccTLD). The global nature of cyberspace offers many challenges to the establishment of identity. Organizations seek a generic top-level domain name in order to have their online identity apply globally, rather than the local application that a country level domain may suggest. In order to obtain a generic TLD however, firms must compete globally as there can only be one name or .com in use. Firms seeking an online identity may find that their name has been legally used by similarly named organizations elsewhere, or illegally used to mislead or misdirect users. 4. LAW AND REGULATION
Perhaps the most important geographic element of the Internet is the application of laws and regulations. The allocation of domain names and the management of the Internet is a regulatory issue, while the physical location of Internet infrastructure, servers and hosts, and the legal domicile of firms, all must adhere to the laws of their locations. Yet the Internet directly challenges existing regulatory and legal frameworks by offering global access to information and content in many places. The regulatory geography can be illustrated using the case study of domain name allocation, while the legal dimensions of space are exemplified by the role of jurisdiction in cyberspace.
REAL PLACES AND VIRTUAL SPACES
145
4.1. Internet Regulation
The allocation of IP addresses and the management of domain names is the responsibility of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which is a nonprofit organization that gained its authority from the United States government in 1998 (NTIA 1998). ICANN is responsible for allocation of generic TLDs, while each of the 244 localities with a ccTLD is responsible for its domain management. There are three entities listed as official contacts for each ccTLD, a sponsor, administrator, and a technical contact. The geography of ccTLD management shows that in many cases the operations of a ccTLD take place in countries other than the home country of the domain. For example, Wilson (2001a) finds that domain names for Tonga (.to). American Samoa (.as) and Moldova (.md) are managed in full or part from organizations in the United States. More recent analysis by the author of the ccTLDs in 2002 shows that 44 countries had technical contacts in other countries, such as Albania having a contact based in Pisa, Italy. The major locations for technical contacts are the United States, Switzerland and in the United Kingdom. Technical contacts are located in the United Kingdom for the following countries : Ascension Island (.ac). Afghanistan (.af), Antigua and Barbuda (.ag), Christmas Island (.cx), Falkland Islands (.fk), Gibraltar (.gi), Myanmar (.mm), Montserrat (.ms), Palestian Territories (.ps), Palau (.pw), Turks and Caicos (.tc), French Southern Territories (.tf) and the British Virgin Islands (.vg). The importance of domain regulation and geography is well illustrated by the case of the control and management of the South African domain, .za. In June 2002, the administrator of the .za domain transferred all files associated with the domain name offshore to prevent the South African government from taking control of the domain. Middleton (2002) notes that under the Electronic Communications and Transactions Bill, the government would give legal status to transactions in cyberspace, and also have the right to manage the .za domain. ICANN initially supported the move offshore to protect the stability of the domain (Anderson 2002), but by November 2002, ITweb (2002) reports that the South African government had established a panel of IT professionals and government officials to determine the future of the domain. 4.2. Jurisdiction in Cyberspace
The Internet raises many questions about the role of law : Where do transactions take place in cyberspace ? What courts have authority to hear Internet based cases ? What laws apply to interactions online ? Usually, geography indicates the body of law that applies to a particular set of circumstances. Laws have evolved for places - cities, states, regions, and countries - with clear indicators of the significance of presence for laws to apply. While usually clear about the geographic foundation of law, there have been cases in the past that challenge thinking about how laws apply in complex geographic conditions. The legal sphere concerned with the
146
NETCOM, vol. 17, n° 3-4, 2003
applicability of a law to a person or for a specific matter is called jurisdiction. Questions of jurisdiction arise when there is uncertainty about applicable laws and the appropriate courts to deal with legal issues. The development of the Internet and with it a substantial commercial traffic across borders, the importance of jurisdiction is now often raised because it is the most important source of guidance when dealing with transactions in cyberspace. As laws are based upon the power of government, which has well defined geographic boundaries, there has evolved a body of precedent in the legal system to determine how laws are applied. Laws have always been organized around place, with Johnson and Post (1997) seeing the challenge posed by the Internet being its power for “undermining the feasibility - and legitimacy - of applying laws based upon geographic boundaries.” Early Internet cases included United States vs Thomas, when a federal agent in Tennessee downloaded pornography from a web site based in California and the web site was indicted in Tennessee. The court decided that the action had an impact in Tennessee, and its jurisdiction would apply. In Playboy Enterprises vs Chuckleberry Publishing the court found that an Italian web site was distributing material to US residents in violation of trademarks held by an American firm, and while the court could not prevent the web site from operating it could prevent it from distributing material to those living in the United States (Wilske and Schiller 1997). In their discussion of international Internet jurisdiction, Wilske and Schiller (1997) identify five principles that shape international law and its application to cyberspace : • First, the territoriality principle gives states the right to control conditions on their territory, which would give government authority over local web content and links to computers elsewhere. • Second, the nationality principle is the state’s right to regulate the conduct of citizens at home and in some cases elsewhere. This principle would give a country or jurisdiction the right to prohibit residents from using specific classes of web site, such as gambling. • Third, the effects principle can be used when an act in one jurisdiction causes harm in another. • Fourth, the protective principle allows a government to protect its own functions even when the action takes place outside its territory, such as computer hacking or espionage. • The fifth principle of universality applies to a crime that is internationally accepted as wrong, such as crimes against humanity. Experience with Internet regulation, and the evolution of the law to accommodate online commercial transactions, shows the importance of geography in defining the character of the Internet and shaping its use. While not apparent, users of the Internet are constantly moving across legal and regulatory boundaries, sometimes with consequences for their actions and transactions.
REAL PLACES AND VIRTUAL SPACES
147
5. CONCLUSION
Initially, the concept of cyberspace geography may seem counter intuitive, but the spatial dimensions of this phenomenon will play an important role in the evolution of Internet applications and online commerce. On the surface there is an immediate disjunction between the intangibility of electronic interaction and the tangibility of physical space. Space remains important, however, despite the proclamation of the death of distance. In fact, the declining friction of distance may diminish the cost of interaction, but it also elevates the significance of the many places that are now accessible. Low cost electronic interaction has certainly made it easier for residents of different places to interact, but at the same time it has also brought different places into a common realm where differences matter. As David Harvey (1989, p. 124) notes “The problem of space is not eliminated but intensified by the crumbling of spatial barriers.” Rather than be seen as a force diminishing distance, low cost electronic interaction underscores the powerful value of connecting places. The reason so much effort and investment has been directed at developing electronic infrastructure is because of the value gained from interacting with different places. REFERENCES ANDERSON B (2002). “Za Domain Files Still Offshore”. AllAfrica.Com, allafrica.com/stories/ 200208020480.html BARME G. & YE S. (1997). “The great firewall of China”. Wired, June, 140-178. BIEGEL S. (2001). Beyond Our Control ? : Confronting the Limits of Our Legal System in the Age of Cyberspace. Cambridge MA : MIT Press. BRUNN S.D., LEINBACH T. (eds) (1991). Collapsing Space and Time : Geographic Aspects of Information and Communication. New York, London : Harper Collins. CAIRNCROSS F. (1997). The Death of Distance : How the Communications Revolution Will Change Our Lives. Cambridge MA : Harvard Business Press. CASTELLS M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. New York : Blackwell. CASTELLS M. (1997). The Power of Identity : The Information Age - Economy, Society and Culture. New York : Blackwell. CASTELLS M. (1998). End of Millennium. New York : Blackwell. COREY K.E. (1998). “Information Technology and Telecommunications Policies in Southeast Asian Development : Cases in Vision and Leadership”, in V.R. SAVAGE, L KONG., W. NEVILLE (eds), The Naga Awakens : Growth and Change in Southeast Asia. Singapore : Times Academic Press, p. 145-200. COREY K.E. (1997). “Digital Dragons and Cyber Communities : The Application of Information Technology and Telecommunications Public Policies and Private Partnerships to the Planning of Urban Areas”. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 1(2), p. 184-196.
148
NETCOM, vol. 17, n° 3-4, 2003
HARVEY D. (1989). The Condition of postmodernity : an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. New York : Blackwell. HEPWORTH M. (1990). Geography of the Information Economy. London : Guilford. HUDSON A.C. (1998). “Reshaping the Regulatory Landscape : Border Skirmishes around the Bahamas and Cayman offshore Centers”. Review of International Political Economy, 5(3), p. 534-564. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION UNION (2002). Basic Indicators http://www.itu.org IT WEB (2002). “Government Calls Truce on .za” AllAfrica.com allafrica.com/stories/ 200211150820.html. JOHNSON D.R., POST D.G. (1997). “The Rise of Law on the Global Network”, p. 3-47, in B. KAHIN, NESSON C. (eds), Borders in Cyberspace. Cambridge MA : MIT Press KAVANAUGH A.L. (1998). The Social Control of Technology in North Africa. Westport CT, London : Praeger. KELLERMAN A. (1993). Telecommunications and Geography. London : Wiley. KELLERMAN A. (2002). The Internet on Earth : A Geography of Information. London : Wiley KOZLOWSKI M. (1999). “A Domain by any other name”. Tech Law Center. March 15. http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/practice/techlaw/news/mar/e031599b.html. LEINBACH T.R., BRUNN S.D. (eds) (2001). The Worlds of Electronic Commerce. London: Wiley. MIDDLETON J. (2002). “Domain Name Takeover Foiled”. VNUNET, www.vnunet.com/ News/1132645. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (1998). “Management of Internet Names and Addresses’’. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm#3. RIMMER P. (2000). “Near neighbors : Australian and Indonesian Telecommunications Connections” in M. WILSON, K. COREY Information Tectonics : Spatial Organization in the Electronic Age. London : Wiley. WILSKE S., SCHILLER T. (1997). “International jurisdiction in cyberspace : Which states may regulate the Internet ?”. Federal Communications Law Journal, 50(1), p. 117-178. WILSON M. (2001a). “Location, Location, Location : The Geography of the dot com Problem”, Environment and Planning B, 28(1):59-71. WILSON M. (2001b). “Dot Com Development : Are T1 Lines better than Tractors ?” in T.R. LEINBACH, S.D. BRUNN (eds), The Worlds of Electronic Commerce. London : Wiley. ZOOK M. (2002). “Growth of Domains in the US and the World”, www.zooknic.com/ Domains/us_and_world.html.
