Net neutrality in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Net neutrality in the United States has been an issue of regulatory and judicial contention among network users and access providers.[1][2] There is some degree of net neutrality in the United States, meaning that telecommunications companies rarely offer different rates to broadband and dial-up Internet consumers based on Internet-based content or service type.[citation needed] There are no clear legal restrictions against practices impeding net neutrality. Broadband providers often block common service ports, such as port 25 (SMTP) or port 80 (HTTP), preventing consumers (and botnets) from hosting web and email servers unless they upgrade to a "business" account.[citation needed] Advocates of net neutrality have sought to restrict such changes.[3]

In 2005 and 2006, corporations supporting both sides of the issue spent large amounts of money lobbying Congress.[4] In 2006, representatives from several major U.S. corporations and the federal government publicly addressed U.S. Internet services in terms of the nature of free market forces, the public interest, the physical and software infrastructure of the Internet, and new high-bandwidth technologies.

Five attempts to pass bills in Congress containing some net neutrality provisions have been made and failed (see below). Each of them sought to prohibit Internet service providers from using various variable pricing models based upon the user's Quality of Service level. Described as tiered service in the industry and as price discrimination by some economists, typical provisions in the bill state "[Broadband service providers may] only prioritize...based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization".[5] Other provisions common to the net neutrality discussion were included in the proposed legislative works.

The debate started in the U.S. and has extended internationally with distinct differences of the debate in Europe [6] or Asia.[citation needed] The discussion is terrestrial-network centered, even though the Internet is inherently global and mobility is the fastest growing source of new demand.[citation needed]In practice, net neutrality is also influenced by state level politics.[7]

On April 23, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is reported to be considering a new rule that will permit Internet service providers to offer content providers a faster track to send content, thus reversing their earlier net neutrality position.[8][9][10] A possible solution to net neutrality concerns may be municipal broadband, according to Dr. Susan Crawford, a legal and technology expert at Harvard Law School.[11] On May 15, 2014, the FCC decided to consider two options regarding Internet services: first, permit fast and slow broadband lanes, thereby compromising net neutrality; and second, reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service, thereby preserving net neutrality.[12][13] On November 10, 2014, President Obama recommended the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve net neutrality.[14][15]

Regulatory history[edit]

Early history[edit]

While the term is new, the ideas underlying net neutrality have a long pedigree in telecommunications practice and regulation. The concept of network neutrality originated in the age of the telegram in 1860 or even earlier, where standard (pre-overnight telegram) telegrams were routed 'equally' without discerning their contents and adjusting for one application or another. Such networks are "end-to-end neutral".

Services such as telegrams and the phone network (officially, the public switched telephone network or PSTN) are considered common carriers under U.S. law, which means that they are akin to public utilities and expressly forbidden to give preferential treatment. They are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in order to ensure fair pricing and access.

The Internet became legally available for commercial use in the late 1980s. It was not until the late 1990s and early 2000s, that consumers and businesses began to attach new devices to their Internet connections, and use Internet services that were not in existence prior.

Arguments about the public interest requirements of the telecommunications industry in the U.S. arose in the 1980s; whether companies involved in broadcasting are best viewed as community trustees, with obligations to society and consumers, or mere market participants with obligations only to their shareholders.[16] The legal debate about net neutrality regulations of the 2000s echoes this debate.

In the 1990s, some U.S. politicians began to express concern over protecting the Internet:

How can government ensure that the nascent Internet will permit everyone to be able to compete with everyone else for the opportunity to provide any service to all willing customers? Next, how can we ensure that this new marketplace reaches the entire nation? And then how can we ensure that it fulfills the enormous promise of education, economic growth and job creation?

Al Gore, 1994, [17]

Cable modem Internet access and high-speed data links, which make up the Internet's core, had always been categorized under U.S. law as an information service, unlike Internet access by phone, and not as a telecommunications service, and thus have not been subject to common carrier regulations, as upheld in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services.

In the early 2000s, legal scholars such as Tim Wu and Lawrence Lessig raised the issue of neutrality in a series of academic papers addressing regulatory frameworks for packet networks. Wu in particular noted that the Internet is structurally biased against voice and video applications.

FCC promotes freedom without regulation (2004)[edit]

In February 2004 then Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell announced a set of non-discrimination principles, which he called the principles of "Network Freedom." In a speech at the Silicon Flatirons Symposium, Powell encouraged ISPs to offer users these four freedoms:

  1. Freedom to access content.
  2. Freedom to run applications.
  3. Freedom to attach devices.
  4. Freedom to obtain service plan information.[18]

In early 2005, in the Madison River case, the FCC for the first time showed willingness to enforce its network neutrality principles by opening an investigation about Madison River Communications, a local telephone carrier that was blocking voice over IP service. Yet the FCC did not fine Madison River Communications. The investigation was closed before any formal factual or legal finding and there was a settlement in which the company agreed to stop discriminating against voice over IP traffic and to make a $15,000 payment to the US Treasury in exchange for the FCC dropping its inquiry.[19] Since the FCC did not formally establish that Madison River Communications violated laws and regulation, the Madison River settlement does not create a formal precedent. Nevertheless, the FCC's action established that it would not sit idly by if other US operators discriminated against voice over IP traffic.

CLEC, Dial-up, and DSL deregulation (2004-2005)[edit]

In 2004, the court case USTA v. FCC voided the FCC's authority to enforce rules requiring telephone operators to unbundle certain parts of their networks at regulated prices. This caused the economic collapse of many competitors in access services.[citation needed]

In the United States, broadband services were historically regulated differently according to the technology by which they were carried. While cable Internet has always been classified by the FCC as an information service free of most regulation, DSL was regulated as a telecommunications service. In 2005, the FCC reclassified Internet access across the phone network, including DSL, as "information service" relaxing the common carrier regulations and unbundling requirement.

During the FCC's hearing, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association urged the FCC to adopt the four criteria laid out in its 2005 Internet Policy Statement as the requisite openness. This made up a voluntary set of four net neutrality principles.[20] Implementation of the principles was not mandatory; that would require an FCC rule or federal law.[21] The modified principles were as follows:[22][23]

  1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
  2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
  3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
  4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

FCC tries and fails to punish Comcast for throttling BitTorrent (2007-2010)[edit]

In October 2007, Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, was found to be blocking or severely delaying BitTorrent uploads on their network using a technique which involved creating 'reset' packets (TCP RST) that appeared to come from the other party.[24] On March 27, 2008, Comcast and BitTorrent reached an agreement to work together on network traffic where Comcast was to adopt a protocol-neutral stance "as soon as the end of [2008]", and explore ways to "more effectively manage traffic on its network at peak times.".[25] In December 2009 Comcast reached a proposed settlement of US$16 million, admitting no wrongdoing[26] and amounting to no more than US$ 16 dollars per share.[27]

In August 2008, the FCC made its first Internet network management decision.[28] It voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software because it throttled the bandwidth available to certain customers for video files to ensure that other customers had adequate bandwidth.[29][30] The FCC imposed no fine, but required Comcast to end such blocking in the year 2008, ordered Comcast to disclose the details of its network management practices within 30 days, submit a compliance plan for ending the offending practices by the end of the year, and disclose to the public the details of intended future practices. Then-FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin said the order was meant to set a precedent, that Internet providers and all communications companies could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they see fit, unless there is a good reason. In an interview Martin stated that "We are preserving the open character of the Internet" and "We are saying that network operators can't block people from getting access to any content and any applications." The case highlighted whether new legislation is needed to force Internet providers to maintain network neutrality, i.e., treat all uses of their networks equally. The legal complaint against Comcast was related to BitTorrent, software that is commonly used for downloading movies, television shows, music and software on the Internet.[31]

In April 2010, the FCC’s 2008 cease-and-desist order against Comcast to slow and stop BitTorrent transfers was denied. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC has no powers to regulate any Internet provider’s network, or the management of its practices: "[the FCC] ’has failed to tie its assertion’ of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress."[32] In May 2010, the FCC announced it would continue its fight for net neutrality.[33] In June 2010, the US Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia in Comcast Corp. v. FCC overturned the FCC's Order against Comcast, and ruled that the FCC lacked the authority under Title One of the Communications Act of 1934, to force Internet service providers to keep their networks open, while employing reasonable network management practices, to all forms of legal content.[34]

FCC's conditions for 2008 spectrum auction[edit]

In February 2008, Kevin Martin, then Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said that he is "ready, willing and able," to prevent broadband Internet service providers from irrationally interfering with their subscribers' Internet access.[35]

In 2008, when the FCC auctioned off the 700 MHz block of wireless spectrum in anticipation of the DTV transition, Google promised to enter a bid of $4.6 billion, if the FCC required the winning licensee to adhere to four conditions:[36]

  • Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and use any software application, content, or services they desire;
  • Open devices: Consumers should be able to use a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
  • Open services: Third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms;
  • Open networks: Third parties, such as Internet service providers, should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee's wireless network.

These conditions were broadly similar to the FCC's Internet Policy Statement; FCC's applications and content were combined into a single bullet, and an extra bullet requiring wholesale access for third party providers was included. The FCC adopted only two of these four criteria for the auction, viz., open devices and open applications, and only applied these conditions to the nationwide C block portion of the band.[37]

President Barack Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 called for an investment of $7.2 billion in broadband infrastructure and included an openness stipulation.

2009 Expansion and legal overturn of 2005 FCC rules[edit]

Towards the end of 2009, FCC Chair Julius Genachowski announced at the Brookings Institute a series of proposals that would prevent telecommunications, cable and wireless companies from blocking certain information on the Internet, for example, Skype applications.[38] In September 2009, he proposed to add two rules to its 2005 policy statement, viz., the nondiscrimination principle that ISPs must not discriminate against any content or applications, and the transparency principle, requiring that ISPs disclose all their policies to customers. He argued that wireless should be subject to the same network neutrality as wireline providers.[39] In October 2009, the FCC gave notice of proposed rule making on net neutrality.[40] On April 6, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Comcast Corp. v. FCC ruled that the FCC lacked the authority to force Internet service providers to keep their networks open to all forms of content.[41]

FCC Open Internet Order 2010[edit]

In December 2010, the FCC approved the FCC Open Internet Order banning cable television and telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain web sites such as Netflix. On December 21, 2010, the FCC voted on and passed a set of 6 net "neutrality principles":

  1. Transparency: Consumers and innovators have a right to know the basic performance characteristics of their Internet access and how their network is being managed;
  2. No Blocking: This includes a right to send and receive lawful traffic, prohibits the blocking of lawful content, apps, services and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network;
  3. Level Playing Field: Consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. This means a ban on unreasonable content discrimination. There is no approval for so-called "pay for priority" arrangements involving fast lanes for some companies but not others;
  4. Network Management: This is an allowance for broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management. These rules don't forbid providers from offering subscribers tiers of services or charging based on bandwidth consumed;
  5. Mobile: The provisions adopted today do not apply as strongly to mobile devices, though some provisions do apply. Of those that do are the broadly applicable rules requiring transparency for mobile broadband providers and prohibiting them from blocking websites and certain competitive applications;
  6. Vigilance: The order creates an Open Internet Advisory Committee to assist the Commission in monitoring the state of Internet openness and the effects of the rules.[42]

The net neutrality rule did not keep ISPs from charging more for faster access. The measure was denounced by net neutrality advocates as a capitulation to telecommunication companies such as allowing them to discriminate on transmission speed for their profit, especially on mobile devices like the iPad, while pro-business advocates complained about any regulation of the Internet at all. Republicans in Congress announced to reverse the rule through legislation.[43][44]

FCC's authority narrowed (2014)[edit]

On January 14, 2014, the DC Circuit Court determined in the case of Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission[45] that the FCC has no authority to enforce Network Neutrality rules, since service providers are not identified as "common carriers".[46] The court agreed that FCC can regulate broadband and may craft more specific rules that stop short of identifying service providers as common carriers.[47] The likelihood of FCC regulating broadband under new FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is low, as he has stated in the past that he is not opposed to consider ISPs who want to prioritize certain traffic.[48]

Section 706 vs. Title II[edit]

As a response to the DC Circuit Court's decision, a dispute has developed as to whether net neutrality can be guaranteed under existing law, or if reclassification of ISPs is needed to ensure net neutrality.[49] Wheeler has stated that the FCC has the authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to regulate ISPs, while others, including President Obama,[50] have supported reclassifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Critics of Section 706 point out that the section has no clear mandate to guarantee equal access to content provided over the internet, while subsection 202(a) of the Communications Act states that common carriers cannot "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services." Strong advocates of net neutrality have generally supported reclassifying ISPs under Title II, while FCC leadership and ISPs have generally opposed such reclassification. The FCC has stated that if they do reclassify ISPs as common carriers, then the commission would selectively enforce Title II so that only sections relating to broadband would apply to ISPs.[49]

Proposed 2014 US FCC policy[edit]

On 19 February 2014 the FCC announced plans to formulate new rules to enforce net neutrality while complying with the court rulings.[51] On 23 April 2014, in a press statement, the Federal Communications Commission announced their new proposed rules which would allow Broadband Internet service providers, such as Comcast and Verizon, the "right to build special lanes"[citation needed] with faster connection speeds for companies, such as Netflix, Disney or Google, willing to pay a higher price. Their customers would have preferential access.[8][9][52][53] On 15 May the FCC launched a public comment period on how FCC rulemaking could best protect and promote an open Internet,[54] garnering over one million responses—the most the FCC had ever received for rulemaking.[55]

The new proposed rules have received heavy criticisms, with many claiming that is ruining the internet. Opponents of the rules arranged declared September 10th, 2014 to be the "Internet Slowdown". On it, participating websites were purposely slowed down to show what they feel would happen if the new rules took effect. Websites that participated in the Internet Slowdown include: Netflix, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, Vimeo and Kickstarter.[56][57][58][59][60][61][62]

Violations of net neutrality[edit]

Many broadband operators imposed various contractual limits on the activities of their subscribers. In the best known examples, Cox Cable disciplined users of virtual private networks (VPNs) and AT&T, as a cable operator, warned customers that using a Wi-Fi service for home-networking constituted "theft of service" and a federal crime.[63] Comcast blocked ports of VPNs, forcing the state of Washington, for example, to contract with telecommunications providers to ensure that its employees had access to unimpeded broadband for telecommuting applications. These early instances of "broadband discrimination" prompted both academic and government responses. Other broadband providers proposed to start charging service/content providers in return for higher levels of service (higher network priority, faster or more predictable), creating what is known as a tiered Internet. Packets originating from providers who pay the additional fees would in some fashion be given better than "neutral" handling, accelerated or more reliable handling of selected packets.[citation needed]

In 2007 it was discovered that Comcast was blocking people from sharing digital files of the King James Bible and public-domain song recordings. [64]

In April 2012, the CEO of Netflix criticized Comcast for not "following net neutrality principles". Netflix charged that Comcast was restricting access to popular online video sites, in order to promote Comcast's own Xfinity TV service. The criticism followed similar comments from Washington, D.C-based consumer group Free Press, which said that Comcast's policies gave "Comcast product an unfair advantage against other Internet video services".[65]

In September 2012, a group of public interest organizations such as Free Press, "Public Knowledge" and the "New American Foundation's Open Technology Institute" filed a complaint with the FCC that accuses AT&T of violating net-neutrality rules, by restricting use of the video- conferencing Apple application "FaceTime" to certain customers. The application which could be used over Wi-Fi signals can now be only used over cellular connection for customers who have a shared data plan on AT&T and excludes those with older unlimited or tiered data plans.[66]

Attempted legislation[edit]

Arguments associated with net neutrality regulations came into prominence in mid-2002, offered by the "High Tech Broadband Coalition", a group comprising the Business Software Alliance; the Consumer Electronics Association; the Information Technology Industry Council; the National Association of Manufacturers; the Semiconductor Industry Association; and the Telecommunications Industry Association, some of which were developers for Amazon.com, Google, and Microsoft. The full concept of "net neutrality" was developed by regulators and legal academics, most prominently law professors Tim Wu, Lawrence Lessig and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell often while speaking at the University of Colorado School of Law Annual Digital Broadband Migration conference or writing in Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law.[67]

By late 2005, several Congressional draft bills contained net neutrality regulations, as a part of ongoing proposals to reform the Telecommunications Act of 1996} requiring Internet providers to allow consumers access to any application, content, or service. However, important exceptions have permitted providers to discriminate for security purposes, or to offer specialized services like "broadband video" service.[citation needed]

In April 2006, a large coalition of public interest, consumer rights and free speech advocacy groups and thousands of bloggers—such as Free Press, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, American Library Association, Christian Coalition of America, Consumers Union, Common Cause and MoveOn.org—launched the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, a broad-based initiative working to "ensure that Congress passes no telecommunications legislation without meaningful and enforceable network neutrality protections." Within two months of its establishment, it delivered over 1,000,000 signatures to Congress in favor of net neutrality policies and by the end of 2006, it had collected more than 1.5 million signatures.[citation needed]

Two proposed versions of "neutrality" legislation were to prohibit: (1) the "tiering" of broadband through sale of voice- or video-oriented "Quality of Service" packages; and (2) content- or service-sensitive blocking or censorship on the part of broadband carriers. These bills were sponsored by Representatives Markey, Sensenbrenner, et al., and Senators Snowe, Dorgan, and Wyden.

In 2006 Congressman Adam Schiff (D-California), one of the Democrats who voted for the 2006 Sensenbrenner-Conyers bill, said: "I think the bill is a blunt instrument, and yet I think it does send a message that it's important to attain jurisdiction for the Justice Department and for antitrust issues."[68] Net neutrality bills were referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, whose Committee Chair until 2014, Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) had expressed caution about introducing unnecessary legislation that could tamper with market forces.[citation needed]

The following legislative proposals have been introduced in Congress to address the net neutrality question:

Title Bill number Date introduced Sponsors Provisions Status
109th Congress of the United States (January 2005 – January 2007)
Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006[69][70] S. 2360 March 2, 2006 Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
  • Prohibits blocking or modification of data in transit, except to filter spam, malware, and illegal content; mandates common-carrier rules for subscriber network operators.
  • Sets some guidelines for how ISPs and data operators should behave when managing their networks. It states it as, "bars network operators from degrading, altering, modifying, impairing, or changing any bits, content, application, or service; requires them to allow the attachment of devices that won't harm the network; directs them to offer just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions on the offering or provision of any service by another person using the transmission component of communications; and directs them to make their rates, terms, and conditions publicly available in a manner that is transparent and easily understandable.”[71]
  • The bill would also allow these operators to control any traffic that passes through their network, with the promise that it would be for the protection of the end-users. They would block content that falls under the categories of, "...ad ware, Spyware, malware, spam, pornography, content inappropriate for minors", "or any other similarly nefarious application or service that harms the Internet experience of subscribers..."[71] As a way to allow subscribers to have a voice over whether they think that what their content provider is correct or not, there would be a method for them to submit complaints. These complaints would go directly to the FCC for review over whether a violation has occurred. The FCC would have one week to run its investigation. Then, if there was in fact a violation, the FCC would have another 90 days to make a ruling. During this time, "Network operators would carry the burden of proof during the latter part of the complaint proceeding."[71]
Killed by the end of 109th Congress.
Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Bill of 2006[72][73][74] H.R. 5252 March 30, 2006 Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas and Chairman of the House Commerce Committee)
  • Proposes to create a national franchise for video providers, and additionally addresses net neutrality, e911, and municipal broadband.
  • To promote the deployment of broadband networks and services.[75]
  • Title IX establishes a number of rights for subscribers of Internet services in order to prevent an Internet Service Provider from undermining a consumer's experience on the Internet and from limiting the subscriber's ability to go wherever he or she wants on the Internet at whatever speed he or she purchased. In addition, this title would also provide consumers with the right to purchase stand-alone broadband service without having to purchase other services like video or phone service.[76]
Passed 321-101 by the full House of Representatives on June 8, 2006- but with the Network Neutrality provisions of the Markey Amendment removed. Bill killed by end of 109th Congress.[77]
Network Neutrality Act of 2006[78] H.R. 5273 April 3, 2006 Representative Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts)
  • Amends the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE) to make its existing neutrality provisions more strict.
  • To preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of broadband networks that enable consumers to reach, and service providers to offer, lawful content, applications, and services of their choosing, using their selection of devices that do not harm the network; to encourage escalating broadband transmission speeds and capabilities that reflect the evolving nature of the broadband networks, including the Internet, and improvements in access technology, which enables consumers to use and enjoy, and service providers to offer, a growing array of content, applications, and services; to provide for disclosure by broadband network operators of prices, terms, and conditions, and other relevant information, including information about the technical capabilities of broadband access provided to users, to inform their choices about services they rely on to communicate and to detect problems; and to ensure vigorous and prompt enforcement of this Act’s requirements to safeguard and promote competition, innovation, market certainty, and consumer empowerment.[78]
Defeated 34-22 in committee with Republicans and some Democrats opposing, most Democrats supporting.[79]
Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Bill of 2006[80] S. 2686 May 1, 2006 Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) & Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) Aims to amend the Communications Act of 1934 and addresses net neutrality by directing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to conduct a study of abusive business practices predicted by the Save the Internet coalition and similar groups. Sent to Senate in a 15-7 committee vote and defeated by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation on June 28, 2006. Killed by the end of 109th Congress.
Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006[81] H.R. 5417 May 18, 2006 Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) & John Conyers (D-Michigan)
  • Makes it a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act for broadband providers to discriminate against any web traffic, refuse to connect to other providers, block or impair specific (legal) content; prohibits the use of admission control to determine network traffic priority.
  • Amends the Clayton Act to prohibit any broadband network provider from: failing to provide its services on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; refusing to interconnect its facilities with those of another service provider on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; blocking, impairing, discriminating against, or interfering with any person's ability to use a broadband network service to access or offer lawful content, applications, or services over the Internet (or imposing an additional charge to avoid such prohibited conduct); prohibiting a user from attaching or using a device on the provider's network that does not physically damage or materially degrade other users' utilization of the network; or failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose to users accurate information concerning service terms.[82]
  • Requires a provider that prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type to prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type without imposing a surcharge or other consideration.[82]
  • Permits a provider to take reasonable and nondiscriminatory measures to: manage the functioning of its network and services; give priority to emergency communications; prevent a violation of federal or state law; offer consumer protection services; offer special promotional pricing or other marketing initiatives; or prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of a particular type without imposing a surcharge or other consideration.[82]
Approved 20-13 by the House Judiciary committee on May 25, 2006. Killed by the end of 109th Congress.
110th Congress of the United States (January 2007 – January 2009)
Internet Freedom Preservation Act (casually known as the Snowe-Dorgan bill)[83] S. 215 (110th Congress) formerly S. 2917 (109th Congress) January 9, 2007 Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) & Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota), Co-Sponsors: Barack Obama (D-Illinois), Hillary Clinton (D-New York), John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and other Senators
  • Amends the Communications Act of 1934. Introduces a ban on the blocking/degradation of lawful content, forbids tying Internet access to purchase further services, and a ban on QoS deals between network providers and specific content providers but still allows prioritizing content that originates from the provider's own network, see Sec. 12 (a) (5). Makes the FCC responsible for enforcing complaints and conducting reports on the state of the broadband market.
  • A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.[75]
  • Each broadband provider shall not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a broadband service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service made available via the Internet; not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching or using any device to the network of such broadband service provider, only if such device does not physically damage or substantially degrade the use of such network by other subscribers.[84]
Read twice and referred to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008[85] H.R.5353 February 12, 2008 Representatives Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) & Charles Pickering (R-Mississippi)
  • To establish broadband policy and direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a proceeding and public broadband summits to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, and for other purposes.
  • To establish broadband policy and direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a proceeding and public broadband summits to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, and for other purposes.[75]
  • To maintain the freedom to use broadband telecommunications networks, including the Internet, without unreasonable interference from or discrimination by network operators; enable the United States to preserve its global leadership in online commerce and technological innovation; promote the open and interconnected nature of broadband networks that enable consumers to reach, and service providers to offer, content, applications, and services of their choosing; and guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet.[86]
  • Requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to commence a proceeding on broadband services and consumer rights, including assessing whether broadband network providers to refrain from unreasonably interfering with the ability of consumers to access, use, send, receive, or offer content, applications, or services of their choice, and attach or connect their choice of devices; and add charges for quality of service to certain Internet applications and service providers.[86]
Introduced to the House Energy and Commerce Committee
111th Congress of the United States (January 2009 – January 2011)
Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009[87][88] H.R.3458 2009 -
  • To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a national broadband policy, safeguard consumer rights, spur investment and innovation, and for related purposes.[75]
  • Makes it the duty of each Internet access service provider to: not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use an Internet access service; not impose certain charges on any Internet content, service, or application provider; not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching or using any lawful device in conjunction with such service, provided the device does not harm the provider's network; offer Internet access service to any requesting person; not provide or sell to any content, application, or service provider any offering that prioritizes traffic over that of other such providers; and not install or use network features, functions, or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance with these duties.[89]
  • It excludes reasonable network management from regulation, but because it doesn't contain technical specifications to describe "reasonable network management" schemes, it remains unclear what degree of autonomy network operators would have in managing traffic.[90]
-
112th Congress of the United States (January 2011 – January 2013)
Data Cap Integrity Act of 2012[91] S. 3703 December 20, 2012 Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) To improve the ability of consumers to control their digital data usage, promote Internet use, and for other purposes. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
(D) = a member of the House or Senate Democratic Caucus; (R) = a member of the House or Senate Republican Conference

Positions[edit]

Support of net neutrality[edit]

Organizations that support net neutrality come from widely varied political backgrounds and include groups such as MoveOn.org, Free Press, Consumer Federation of America, AARP, American Library Association, Gun Owners of America, Public Knowledge, the Media Access Project, the Christian Coalition, and TechNet.[92][93][94] Tim Berners-Lee (the inventor of the World Wide Web) has also spoken out in favor of net neutrality.[95] On May 16, 2014, some websites are reported to have throttled FCC staffers to protest their position on net neutrality.[96]

Proponents of net neutrality, in particular those in favor of reclassification of broadband to "common carrier", have many concerns about the potential for discriminatory service on the part of providers such as Comcast. Common-carriage principles require network operators to serve the public regardless of geographical location, district income levels, or usage. Telecommunications companies are required to provide services, such as phone access, to all consumers on the premise that it is a necessity that should be available to all people equally. If the FCC's ability to regulate this aspect is removed, providers could cease to offer services to low income neighborhoods or rural environments. Those in favor of net neutrality often cite that the internet is now an educational necessity, and as such should not be doled out at the discrimination of private companies, whose profit-oriented models cause a conflict of interest.

Outside of the US several countries have removed net neutrality protocols and have started double charging for delivering content (once to consumer and again to content providers). This equates to a toll being required for certain internet access, essentially limiting what is available to all people, in particular low income households. [97]

Large already well established companies may not be hurt by the cost increase that providers such as Comcast intend to levy upon them, but it would permanently stifle small businesses and the internets ability to encourage start-ups.[98] Many have pointed out that sites such as Facebook, Google, and Amazon would not have been able to survive if net neutrality hadn't been in place.[99] Concerns abound as to what kind of long term damage would be inflicted on future website innovations, including educational content such as MIT's OpenCourseWare which is a free website offering online video lectures to the public.[100]

Not all net neutrality proponents emphasize transparency to customers, and most proponents do not phrase net neutrality in terms of existing telecom carrier restrictions even when the desired state is equivalent.[citation needed] In many cases, a return to treating Internet service links as telecommunication rather than information carrier services would re-invoke sufficient restrictions on discrimination and refusal to carry to satisfy most definitions of net neutrality and would return carriers to the conditions of limited liability that were in part breached by the 2005 FCC decision that DSL services are information services, and thus not subject to common carrier rules.[citation needed]

The FCC rules do not prevent telecommunications companies from charging fees to certain content providers in exchange for preferential treatment.(the so-called "fast lanes") Neutrality advocates Tim Wu and Lawrence Lessig have argued that the FCC does have regulatory power over the matter, following from the must-carry precedent set in the Supreme Court case Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission.[101]

Opposition to net neutrality[edit]

Opponents argue that (1) net neutrality regulations severely limit the Internet's usefulness; (2) net neutrality regulations threaten to set a precedent for even more intrusive regulation of the Internet; (3) imposing such regulation will chill investment in competitive networks (e.g., wireless broadband) and deny network providers the ability to differentiate their services; and (4) that network neutrality regulations confuse the unregulated Internet with the highly regulated telecom lines that it has shared with voice and cable customers for most of its history;[citation needed] (5) net neutrality would benefit industry lobbyists, and not consumers due to the potential of regulatory capture with policies that protect incumbent interests.[102]

Organizations opposing net neutrality are the free-market advocacy organizations FreedomWorks Foundation,[103]Americans for Prosperity and their website No Internet Takeover,[104] the National Black Chamber of Commerce, LULAC, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Progress and Freedom Foundation and high-tech trade groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.[citation needed] For example, former hedge fund manager turned journalist Andy Kessler has argued, the threat of eminent domain against the telecommunication providers, instead of new legislation, is the best approach by forcing competition and better services.[105] The Communications Workers of America, the largest union representing installers and maintainers of telecommunications infrastructure, opposes the regulations.

A number of net neutrality opponents have created a website called Hands Off The Internet[citation needed] to explain their arguments against net neutrality. Principal financial support for the website comes from AT&T, and members include technology firms such as Alcatel, 3M and pro-market advocacy group Citizens Against Government Waste.[106][107][108][109] Many conspiracy theorists allege corporate astroturfing.[106] For example, one print ad seems to frame the Hands Off the Internet message in pro-consumer terms. "Net neutrality means consumers will be stuck paying more for their Internet access to cover the big online companies' share," the ad claims.[110]

In November 2005 Edward Whitacre, Jr., then Chief Executive Officer of SBC Communications, stated "there's going to have to be some mechanism for these [Internet upstarts] who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using", and that "The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment,"[111] sparking a furious debate. SBC spokesman Michael Balmoris said that Whitacre was misinterpreted and his comments only referred to new tiered services.[112]

Net neutrality laws are generally opposed by the cable television and telephone industries, and some network engineers and free-market scholars from the conservative to libertarian, including Christopher Yoo and Adam Thierer.[citation needed]

Only few U.S. technology trade associations and the U.S. financial sector were neutral as of 2006.[113][citation needed]

Alternative FCC proposal[edit]

An alternate position was proposed in 2010 by then-FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski, which would narrowly reclassify Internet access as a telecommunication service under Title Two of the Communications Act of 1934. It would apply only six [114] common carrier rules under the legal principle of forbearance that would sufficiently prevent unreasonable discrimination and mandate reasonable net neutrality policies under the concept of common carriage. Incumbent Internet service provider AT&T opposed the idea saying that common carrier regulations would "cram today's broadband Internet access providers into an ill-fitting 20th century regulatory silo" while Google supported the FCC proposal "In particular, the Third Way will promote legal certainty and regulatory predictability to spur investment, ensure that the Commission can fulfill the tremendous promise of the National Broadband Plan, and make it possible for the Commission to protect and serve all broadband users, including through meaningful enforcement".[115]

In October 2014, after the initial proposal was shot down, the FCC began drafting a new proposal that would take a hybrid regulatory approach to the issue. Although this alternative has not yet been circulated, it is said to propose that there be a divide between “wholesale” and “retail” transactions.[116] In order to illustrate clear rules that are grounded by law, reclassification of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 will be involved as well as parts of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Data being sent between content provider and Internet service providers will involve stricter regulations compared to transactions between ISP’s and consumers, which will involve more lax parameters. Restrictions on offering a data fast lane will be enforced between content providers and ISPs to avoid unfair advantages. This hybrid proposal has become the most popular solution among the three options that FCC has reported. However, Internet service providers, such as AT&T who has already warned the public via Tweet (Twitter) “any use of Title II would be problematic”, are expected to dispute this solution.[117] The official proposal is rumored to become public by the end of 2014.[118]

Opinions cautioning against legislation[edit]

In 2006 Bram Cohen, the creator of BitTorrent, said "I most definitely do not want the Internet to become like television where there's actual censorship... however it is very difficult to actually create network neutrality laws which don't result in an absurdity, like making it so that ISPs can't drop spam or stop... attacks."[119]

In June 2007, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urged restraint with respect to new regulations proposed by net neutrality advocates, noting the "broadband industry is a relatively young and evolving one," and given no "significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers" such regulations "may well have adverse effects on consumer welfare, despite the good intentions of their proponents."[120] The FTC conclusions were questioned in Congress in September 2007, when Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate interstate commerce, trade and tourism subcommittee, told FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras that he feared new services as groundbreaking as Google could not get started in a system with price discrimination.[121]

In 2011 Aparna Watal, a legal officer at an Internet company named Attomic Labs, has put forward three points for resisting any urge "to react legislatively to the apparent regulatory crisis".[122] Firstly, "contrary to the general opinion, the Comcast decision does not uproot the Commission's authority to regulate ISPs. Section 201(b) of the Act, which was cited as an argument by the Commission but not addressed by the Court on procedural grounds, could grant the Commission authority to regulate broadband Internet services where they render “charges, practices and regulations for, and in connection with” common carrier services unjust and unreasonable."[122] Secondly, she suggests, it is "undesirable and premature to legislatively mandate network neutrality or for the Commission to adopt a paternalistic approach on the issue ... [as] there have been few overt incidents to date, and the costs of those incidents to consumers have been limited."[122] She cites "prompt media attention and public backlash" as effective policing tools to prevent ISPs from throttling traffic. She suggests that it "would be more prudent to consider introducing modest consumer protection rules, such as requiring ISPs to disclose their network management practices and to allow for consumers to switch ISPs inexpensively, rather than introducing network neutrality laws."[122] "While by regulating broadband services the commission is not directly regulating content and applications on the Internet", content will be affected by the reclassification. "The different layers of the Internet work in tandem with each other such that there is no possibility of throttling or improving one layer’s performance without impacting the other layers. ... To let the Commission regulate broadband pipelines connecting to the Internet and disregard that it indirectly involves regulating the data that runs through them will lead to a complex, overlapping, and fractured regulatory landscape in the years to come."[122]

Unlimited vs usage-based pricing[edit]

ISPs had offered unlimited data transfer at a specified maximum download/upload speed at a monthly rate. This pricing model helped ISPs to capture market share and quickly grow demand for high-speed Internet access during the 1990s. Content providers or businesses could also purchase unlimited data transfer at a flat-rate, a practice that has become an industry standard.[citation needed]

Some ISPs like AT&T and Verizon have argued that providing varying levels of service to websites at various prices could be a way to manage the costs of unused capacity. It will allow selling surplus bandwidth (or "leverage price discrimination to recoup costs of 'consumer surplus'") by moving them to the content providers. However, purchasers of connectivity on the basis of Committed Information Rate or guaranteed bandwidth capacity must expect the capacity they purchase in order to meet their communications requirements.[citation needed]. This would effectively create a 'tiered' Internet that will violate some conceptions of net neutrality.

Other ISPs are trying to move to usage-based pricing models. Time Warner Cable, attempted to introduce "consumption based billing" with caps on Internet usage much like the model used in the mobile phone industry. They offered packages of 10GB, 20GB, 40GB, and 60GB with $1 overage charges capped at $75 a month. It was met with massive public disapproval and on April 16, 2009, Time Warner was forced to abandon their plan.

The industry is currently looking for alternative pricing models that will be accepted by the market.

State regulations[edit]

In the United States, as of 2012 only New York has established net neutrality as a telecommunications standard (See 16 NYCRR Part 605).[citation needed]

Legal definition in AT&T/Bell South merger[edit]

The AT&T/Bell South merger agreement defines net neutrality as an agreement on the part of the broadband provider: "not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application or service providers ... any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any (data) packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth's wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination."[123]

Unresolved issues[edit]

The Internet is a highly federated environment composed of thousands of carriers, many millions of content providers and more than a billion end users - consumers and businesses. Prioritizing packets is complicated even if both the content originator and the content consumer use the same carrier.[citation needed] It is much less reliable if the packets have to traverse multiple carrier networks, because the packet getting "premium" service while traversing network A may drop down to non-premium service levels in network B.[citation needed]

The debate over "neutrality" does not yet capture some dimensions of the topic; for example, if voice packets should get higher priority than packets carrying email or if emergency services, mission-critical, or life-saving applications, such as tele-medicine, should get priority over spam.[124]

Alternatives to cable and DSL[edit]

Much of the push for network neutrality rules comes from the lack of competition in broadband services. For that reason, municipal wireless and other wireless service providers are highly relevant to the debate. If successful, such services would provide a third type of broadband access with the potential to change the competitive landscape. For similar reasons, the feasibility of broadband over powerline services is also important to the network neutrality issue. However, as of spring of 2006, deployments beyond cable and DSL service have created little new competition.[citation needed]

Cable companies, in response have lobbied Congress for a federal preemption to ban states and municipalities from competing and thereby interfering with interstate commerce. However, there is current Supreme Court precedent for an exception to the Commerce Power of Congress for states as states going into business for their citizens.

It has been argued, that neither municipal wireless nor other technological solutions such as encryption, onion routing, or time-shifting DVR would be sufficient to render possible discrimination moot.[125]

3GPP cellular networks provide a practical broadband alternative known as EVDO, which, along with WiMax, represents a fourth and fifth alternative. The latter has been deployed in limited areas, but 3GPP in much wider ones.

Utility company restrictions[edit]

EPB has petitioned the FCC to allow them to deliver internet to communities outside of the 600 square mile area that they service. 19 states in the US have laws the make it difficult or impossible for utility companies to deliver internet outside of the area that they service.[126]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Siddiqui, Harris (2014-05-20). "The Death of Net Neutrality And The Open Internet'". Best VPN Service. Retrieved 2014-05-20. 
  2. ^ Wyatt, Edward (2011-04-08). "House Votes Against 'Net Neutrality'". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-09-23. 
  3. ^ Kang, Cecilia (2010-12-22). "FCC Approves Net-Neutrality Rules; Criticism is Immediate". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-09-23. 
  4. ^ "AT&T, Comcast Rout Google, Microsoft in Net Neutrality Battle". Bloomberg News. 2006-07-20. Retrieved 2007-01-07. 
  5. ^ Internet Freedom Preservation Act, AKA Snowe-Dorgan Amendment
  6. ^ Jan Krämer, Lukas Wiewiorra, Christof Weinhardt, Net Neutrality in the United States and Europe, CPI Antitrust Chronicle, March 2012(2)
  7. ^ State Level Net Neutrality, Joho the Blog, David Weinberger
  8. ^ a b Wyatt, Edward (April 23, 2014). "F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane". New York Times. Retrieved 2014-04-23. 
  9. ^ a b Staff (April 24, 2014). "Creating a Two-Speed Internet". New York Times. Retrieved 2014-04-25. 
  10. ^ Carr, David (May 11, 2014). "Warnings Along F.C.C.’s Fast Lane". New York Times. Retrieved 2014-05-11. 
  11. ^ Crawford, Susan (April 28, 2014). "The Wire Next Time". New York Times. Retrieved 2014-04-28. 
  12. ^ Staff (May 15, 2014). "Searching for Fairness on the Internet". New York Times. Retrieved 2014-05-15. 
  13. ^ Wyatt, Edward (May 15, 2014). "F.C.C. Backs Opening Net Rules for Debate". New York Times. Retrieved 2014-05-15. 
  14. ^ Wyatt, Edward (November 10, 2014). "Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules". New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2014. 
  15. ^ NYT Editorial Board (November 14, 2014). "Why the F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet Regulation". New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2014. 
  16. ^ Mark S. Fowler & Daniel L. Brenner, A Marketplace Approach to Broadcast Regulation, 60 Texas L. Rev. 207 (1982) is the definitive statement of this by the FCC Chairman at the time, but this theory has been worked out extensively since.
  17. ^ "Remarks as Delivered". Artcontext. January 11, 1994. Retrieved 2014-01-14. 
  18. ^ Powell, Michael (2004-02-08). "Preserving Internet Freedom: Guiding Principles for the Industry" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-07-07. 
  19. ^ "In the Matter of Madison River Communications, LLC and affiliated companies". Consent Decree DA 05-543. FCC. 2005. Retrieved 30 April 2014. 
  20. ^ Federal Communications Commission (2005-08-05). "New Principles Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-07-07. 
  21. ^ "Before the Federal Communications Commission". Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved 2014-01-14. 
  22. ^ Isenberg, David (2005-08-07). "How Martin's FCC is different from Powell's". Retrieved 2006-07-07. 
  23. ^ "Policy statement". Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved 26 August 2009. 
  24. ^ Cheng, Jacqui (19 October 2007). "Evidence mounts that comcast is targeting Bittorrent Traffic". Ars Technica. Condé Nast. Retrieved 15 November 2014. 
  25. ^ Kumar, Vishesh (2008-03-27). "Comcast, BitTorrent reached an agreement to work together on network traffic". Wall Street Journal. 
  26. ^ Duncan, Geoff (December 23, 2009). "Comcast to Pay $16 Million for Blocking P2P Applications". Digital Trends. Retrieved 2009-12-23. 
  27. ^ Cheng, Jacqui (December 22, 2009). "Comcast settles P2P throttling class-action for $16 million". Ars Technica (Condé Nast). Retrieved 2009-12-23. 
  28. ^ "THE FCC TACKLES NET NEUTRALITY: AGENCY JURISDICTION AND THE COMCAST ORDER". Berkley Technology Law Journal. Retrieved 2014-01-14. 
  29. ^ "Toy-safety bill advances, No to Internet rationing". The Week. 2008-08-08. Retrieved 2009-03-04. 
  30. ^ Kathleen Ann Ruane (2009-02-20). "Net Neutrality: The Federal Communications Commission's Authority to Enforce its Network Management Principles" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-03-09. 
  31. ^ Hansell, Saul (2008-08-02). "F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage". New York Times. 
  32. ^ McCullagh, Declan (2010-04-06). "Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality". CNET. 
  33. ^ Matthew Lasar (5 May 2010). "FCC on net neutrality: yes we can". arstechnica.com. Condé Nast. Retrieved 6 May 2010. 
  34. ^ Ann Ruane, Kathleen (29 April 2013). "The FCC's Authority to Regulate Net Neutrality After Comcast v. FCC". Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 19 October 2013. 
  35. ^ "FCC says will act on Web neutrality if needed". Reuters. 2008-02-25. 
  36. ^ "Google Intends to Bid in Spectrum Auction If FCC Adopts Consumer Choice and Competition Requirements". Retrieved 26 August 2009. 
  37. ^ "FCC sets 700 MHz auction rules: limited open access, no wholesale requirement". July 2007. Retrieved 26 August 2009. 
  38. ^ [1][dead link]
  39. ^ Nate Anderson (21 September 2009). "FCC Chairman wants network neutrality, wired and wireless". Retrieved 6 October 2009. 
  40. ^ Tim Greene (22 October 2009). "FAQ: What's the FCC vote on net neutrality all about?". 
  41. ^ Gross, Grant (6 April 2010). "Court rules against FCC's Comcast net neutrality decision". Reuters. Retrieved 15 March 2011. 
  42. ^ Gustin, Sam (2010-12-21). "FCC Passes Compromise Net Neutrality Rules". Wired. 
  43. ^ Bartash, Jeffry (2010-12-22). "FCC adopts web rules". MarketWatch. Retrieved 2010-12-22. 
  44. ^ "FCC Adopts Net Neutrality Rules". Care2.com. December 21, 2010. Retrieved 2014-01-14. 
  45. ^ Full text of decision and correction
  46. ^ Robertson, Adi. "Federal court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules". The Verge. Retrieved 14 January 2014. 
  47. ^ Brodkin, Jon. "Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC's anti-blocking rule". Retrieved 14 January 2014. 
  48. ^ ""Ohio State Live" - The Ohio State University". Ohio State University. Retrieved 14 January 2014. 
  49. ^ a b Berkman, Fran (May 20, 2014). "Title II is the key to net neutrality—so what is it?". The Daily Dot. Retrieved November 13, 2014. 
  50. ^ Wyatt, Edward (November 10, 2014). "Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved November 13, 2014. 
  51. ^ http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246443/FCC_will_set_new_net_neutrality_rules
  52. ^ Wyatt, Edward (23 April 2014), In Policy Shift, F.C.C. Will Allow a Web Fast Lane, Washington, DC, retrieved 23 April 2014 
  53. ^ Nagesh, Gautham (23 April 2014), FCC to Propose New 'Net Neutrality' Rules: Proposal Would Allow Broadband Providers to Give Preferential Treatment to Some Traffic, Washington, DC: Wall Street Journal, retrieved 23 April 2014 
  54. ^ "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking". Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved 29 May 2014. 
  55. ^ Hu, Elise (21 July 2014). "1 Million Net Neutrality Comments Filed, But Will They Matter?". National Public Radio. Retrieved 23 July 2014. 
  56. ^ https://www.battleforthenet.com/sept10th/
  57. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/10/internet-slowdown-go-slow-google-youtube-net-neutrality
  58. ^ http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/09/net-neutrality
  59. ^ http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2014/0910/Internet-Slowdown-Day-Why-websites-feel-sluggish-today
  60. ^ http://www.computerworld.com/article/2604318/internet-slowdown-day-becomes-an-online-picket-protest.html
  61. ^ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/todays-net-neutrality-campaign-explained/379973/
  62. ^ http://finance.yahoo.com/news/internet-slowdown-day-160510274.html
  63. ^ NETWORK NEUTRALITY, BROADBAND DISCRIMINATION by Tim Wu
  64. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/10/22/comcast-blocks-bible-from-being-uploaded/
  65. ^ Adario Strange (16 April 2012). "Netflix CEO Attacks Comcast Over Net Neutrality Issues". PC Magazine. Retrieved 26 April 2012. 
  66. ^ Brian X. Chen (18 September 2012). "Groups Prepare to Fight AT&T Over FaceTime Restrictions". The New York Times. Retrieved 26 October 2012. 
  67. ^ Videos from the Digital Broadband Migration conference and papers from the Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law about Net Neutrality law are collected at http://neutralitylaw.com[dead link]
  68. ^ "House panel votes for Net neutrality". CNET News.com. 2006-05-25. Archived from the original on 2013-01-19. Retrieved 2006-05-30. 
  69. ^ Wyden, Ron (2006-03-02). "Wyden Moves to Ensure Fairness of Internet Usage with New Net Neutrality Bill". Archived from the original on 2006-06-28. Retrieved 2006-07-07. 
  70. ^ "IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES". Public Knowledge. March 2, 2006. Retrieved 2014-01-14. 
  71. ^ a b c Anonymous (March 2006). "Wyden Offers Bill to Bar Internet Discrimination". Telecommunications Reports (72): 27–28. 
  72. ^ U.S. Government Printing Office (2006-05-15). "FULL TEXT of Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 (H.R. 5252)" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-08-11. 
  73. ^ Upton, Fred (2006-03-30). "Upton Hearing Examines Bipartisan Bill that Will Bring Choice & Competition to Video Services". Archived from the original on 2006-07-02. Retrieved 2006-07-07. 
  74. ^ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5252 H.R. 5252[109th]
  75. ^ a b c d Bagwell, Dana. "A First Amendment Case For Internet Broadband Network Neutrality". University of Washington. Retrieved 8 Feb 2011. 
  76. ^ Barton, Joe (2006). Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act. 109th Congress (2005 - 2006) H.R.5252. Retrieved 3 Mar 2011. 
  77. ^ "Huge Victory for Real People as Telco Bill Dies". Retrieved 2006-12-08. 
  78. ^ a b Markey, Ed (2006-04-03). "Markey Network Neutrality Amendment" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-07-07. 
  79. ^ http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml
  80. ^ Stevens, Ted (2006-05-01). "Communications, Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-07-07. 
  81. ^ "To amend the Clayton Act with respect to competitive and nondiscriminatory access to the Internet.". Public Knowledge. May 18, 2006. Retrieved 2014-01-14. 
  82. ^ a b c Sensenbrenner, James, Jr. "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006". 109th Congress (2005 - 2006) H.R.5417. Retrieved 3 Mar 2011. 
  83. ^ U.S. Government Printing Office (2007-01-09). "FULL TEXT of Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S. 215)" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-01-09. 
  84. ^ Snowe, Olympia. "Internet Freedom Preservation Act". Internet Freedom Preservation Act (2006 (S.2917, 109th Congress) and 2007 (2.215, 110th Congress)). Retrieved 3 May 2011. 
  85. ^ Open Congress. "FULL TEXT of Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 (H.R.5353)". Retrieved 2008-04-21. 
  86. ^ a b Markey, Ed (2008). "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008". 110th Congress (2007 - 2008) H.R.5353. Retrieved 3 Mar 2011. 
  87. ^ Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, H.R. 3458
  88. ^ Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, H.R. 3458
  89. ^ Markey, Ed (2009). "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009". 111th Congress (2009 - 2010)H.R.3458. Retrieved 3 Mar 2011. 
  90. ^ Anna Eshoo, Edward Markey (July 31, 2009). "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009". United States Congress.  Sec 3., Sec. 11 (of the Communications Act of 1934), (d) Reasonable Network Management
  91. ^ Kravets, David (20 December 2012). "Net Neutrality, Data-Cap Legislation Lands in Senate". Wired. Retrieved 21 December 2012. 
  92. ^ Broache, Anne (2006-03-17). "Push for Net neutrality mandate grows". CNET News. Archived from the original on 2006-06-12. Retrieved 2006-07-09. 
  93. ^ http://cdn.moveon.org/content/pdfs/MoveOnChristianCoalition.pdf
  94. ^ Sacco, Al (2006-06-09). "U.S. House Shoots Down Net Neutrality Provision". CIO.com. Retrieved 2006-07-09. 
  95. ^ Tim Berners-Lee. "Net Neutrality: This is serious". 
  96. ^ McMillan, Robert (May 16, 2014). "Websites Throttle FCC Staffers to Protest Gutting of Net Neutrality". Wired (magazine). Retrieved May 16, 2014. 
  97. ^ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523736/around-the-world-net-neutrality-is-not-a-reality/
  98. ^ https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140604/05594427450/entrepreneurs-explain-how-end-net-neutrality-would-mean-their-startups-dont-exist.shtml
  99. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-white/net-neutrality_b_5256423.html
  100. ^ http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
  101. ^ [2][dead link]
  102. ^ Thierer, Adam (2010-12-21) Who'll Really Benefit from Net Neutrality Regulation?, CBS News
  103. ^ "Net neutrality is bad policy for the U.S. and bad policy for the world". Freedom Works Post. 2012-07-16. Retrieved 2013-01-10. 
  104. ^ "No Internet Takeover". Retrieved 18 June 2010. 
  105. ^ Kessler, Andy (2006-06-26). "Give Me Bandwidth...". The Weekly Standard. Retrieved 2006-07-09. 
  106. ^ a b Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, "No Neutral Ground in This Internet Battle," The Washington Post, 26 July 2006.
  107. ^ Hands Off the Internet, "Member Organizations," at http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/members.shtml (last visited 4 Aug 2006).
  108. ^ Anne Veigle, "Groups Spent $42 Million on Net Neutrality Ads, Study Finds," Communications Daily, 20 July 2006.
  109. ^ SaveTheInternet.com, "One Million Americans Urge Senate to Save the Internet," at http://www.savetheinternet.com/=press11 (last visited 4 Aug 2006).
  110. ^ "Hands Off the Internet," full page print ad in The Washington Post, 24 May 2006
  111. ^ "At SBC, It's All About "Scale and Scope"". Information Technology/Online Extra (BusinessWeek). 2005-11-07. 
  112. ^ Washington Post- SBC Head Ignites Access Debate
  113. ^ Schor, Elana (2006-05-03). "Finance firms may weigh in on net-neutrality battle". The Hill (newspaper). Archived from the original on 2006-06-12. Retrieved 2006-07-09. 
  114. ^ Anderson, Nate (6 May 2010). "Virgin Queen meets broadband: a third way for net neutrality". Ars Technica. Retrieved 19 October 2013. 
  115. ^ Lasar, Matthew (19 July 2010). "Few neutrals in debate over "third way" net neutrality plan". Ars Technica. Retrieved 19 October 2013. 
  116. ^ [3]
  117. ^ [4]
  118. ^ [5]
  119. ^ Livingstone, Adam (2006-05-30). "BitTorrent: Shedding no tiers". BBC News. Retrieved 2010-05-20. 
  120. ^ "Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy, FTC Staff Report, June 2007
  121. ^ "Senate Chair Takes on FTC in Net Neutrality Fight", September 2007
  122. ^ a b c d e Watal, Aparna A Co-regulatory Approach to Reasonable Network Management
  123. ^ "Re : Notice of Ex Parte Communication In the Matter of Review of AT&T Inc . and BellSouth Corp Application For Consent to Transfer of Control, WC Do cket No . 06-74". Federal Communications Commissions. December 28, 2006. Retrieved 2014-01-14. 
  124. ^ "Is Net Neutrality Bad for National Preparedness?", K. A. Taipale, Center for Advanced Studies in Sci. & Tech. Policy Research Brief No. 06-14 (June 2006)
  125. ^ Various (2006-08-31). "Scenarios for the Network Neutrality Arms Race" (PDF). Archived from the original on 2008-12-07. Retrieved 2006-09-06. 
  126. ^ States, stand down! Let community broadband innovate, Gigaom, 27 July 2014, Craig Settles

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]