User:Ericendlich/Sandbox

Accordingly one should consider net neutrality in terms of a dichotomy between types of discrimination that make economic sense and will not harm consumers and those that constitute unfair trade practices and other types of anticompetitive practices. Non-discrimination mandates that one class of customers may not be favored over another so the network that is built is the same for everyone, and everyone can access it.

Net Neutrality

Main article: Net Neutrality

The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee. Network neutrality is a set of rules that forbid network owners from discriminating against independent applications (instead of against competing ISPs, as with open access).

Proposed Policies

Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006 (S.2360, 109th Congress)

• 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.”
• 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..." 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."

Network Neutrality Act of 2006 (H.R.5273, 109th Congress)

• 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.

Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 (H.R.5417, 109th Congress) and 2008 (H.R.5994, 110th Congress)

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE), Markey Amendment (H.R.5252, 109th Congress)

• To promote the deployment of broadband networks and services.
• 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.

Internet Freedom Preservation Act (2006 (S.2917, 109th Congress) and 2007 (S.215, 110th Congress))

• A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.
• 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.

Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 (H.R.5353, 110th Congress)

• 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 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.
• 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.

Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R.3458, 111th Congress)

• To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a national broadband policy, safeguard consumer rights, spur investment and innovation, and for related purposes.
• 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.

Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal

• Google and Verizon announced that the two companies had reached an agreement on a policy proposal surrounding net neutrality. The agreement states networks should be transparent about how they manage traffic and that they cannot degrade traffic or provide paid prioritization to any service on the public Internet. The policy does leave room for providers like Verizon to create additional, differentiated online services.
• A broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from preventing users of its broadband Internet access from service from--
  • Sending and receiving lawful content of their choice;
  • Running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and
  • Connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service.

Proposed Exceptions To Network Neutrality Legislation

Narrow Exception

A network provider may not discriminate against traffic, applications, or protocols. A network provider would be limited to offering trust-related services, such as spam filtering or virus protection, so long as the individual users may opt out of them.

• Derives from a Congressional bill introduced by Senators Byron Dorgan and Olympia Snowe.

Medium Exception

A network provider may discriminate against content, applications or protocols to protect the network, but it may not take into account any affiliation (or lack thereof) with a content, application, or protocol provider when deciding whether to discriminate.

• Derives from the Network Neutrality Act of 2006, introduced by Congressman Ed Markey.

Broad Exception

A network provider may discriminate against content, applications, or protocols, so long as it does so to protect the network.

• Derives from the Internet Consumer Bill of Rights Act, introduced by Senator Ted Stevens.

Legal Situation

FCC Appeals

• Verizon Communications filed an appeal against the FCC in the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on January 20, 2011. The FCC's rules aim to prevent Internet service providers from blocking certain websites or applications. Verizon's appeal claims that the FCC has overstepped its authority and that the rules violate the company's constitutional rights. The company says that the net neutrality rules modify the terms of existing licenses held by Verizon. Rather than launching a lawsuit that directly challenges the regulations, the company is appealing the rules as an illegal change to their existing licenses.
  • “It has been a very long and drawn out fight, and it has certainly distracted the FCC for the last year. It has distracted the carriers as well, who have spent a lot of time, effort and money in terms of publicly fighting about it and privately fighting about it," says Larry Downes an industry consultant and author...It is very, very unlikely that AT&T will file suit," said Downes. "They've said publicly and repeatedly that they are comfortable with the net neutrality order and I take that as a pretty strong indication that they are not going to litigate it."

Evidence of Anti-competitiveness

• During a hearing held by Rep. Greg Walden, one of the speakers put forth a question that needs to be addressed by the FCC, as well as other groups that are in support of Net Neutrality. The speaker said, "If the mere threat of Internet discrimination is such a concern and if the FCC has done no analysis to demonstrate why one company has more market power than another, why would discrimination by companies like Google or Skype be any more acceptable than discrimination by companies like AT&T and Comcast?" During the same hearing, a different member spoke up and quoted Section 230 of the Communications Act saying, "...preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by federal or state regulations." essentially saying that there should be laws in place so that the government knows how to handle its authority over the FCC and ISPs. He did not say that these laws are not laws meant for regulating what the FCC does, but how the FCC should act.

As Anti-Piracy

• “Network-level filtering means your Internet service provider – Comcast, AT&T, EarthLink, or whoever you send that monthly check to – could soon start sniffing your digital packets, looking for material that infringes on someone’s copyright. “What we are already doing to address piracy hasn’t been working. There’s no secret there..." This may be one of the major reasons that ISPs want to be able to discriminate against certain data types. Ever since the dawn of peer-to-peer file sharing, both the MPAA and the RIAA have been hounding ISPs to divulge any and all information relating to file sharing. With the implementation of data discrimination, that file sharing data can be, and will be, thrown to the bottom of the pecking order. This will render and kind of sharing, even the kind that isn't deemed illegal, useless because the transfer speeds will be unusably slow.

Advantages to Data Discrimination

While the basic principal of data discrimination is censorship, those in favor of this practice claim that there are benefits. The ISPs are a business, and as such, “…correctly state that external, non-market driven constraints on their ability to price discriminate can adversely impact their incentive to invest in broadband infrastructure and their ability to recoup that investment.” (Frieden) There are times when it could make sense, in the eyes of the ISPs, to give preference to one type of content over another. For example, loading a plain text and image website is not nearly as strenuous as loading sites such as Hulu and YouTube. Frieden states that, “Some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) seek to diversify the Internet by prioritizing bitstreams and by offering different quality of service guarantees. To some observers this strategy constitutes harmful discrimination that violates a tradition of network neutrality in the switching, routing and transmission of Internet traffic.” With the QoS argument is that network neutrality rules make allowances for network owners to practice some types of discrimination to protect the functioning of the network.

Disadvantages to Data Discrimination

Those that oppose data discrimination say that it hurts the growth of the Internet, as well as the economy that is rooted into the depths of the Internet model. “Instead of promoting competition, such picking of winners and losers will stifle the investment needed to perpetuate the Internet's phenomenal growth, hurting the economy.“ If, for example, telecommunication network operators blocked data packets of Voice-over-IP services that might substitute their own telephone services, this would not only discriminate against specific firms, but also reduce competition and economic welfare. Technically, this would not be a problem. Although data packets are homogeneous with respect to switching and transmission treatment, type, source, and destination can be revealed and data packets be handled differently if a network operator prefers to do so. Another problem is that the type of data that is given preferential treatment is up to the discretion of the ISP. This allows them to move data as they see fit, whether it be through a political, moral, any other such kind of "lens". This goes against the first amendment, the freedom of speech because by stopping certain kinds of information from reaching the end user, they are censoring content. It is not the place of the ISP to censor content from the people.

The real threat to an open Internet is at the local network (the ends), where network owners can block information coming in from the inter-network, but it also is at the local network where the most harm can occur. Because of this, network neutrality rules allow some discrimination by the local network to protect itself, though it may not be based on content or type of application. For example, network owners want to protect their networks from being damaged. So, some discrimination is allowed to "prevent physical harm to the local Broadband Network caused by any network attachment or network usage." This means that local network operators may not control which types of applications users choose to employ, what type of devices users use to access the network, or which type of legal content users choose to convey or consume. The only allowable restrictions are on applications that cause harm to the local network.”

Proponents of network neutrality concede that network security is crucial enough to warrent making exception to a network neutrality rule. Allowing network providers to deviate from neutrality only to the extent necessary to protect network trustworthiness is rooted in judicial and regulatory decisions and administrative rules that helped establish the principle of nondriscrimination as the core of network neutrality. Sen. Al Franken has spoken out on FCC rulings “calling net neutrality the 'free speech issue of our time,' Franken (D-MN) expressed his displeasure with the FCC’s recent net neutrality rules. ‘These rules are not strong enough,” he said, pointing out that paid prioritization was not banned and that wireless networks are allowed to discriminate at will. The rules mark the ‘first time the FCC has ever allowed discrimination on the Internet’ and they ‘will create essentially two Internets.’”

Instances of data discrimination

• In a March 2009 Freedom House report on Internet and digital media censorship world-wide, Egypt scored a 45 (out of 100), slightly worse than Turkey but better than Russia. Cuba scored a 90, making it more Net-censored than even Iran, China and Tunisia. Cellphone service is too expensive for most Cubans.
• Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally. The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users. Comcast's interference appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.
  • If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.
• Principles of net neutrality have been successfully articulated, but the mechanism to enforce them has not. The most notable example of Internet discrimination involved the Madison River Telephone Company obstruction of access to voice over Internet protocol, or VOIP, services provided by Vonage. In this case, the FCC investigated allegations that Madison River violated nondiscriminatory obligations contained in the Communications Act, but the redefinition of broadband as an information service dramatically reduces the authority of regulators to deter this kind of competitive misconduct.