Issues in New Media: Net Neutrality

What is “net neutrality?” What is Net Neutrality? (Video)(Video) Net Neutrality (Video)(Video) Save the Internet! (Video)(Video) Net Neutrality PBS NOW Part 1 Part 2 (Videos)Part 1Part 2

Net Neutrality Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication allowed. The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.

Pro Net Neutrality: Arguments Telecom companies are out for money Telecom companies are seeking ways to generate revenue by selling tiered service Having this control also allows them to control competition, form large networked partnerships and create artificial scarcity Maintaining the internet’s highest level of First Amendment protection

Arguments for Network Neutrality Control of Data: supporters want a legal mandate ensuring that cable companies allow ISPs free access to their cable lines (common carriage agreement). They want to ensure cable companies cannot interrupt, screen or filter content without a court order

Arguments for Network Neutrality Digital Rights and Freedoms: Net Neutrality ensures that the Internet remains a free and open technology Competition and Innovation: advocates warn that by charging websites to guarantee premium delivery, network owners create an unfair business model in which they may be able to block competitor websites, and refuse access to those who cannot pay Preferential treatment on Internet traffic, based on tiered fees would put newer and smaller companies at a disadvantage and slow innovation.

Arguments for Network Neutrality Preserving internet standards: advocates have sponsored legislation claiming that if network providers take over the traffic of the internet, they gain proprietary control over how that traffic flows; currently internet development standards are created from a non-profit, non-governmental, international open-source organization, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Preventing pseudo-services: charging websites for access that is currently (and always has been)

Arguments for Network Neutrality End-to-end principle: Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the network. The owners of the Internet's wires cannot discriminate. This is the simple but brilliant "end-to-end" design of the Internet that has made it such a powerful force for economic and social good. —Lawrence Lessig & Robert W. McChesney Under this principle, a neutral network is a dumb network (cannot differentiate data types), merely passing packets regardless of the applications they support.

Opponents of Net Neutrality Telecom companies state it is "a solution in search of a problem", arguing that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance. Internet service providers have intentionally slowed peer-to-peer (P2P) communications. The cost of higher-broadband access to power applications like online games, FTP and P2P access is higher. Telecom companies want to institute a cell- phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom "value added" services, and bundling Much like the business models of cell phones and cable

Arguments Against Network Neutrality Innovation and investment: opponents say that prioritization of bandwidth is necessary for future innovation of the Internet. Generated revenue could support the advancement of internet connectivity Counterweight to server-side non-neutrality: The Internet is already not a “level playing field.” Bigger companies can purchase newer, faster servers and have an advantage over a company that doesn’t.

Arguments Against Network Neutrality Bandwidth availability: sites like YouTube use significantly more bandwidth than static, textual based sites. Opponents argue that it is fair to charge sites that use large amounts of bandwidth more. Opposition to legislation: opponents do not want further legislation on the books regarding the Internet or ISPs

FCC Statement on the Internet 2005: Broadband Policy Statement (also known as the Internet Policy Statement), which lists four principles of open Internet, "To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:" access the lawful Internet content of their choice. run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement. connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network. competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. These points are often summarized as "any lawful content, any lawful application, any lawful device, any provider".

FCC and the Internet October 2009: FCC approved a notice of proposed rulemaking on the subject of net neutrality. May 2010: FCC has recently reclassified broadband internet access providers under the provisions of Title 2 of the Communications Act in an effort to force the providers to adhere to the same rules as telephone networks. This adjustment is meant to prevent, "unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities or services.” However, these rules give the FCC jurisdiction over the Internet and its content

Current policies August 2010, Google and Verizon reached an agreement in which they both opposed complete network neutrality. ISPs should be "prohibited from preventing users of its broadband Internet access service from-- (1) sending and receiving lawful content of their choice; (2) running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice; and (3) 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." They went on to say that wireless ISP's, such as cellphone companies should not be required to provide neutral networks for their customers. The rationale for this statement was that wireless networks are still being developed.

Google’s statement Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online. —Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users