Recently in Net Neutrality Category

Here are three recent studies about the state of broadband in the US and the world. The short takeaway is that the US is a second-tier country-- at best-- as far as information infrastructure. That is largely due to the fact that the market for broadband is not competitive in the US. If it is at all available to them, Americans typically obtain broadband service from the incumbent cable company and the incumbent phone company at speeds that are little better than they were 5 years ago.

Internet Innovation Alliance Broadband Factbook

OECD: OECD Communications Outlook 2007

FTC Staff Report: Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy

Susan Crawford, Moving Slowly in the Fast Lane: "The Federal Communications Commission, our national communications regulatory body, is asking the wrong questions and heading in the wrong direction. We need new leadership in this country that has the political muscle to implement radical change. A key national priority, on a par with funding Head Start programs and adequate national healthcare, must be to ensure that access to an unfettered internet is universal, speedy, and cheap."

Newsweek: True or False: U.S.'s Broadband Penetration Is Lower Than Even Estonia's: "Maybe our proud nation is going through some rough spots, but at least we have one shining and perpetual triumph: the Internet. People may refer to it as the World Wide Web, but its capital is Silicon Valley and the United States is the big dog tapping the global keyboard. At least that's what we thought, until the news broke in April of a report by the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that ranked the high-speed broadband adoption of 30 countries in the developed world. The United States was not first. Or second, or third. It ranked 15th."

David Weinberger: Delaminate the Bastards!: "Once upon a time, when this nation's telecommunications infrastructure was owned by a monopolistic industry, all the phones were black, long distance was incredibly expensive, and if you had a great idea for an innovative service using the telephone system, you were free to write a letter to the telephone company and suggest they look into it. About once a decade, the telephone company would introduce something new — touch tone phones, 800 numbers, and, yes, the pink Princess Phone for the ladies."

David H. Deans: U.S. Broadband: Is it Half Empty, or Half Full?: "Is the U.S. broadband glass half-empty, or half-full? You decide. The 12 percent growth rate from 2006 to 2007 trails the 40 percent increase in the 2005 to 2006 timeframe, when many people in the middle-income and older age groups acquired home broadband connections."

Save the Internet Blog: Painting over Broadband Failures with Pretty Pictures: "The near absolute control of phone and cable giants is being bolstered by a Washington establishment that’s loath to upset this imbalance of power. The results are now beginning to show in survey after survey that reveal nationwide broadband failures."

Eric Bangeman, ars technica: New OECD report shows limitations of US broadband public policy: "The countries with the lowest cost per megabit per second are generally characterized by two things: a significant fiber infrastructure and a healthy amount of competition. In Japan and Korea, for instance, fiber is widespread, resulting in the fastest residential broadband speeds available anywhere. In Europe, the regulatory environment allows consumers in many countries to choose from any number of DSL and cable providers."

John B. Horrigan, Pew Internet and American Life Project: Why it will Be Hard to Close the Broadband Divide: "ccording to the Pew Internet Project's February 2007 survey, 47% of American adults have broadband at home, nearly double the 24% penetration level of three years earlier. With home broadband penetration poised to surpass 50% this year, it will have taken 9 years from the time the service became widely available for home high-speed to reach half the population. To put this in context, it took 10 years for the compact disc player to reach 50% of consumers, 15 years for cell phones, and 18 years for color TV"

But the piece de resistance is this article from Spiegel, which illustrates the difference between the US and France. France encouraged competition and required incumbent carriers to allow competitors access to lines. The result is that France has faster broadband available at lower cost and competitive carriers are not simply riding on the incumbent providers facilities, but actually investing in new competitive facilities. France's Broadband Boom: Vive la High-Speed Internet!: "What a difference a few years make. In 2001, France had one of the weakest markets for broadband Internet access in the developed world, with less than a quarter of the penetration of the U.S. Today, it has sailed past the U.S. to become one of the world's most wired nations, with more than one in five inhabitants enjoying high-speed Internet connections."

How can the US catch up to the rest of the world? By encouraging competition in the broadband market. That is the goal that broadband policy should be striving to achieve-- not the Bush Administration's policy of protecting incumbents from competition, but promoting real competition.

Last week Verizon and YouTube announced a deal that will allow Verizon V-Cast subscribers to stream YouTube videos to their mobile phones: YouTube in deal with Verizon: "Only pre-selected high-quality videos will be available for viewing on Verizon's YouTube channel. Users are also be able to upload to the YouTube Web site after shooting video on a Verizon phone. YouTube, which was founded in February 2005, reports 100 million video views a day."

So Verizon customers will be able to watch only selected and pre-approved YouTube videos, not their friends' latest video, but the ones intended for mainstream audiences. (But also, presumably, not the ones that are copyrighted works or those excerpted from copyrighted works.) A non-neutral internet service would probably look something like this kind of mobile phone internet service-- a pre-approved medium that shares little in common with the freewheeling public internet.

On the other hand, the good news is that the deal seems to be good for individual creators who are using their phone videocameras. It would seem to make it easy for individuals to upload video directly from a phone camera to YouTube. It would make phone video creators able to contribute directly to the freewheeling public internet from their phone. That could make primary source video of newsworthy and interesting events available worldwide almost immediately. That could be impressive.

Does a closed service that lets only selected video into the walled garden but lets everything out into the rest of the world promote free speech or hinder free speech?

FTC Commission Jon Leibowitz briefly touched on the competition law aspects of network neutrality and last-mile access in a speech at the FTC “Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-ade” Hearing earlier this month: The Changing Internet: Hips Don’t Lie

Some of the most important issues regarding Net Neutrality involve transparency and disclosure. Will carriers block, slow, or interfere with applications or services? If so, will consumers be told all of this before they sign up? To my mind, failure to disclose these limitations would be “unfair or deceptive” in violation of the FTC Act.

Net Neutrality also invokes complicated competition issues. The last mile of the Internet is its least competitive. Nearly all homes in the US – upwards of 98 percent – that receive broadband get it either from their cable or telephone company. Up until now, the relative neutrality of the Internet has meant that competition and innovation elsewhere in cyberspace has not been affected by the market power of the telephone and cable companies. But if these companies are able to discriminate, treating some bits better than others, there is a danger that their market power in the last mile can interfere with the growth, character, and development of the Internet.

To be sure, there is another side to the debate. The ability of providers to charge more for time sensitive applications and content that takes up more broadband may encourage them to make necessary investments. That’s a goal that all of us should support.

Taking a step back from the framework of competition law or even telecommunications law, Susan Crawford is thinking about the big picture of communications policy: Searching for a principle "At the moment, federal telecommunications policy seems to have no coherent set of goals. We have complex and separate regulatory structures covering telephony (wired and wireless), broadcasting, cable television and satellites. Although there is no express delegation by Congress to the FCC to regulate the internet, the FCC sometimes imposes heavy-handed rules (E911 and CALEA for VoIP) and sometimes claims that its chief goal is to be deregulatory."

On PBS, Bill Moyers looks at net neutrality, The Net at Risk: "The future of the Internet is up for grabs. Last year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) effectively eliminated net neutrality rules, which ensured that every content creator on the Internet-from big-time media concerns to backroom bloggers-had equal opportunity to make their voice heard. Now, large and powerful corporations are lobbying Washington to turn the World Wide Web into what critics call a "toll road," threatening the equitability that has come to define global democracy's newest forum. Yet the public knows little about what's happening behind closed doors on Capitol Hill."

If there was ever a reason for why a corporate-controlled internet might not be such a bad idea, it is this video from "internet celebrities" Tron Guy, Leslie Hall and Peter Pan… If it was the Star Wars kid and Mahir, then you might have something.

Is anyone who matters going to care about net neutrality if a non-neutral, discriminatory internet means simply that Tron Guy, Goatse or the latest All Your Bases Are Belong to Us mashup might take longer to load?

Does "God Save the Internet" by "The Broadband" (Note: not the excellent NYC band Broadband) fall on the lame side of the spectrum of creative advocacy?

CDT: Focused Internet Neutrality Legislation Warranted To Protect Open Internet: "In the absence of legislated safeguards, there is a real risk that today's network operators could choose not to retain the core elements of Internet neutrality. This risk, and the potential consequences, are simply too great to take no action. Once new, non-neutral networks and business arrangements have been put in place, overturning them is likely to be extremely difficult. Legislation is warranted to ensure that neutrality will continue to be factored into network architecture and business plans from the start."

Full CDT report: Preserving the Essential Internet

Daniel Weitzner, MIT: The Neutral Internet: "The debate thus far, however, has proceeded on the mistaken assumption that this is an either/or choice; that we have to choose between a non-discriminatory, slow, insecure network or a potentially discriminatory, high-speed, cleaner Internet tied together with other broadband services. This paper argues that it is possible to preserve the neutral, non-discriminatory essence of the Internet, without sacrificing future growth of new Internet services and other broadband infrastructure."

NewsForge: Today's cell phone system argues for retaining network neutrality: "It turns out that we have a privately owned and controlled network all around us, one that closely mirrors the technical functionality of the Internet, but where there has never been a requirement for net neutrality: the US cellular phone network."

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) pledges to hold any telecom bill that does not protect a neutral internet: Wyden Blocks Telecom Legislation Over Ineffective Net Neutrality Provision: "The bill makes a number of major changes in the country`s telecommunications law but there is one provision that is nothing more than a license to discriminate. Without a clear policy preserving the neutrality of the Internet and without tough sanctions against those who would discriminate, the Internet will be forever changed for the worse. This one provision threatens to divide the Internet into technology `haves" and `have nots." This one provision concentrates even more power in the hands of the special interests that own the pipelines to the Internet."

And finally, a modest proposal for broadband policy from Andy Kessler in The Weekly Standard: Give Me Bandwidth… No one to root for in the net neutrality debate: "Telcos and cable companies have no choice but to lobby for legislation that bars neutrality. Because without the ability to extract money from the webbies for the use of their not-so-fast Alexander Graham Bell-era wires (forget that you and I already overpay for this), AT&T or Verizon might not have any business model going forward. With no real competition, they'd rather keep U.S. telecommunications in the Flintstone era and overcharge for calls to Grandma than upgrade their networks. Since 1998, telecommunications companies have outspent computer and Internet firms on politicians $231 million to $71 million, just to keep the status quo."

On Saturday, I read about Sen. Stevens "The internet is a series of tubes" statement, picked up my guitar and recorded a song based on the speech. I signed the "Ted Stevens Internet Fan Club" up on MySpace and posted the track there to stream and then sent an email to BoingBoing, where Cory posted a link. Over the next two days, more than 2,500 people followed that link. (I posted anonymously because, frankly, the track doesn't sound good. Marginally funny, but only marginally.)

Tuesday morning, I received an email telling me that MySpace cancelled the Ted Stevens Internet Fan Club, because it received a complaint:

Hello,

MySpace has deleted your profile because we received a credible complaint of your violation of the MySpace Terms of Services.

Prohibited activity includes, but is not limited to:
-Any automated use of the system, such as using scripts and/or bots to add friends, send messages, etc.
-For band and filmmaker profiles, MySpace prohibits sexually suggestive imagery or any other unfair, misleading or deceptive content intended to draw traffic to the profile.
-MySpace also investigates credible complaints of copyright/trademark infringement and will delete any materials that infringe upon the intellectual property rights of third parties.

For a more thorough list of prohibited content/activity, please refer to the MySpace Terms of Service located at the bottom of MySpace.com.

If we delete your account, it cannot be reinstated.

Thank you,
MySpace.com

Now, I'm not sure which of those activities the TSIFC page engaged in but the terms of use agreement allows MySpace to summarily delete an account without cause.

MySpace.com reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to reject, refuse to post or remove any posting (including private messages) by you, or to restrict, suspend, or terminate your access to all or any part of the MySpace Services at any time, for any or no reason, with or without prior notice, and without liability.

Even though federal government works can not be protected by copyright (§105), another part of the Copyright Act-- the §512 safe harbor-- gives an internet host a compelling justification to take down any potentially infringing material.

Fortunately, there are plenty of other options to host and/or stream media. Today, MySpace is simply one of a plethora of free choices and we use it knowing its limitations and agreeing to its terms.

But in the brave new world of a discriminatory internet, it could be possible for internet providers to make it difficult or expensive for individuals to publish media. Allowing network owners to discriminate against certain speakers or distributors of speech could make it more difficult for individual creators to disseminate expressions of ideas. No, the internet is not a truck, but the goal of the anti-neutrality proponents is to turn the internet into something like the cable TV system.

Thanks to Boing Boing, David Isenberg, Public Knowledge, and 27B Stroke 6, among others for linking.

For the latest actually useful discussion of network neutrality and discrimination policy, here are two recent pieces. From Ed Felten, Nuts and Bolts of Network Neutrality: "The Internet consists of a set of end-user computers connected by infrastructure that carries data between those computers. This infrastructure is basically a set of routers (think: metal boxes with electronics inside) connected by links (think: long wires). Packets of data get passed from one router to another, via links. A packet is forwarded from router to router, until it arrives at its destination."

In the National Journal, Drew Clark writes: The Tangled Net Of 'Net Neutrality': "Net neutrality is about the rules of the road for the information superhighway -- and whether, some day, traveling in the fast lane will require paying a toll."

A little further down the slope, the question is whether the internet will continue to be a medium fostering speech and creativity by individuals or will Congress allow large corporations to turn it into a one-way distribution network for the benefit of those few companies.

Update (6:06 pm)
Of all the days to be offline more than usual…

Public Knowledge picked up this story: Ted Stevens Parody Song Pulled From Fox-Owned Web Site "The mystery of what happened to the 'Ted Stevens Internet Fan Club' song that had been posted to MySpace.com, but disappeared after three days, has been solved."

That led to Wired News coverage: MySpace Kills Internet Tube Song.

And finally, via Washington Post media reporter Frank Ahrens, MySpace spokesman Jeff Berman says that the song was "incorrectly deleted" and that the song is back up, which it, in fact, is. (Apologies to the English language for that last sentence.)

What's the lesson here? Well, if you want customer service, have a reporter from a major national media outlet contact the company. There may be some anecdotal lesson about copyright and contract law in here somewhere, too…

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on telecommunications legislation and network neutrality: Reconsidering Our Communications Laws: Ensuring Competition and Innovation. The key issue discussed at the hearings was the question of whether the broadband internet access market is a free, competitive market. However, the hearings did not discuss the issue of whether the broadband internet access available in the US is competitive with the internet access markets in other countries.

Here are some links collected recently:
Network World: Debate: Network neutrality: "The U.S. Senate this week is expected to debate network neutrality. What do you think? Scott Cleland, chairman of NETcompetition.org, which represents telecom and wireless companies and David Isenberg, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society are online this week to discuss, debate and answer your comments."

Susan Crawford: From the telco point of view: "What's all this about 'consumers' and 'content'?  We know that Americans like to post material of their own online.  Almost 50 million of us have already done that, and teenagers have grown up with interactive media -- almost 60% of them have created and shared content online. We're users, not consumers.  You're dimming our expectations -- we don't expect to be able to upload with ease, and we wish we had the same kind of broadband access as South Korea."

The 463 Group: Net Neutrality: What's Next?: "Feel free to disagree, but the betting types we've talked to are guessing that, all near-term Senate machinations aside, nothing gets out of Congress this year and the next Congress will take up the fight along with a host of other big, pending telecom issues (after all, it took many years to get the 1996 Telecom Act passed)."

Ed Felten, Freedom to Tinker: The Last Mile Bottleneck and Net Neutrality: "For a typical home broadband user, the bottleneck for Internet access today is the ‘last mile’ wire or fiber connecting their home to their Internet Service Provider’s (ISP’s) network. This is true today, and I’m going to assume from here on that it will continue to be true in the future. I should admit up front that this assumption could turn out to be wrong — but if it’s right, it has interesting implications for the network neutrality debate."

News.com: Net neutrality: Meet the winner: "As Verizon Communications' executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communications, Tauke has spent the last few months embroiled in a fiery debate over Net neutrality, the concept that broadband providers must be legally required to treat all content equally."

David Isenberg: Welcome to the Stupid Internet: "I looked at "reality." I saw email, and the Web, and eCommerce, and Mapquest, and blogging, and Instant Messaging, and streaming audio on demand, and multiplayer online games, and many other miracles too numerous to list here, miracles that never arrived via "intelligent" networks."

In The Hill, Future of Music Coalition's Jenny Toomey and Michael Bracy discuss why net neutrality is important for musicians: Indie Rock Revolution, Fueled by Net Neutrality: "To understand the importance of net neutrality for artists, look at the lack of a similar principle in modern commercial radio. When informally polled as to why they sign away their copyrights to major labels, most artists explain that they need to be on a major label in order to have a shot at commercial radio airplay. And, sadly, these artists have a point."

Tyler Cowen: Marginal Revolution: Net neutrality, part II: "If the cable and telecom companies had no legally-backed monopoly powers, I would not favor legally enforced net neutrality.  'Let the market decide' would be a good answer."

Michael Madison: Net Neutrality Anecdote: "I started to talk about the net neutrality issue. My wife wanted to know which side the Republicans are on and which side the Democrats are on. No: it’s not a traditional partisan issue. It’s partly the present v. the future, and hierarchy v. distributed control, but it’s also money v. money. Could I explain all that in the 20 minutes that we walked around the block? Not really."

Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney in the Washington Post: No Tolls on The Internet: "The protections that guaranteed network neutrality have been law since the birth of the Internet -- right up until last year, when the Federal Communications Commission eliminated the rules that kept cable and phone companies from discriminating against content providers. This triggered a wave of announcements from phone company chief executives that they plan to do exactly that."

All Things Considered: Network Neutrality Issue Unites Political Foes: "Once again, the old cliche "politics makes strange bedfellows" is proving itself true: The liberal advocacy group Moveon.org is fighting on the same side as the Christian Coalition. That may be the most headline-catching part of an issue with a notably dull name: Network Neutrality."

NY Times: Editorial: Wi-Fi and the Cities: "No fewer than 300 cities and towns around the nation have taken wireless Internet access, or Wi-Fi, to the people. San Francisco's aim is to make the entire city a hot spot, Chicago plans to blanket the city with access, and large parts of Philadelphia are to go wireless soon. But New York, which should be leading the way, is dragging."

Here is a roundup of some of the more interesting and thoughtful recent articles, posts and audio bits concerning network neutrality policy:

Michael Grebb, Wired News: Neutral Net? Who Are You Kidding?: "Six months ago, few outside of internet policy wonk circles were aware of the issue. Now, the best-known brands on the net are flexing their lobbying muscles for and against it, and lawmakers have responded with a raft of competing bills. As the debate reaches fever pitch, it seems fair to ask: How neutral is the net right now?"

Unfortunately, even though neutrality is a critically important facilitator of free speech and democratic dialogue, it is still difficult to explain in succinct talking points. Bob Frankston finds an analogy that helps to make the "net neutrality" question somewhat more tangible and less theoretic: Sidewalks: Paying by the Stroll: "I've been immersed in so-called tele-communications issues for a long time but I haven't posted too much lately because I'm not satisfied with net neutrality and am trying to figure out how to explain that the problem is more fundamental (as in 'Telecom Phrase'). How come I have to plead for neutrality when we're talking about infrastructure that we should own?"

Ben Scott (Free Press), Mark Cooper (Consumer Federation of America) and Jeannine Kenney (Consumers Union): Why Consumers Demand Internet Freedom: Network Neutrality Fact vs. Fiction: "Network Neutrality protections have existed for the entire history of te Internet. opponents of Internet freedom pretend that Network Neutrality protections would mean new, onerous government regulations. But advocates of Network Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are preserving tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that have made the Internet the greatest engine of economic growth and democratic communication in modern memory."

At the WSJ, Mike McCurry (Telecom lobbyist) and Craig Newmark (Founder of Craigslist) debate net neutrality regulation: Should the Net Be Neutral?: "Newmark: Mike says 'let the current rules govern' and that's what we're trying to do, trying to stop the big guys from changing the rules via the Federal Communications Commission. We're trying to preserve the level playing field. It's just fairness. Americans want to play fair, work hard and get ahead. That's what net neutrality is about."

Adam Cohen, NY Times: Why the Democratic Ethic of the World Wide Web May Be About to End: "The World Wide Web is the most democratic mass medium there has ever been. Freedom of the press, as the saying goes, belongs only to those who own one. Radio and television are controlled by those rich enough to buy a broadcast license. But anyone with an Internet-connected computer can reach out to a potential audience of billions."

Susan Crawford: Comparative broadband ideas: "How do you increase competition in the U.S. for broadband access?  Right now, we have giants fighting with each other -- cable and telephone companies.  Small numbers of these companies control 80%-90% of the market for broadband access.  After the BellSouth merger, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast alone will control 49% of the market"

Susan Crawford: The definition of net neutrality: "There are lots of people out there saying 'we need to treat all VoIP alike, all video alike, and all blogs alike.'' For them, that's network neutrality. That's not what I hope we'll end up meaning by net neutrality.' That would require a heavy-handed regulator enforcing a provider's determination of what packets are 'like' other packets.' I am not in favor of that approach. I have a different vision.' I hope, someday, we'll treat broadband access like the utility it is.' That would mean separating transport from other activities, and separating access from backbone and backhaul transport.' That doesn't require a great deal of discretion to repose in any particular actor."

David Isenberg: What's driving the next telecom law: "Until this decade, law has treated the telephone network as a public accommodation, meaning that non-discriminatory access to the network, known as network neutrality in the current policy debate, was assured. On the Internet, though, non-discriminatory access leads straight to the erosion of the telco/cableco business model by third parties that would not behave as 'rational competitors.' This is why telephone companies are fighting fiercely against non-discriminatory access."

John Reinan, Star Tribune: Access to the Internet: Is it a right or a privilege?: "Imagine if the Internet were like cable TV. You pay $40 a month to Time Warner or Comcast, and you get a menu of 80 websites to visit. Want to go to a site devoted to Japanese anime cartoons? Sorry, that's not on the menu. Looking for that crazy blog about the history of matchbook covers? No longer available -- or so slow to load it's not worth your while.

NPR All Things Considered: Internet Debate: Preserving User Parity: "Should the Internet be divided into fast and slow lanes? That's the question at the heart of the debate over 'network neutrality.' Broadband providers have clashed with Internet and software companies, who are concerned that giving some users preferential treatment for a price effectively shuts out competition."

On the Media: Information Toll Road: " couple of months back, we discussed the prospect that one day the Internet might be split into a fast lane and a slow lane. That's because the telephone and cable companies that supply us with broadband service believe they're getting a raw deal. They say that content providers ought to be willing to pay extra for the high-speed delivery that is now available to all, a state of affairs called "network neutrality." Well, that fateful day may fast be approaching. "

Public Radio Exchange: Four Voices from Freedom to Connect The hour consists of excerpts from four talks given at Freedom to Connect in Washington, D.C. on April 3 & 4, 2006: Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA), Chris Sacca (Google), Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt"

The New York Times reports on the bundle of communications services offered by a cable television company in Japan: In Japan, a Provider of Cable Ups the Ante: "In addition to a basic television package, he gets a digital phone line and a broadband connection with a top speed of 30 megabits a second, about six times as fast as that offered by most American cable companies. He pays about $130 a month for the three services and some premium channels."

Here in NYC, Time Warner offers a bundle of basic cable, digital phone service and internet service for only $99/month. But that is only a 768 kbps internet service. For the same price as the Japanese plan discussed in the Times article-- $129.95/month-- Time Warner will provide internet access at "speeds of up to 5 Mbps"-- 6 times slower than the Japanese competitor. And on the high-speed internet access in NYC, uploads are limited to a paltry 384 kbps. Pity the poor podcaster or videoblogger who can upload her files at less than 10% of the advertised top speed of her connection.

And Japan is not alone in eclipsing the US. Public Knowledge's Art Brodsky saw a broadband ad in the London Underground:

The advertisement on the wall in the subway station was hard to believe — a broadband service with 24 meg download for about $45 per month. That was the good news. Unfortunately, the service isn’t available in the U.S. The ad was on the wall of tube stop in London and the company, Be, http://www.bethere.co.uk is British. Just to rub it in a little, it gets better. There is also a cheaper option, about $25 per month, which still gets you the 24 mbps download, but with a slower upload speed. This in a city in which a bottle of water will set you back about $2.25.

How will insulating broadband providers from competition allow the US to compete in the wired world?

Earlier today, a producer from the public radio program Open Source called me to discuss net neutrality. Because they could get actual experts and more interesting speakers, they didn't need me (but it was nice that they got all the way down the list to think of me!)

Open Source: Net Neutrality, May 4, 2006.

After talking briefly and disjointedly about network neutrality, I think I clarified some points in my own mind.

Why not regulate? The case against neutrality regulation:

1. Regulations may be burdensome-- and may serve to make internet access more expensive, discourage investment and keep the US part of the internet stuck in 2005 while the rest of the world develops.
2. A discriminatory network allows certain services to have priority. When downloading a file, it doesn't really matter whether the bits arrive at the client in the proper order, so long as they eventually all arrive and end up in the correct order. When using VoIP or streaming a movie, it matters that the bits arrive in the correct order and in a timely fashion. Allowing ISPs to discriminate makes the internet feel faster without having to invest money in expensive bandwidth.
3. By not regulating internet services, internet service providers are free to develop the most innovative services possible.
4. A discriminatory internet is excellent for cable and telecom companies. Not requiring neutrality will allow telecom and cable companies to extract the full potential value from their networks. If you were running an ISP, which would you prefer-- all-you-can eat pricing or a system that charges premium prices for premium features?

Why is Net Neutrality Important? The case for neutrality:

1. Neutrality advances the overall usefulness of the internet quicker. Because broadband internet service providers can compete only on bandwidth, the more bandwidth that is available the more advanced services can be created. Instead of deploying only high-revenue services, broadband providers will have to compete on bandwidth and reliability.
2. A neutral internet promotes free speech. Publishing to a discriminatory internet could be more like deploying a new cable television network and require negotiating a carriage agreement with all major end-user internet service providers. A non-neutral internet looks more like the mobile phone system, which feels expensive.
3. A neutral internet is excellent for everyone who sends data over the internet. In a discriminatory internet, publishers (which includes not just Yahoo, Google and Microsoft, but also your local newspaper, the neighborhood association, and state, federal and local governments) have to pay not only to connect to the internet and for bandwidth, but could also need to pay a connection fee (protection money) to be able to send data to each of the major local internet providers.
4. A neutral internet promotes creativity and free speech. Instead of pigeon-holing services into particular tiers, it allows innovators to develop new services and ways of sharing information.
5. A neutral internet is cheaper. A preferential, proprietary internet requires more expensive routers that move preferred packets into an HOV lane. As bandwidth gets cheaper and cheaper, it is probably cheaper and more cost effective for the individuals, small businesses and large companies who use the internet to pay for wider information superhighways than adding an HOV lane to the existing networks.
6. Regulation may be necessary because the broadband internet services market is not a classically free market. Individuals generally have the option of choosing service from their local telephone company or local cable company. Where a market failure exists, regulation prevents entrenched interests from exerting undue market power. See e.g. the entire body of antitrust law.
7. A non-neutral internet would be more like Minitel than like the internet we know and love today.

Like railroads and shipping lines, the analog telephone system is a common carrier network. One is able to reasonably use the network to call any other person. The common carrier may not deny transmitting a call between two willing participants because of the content of the speech transmitted. The telephone company can not discriminate against a customer who uses the common carrier network to discuss how they dislike the president or the phone company. The telephone company can not discriminate against a customer who uses the network to use a modem to dial a third-party internet service provider or BBS. In a neutral internet, internet service providers must act like common carriers. A non-neutral internet might allow internet providers to prevent users from using encrypted connections to corporate networks or third party VoIP services.

Tim Wu, Slate: Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality: "Welcome to the fight over 'network neutrality,' Washington's current obsession. The debate centers on whether it is more "neutral" to let consumers reach all Internet content equally or to let providers discriminate if they think they'll make more money that way."

At the Legal Affairs Debate Club, Wu debates Christopher S. Yoo about network neutrality: Keeping The Internet Neutral?: "Whether you browse Wal-Mart's website or that of your local hardware store, your Internet Service Provider gives your request equal treatment—called 'network neutrality.' Networks may soon become less neutral, however, because of proposed regulatory changes and corporate mergers among ISPs which could reduce consumer choice. Neutrality has been seen as beneficial for innovation and for democracy, since a 'tilted' Internet may shut out independent political voices as well as small entrepreneurs. But neutrality has potential drawbacks. It may discourage innovative new services that require investment by an ISP, for example, and reduce the Internet's stability and security. Should ISPs be allowed to play favorites among websites and offer non-neutral Internet connections to their subscribers?"

At the Huffington Post, Mike McCurry (former White House Press Secretary and currrently a lobbyist against regulation) writes: Hostile Commentary and Net Neutrality: "The Internet is not a free public good. It is a bunch of wires and switches and connections and pipes and it is creaky. You all worship at Vince Cerf who has a clear financial interest in the outcome of this debate but you immediately castigate all of us who disagree and impune our motives. I get paid a reasonable but small sum to argue what I believe. How many of the net neuts out there are honest about the financial resources and special interests behind your side of the argument? Do you really believe this is good v. evil or just an honest disagreement about what will make the 'net flourish and prosper? What do you make of David Farber's recent caution about the unintended consequences of regulating the Internet?"

Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the WWW discusses the benefits of Neutrality of the Net: "When, seventeen years ago, I designed the Web, I did not have to ask anyone's permission. The new application rolled out over the existing Internet without modifying it. I tried then, and many people still work very hard still, to make the Web technology, in turn, a universal, neutral, platform. It must not discriminate against particular hardware, software, underlying network, language, culture, disability, or against particular types of data."

The Net Neutrality Coalition is another group supporting neutrality-- "a broad coalition of consumers, grassroots groups and businesses working together"-- and funded by Amazon, eBay, Google, IAC, Microsoft, Yahoo!

And here is David Isenberg discussing Network Neutrality at Harvard: Network Neutrality Reality