Difference between revisions of "Net Neutrality"
From Wiki
Differance (Talk | contribs) (→Introduction) |
Differance (Talk | contribs) (→The Issues) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
== The Issues == | == The Issues == | ||
| − | (Quoting FTC) | + | (Quoting FTC) |
| − | In response, opponents of network neutrality have argued that such regulation would have adverse consequences for innovation and competition in the market for broadband access by, among other things, making it more difficult for ISPs and other network operators to recoup their investments in broadband networks. Opponents also have argued that such regulation is unnecessary because: 1) to date there is insufficient evidence of harm to competition or | + | Issues are raised by recent legal and regulatory |
| − | consumers to warrant such regulation; 2) competitive conditions in the market for broadband access will protect consumers from the harm anticipated by net neutrality proponents; and 3) the antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as FCC oversight, are sufficient to address any harms that may arise. | + | determinations that providers of certain broadband Internet |
| + | services, such as cable modem and DSL, are not subject to the | ||
| + | Federal Communications Commission’s common-carrier regulations. | ||
| + | In the absence of such regulations, some have raised concerns | ||
| + | about broadband Internet service providers discriminating | ||
| + | against, degrading, or blocking users’ access to unaffiliated | ||
| + | content and applications. In addition, concerns have been | ||
| + | raised regarding ISPs and other network operators charging | ||
| + | providers of unaffiliated content and applications fees for | ||
| + | prioritized delivery of their products to end users. To | ||
| + | prevent harm to competition and consumers from these and other | ||
| + | related types of conduct, some have advocated network | ||
| + | neutrality regulation that would require equal treatment of | ||
| + | all Internet traffic. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In response, opponents of network neutrality have argued that | ||
| + | such regulation would have adverse consequences for innovation | ||
| + | and competition in the market for broadband access by, among | ||
| + | other things, making it more difficult for ISPs and other | ||
| + | network operators to recoup their investments in broadband | ||
| + | networks. Opponents also have argued that such regulation is | ||
| + | unnecessary because: 1) to date there is insufficient evidence | ||
| + | of harm to competition or consumers to warrant such | ||
| + | regulation; 2) competitive conditions in the market for | ||
| + | broadband access will protect consumers from the harm | ||
| + | anticipated by net neutrality proponents; and 3) the antitrust | ||
| + | and consumer protection laws, as well as FCC oversight, are | ||
| + | sufficient to address any harms that may arise. | ||
== MoveOn.org meeting== | == MoveOn.org meeting== | ||
Revision as of 07:00, 19 February 2007
Introduction
At the isoc-ny AGM on Feb 15 2007, Seth Johnson reported on the FTC "Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy" Workshop earlier in the week. He delivered a pitch to issue a statement that would strongly clarify the "network neutrality" issue, and mentioned that there were two weeks left for public comment. It was decided that isoc-ny should issue a comment. Danny Younger and Joly MacFie were tasked with drafting such.
Seth points out the following key points that the Internet Society of New York (and the Internet Society in general) can make as critical stewards of the Internet standards-making process:
- That the bodies that oversee the processes of Internet standards-making have not been given appropriate participation in the discussion
- That the very process of Internet standards-making is at risk in the "network neutrality" debate, because the flexiiblity of the Internet transport and the diversity of applications that are made possible by it may very easily be affected by practices that would affect the transport
- That the advantages of the existing protocols -- in particular the application flexibility of the Internet Protocol -- have not been acknowledged adequately in the debate
- That in order to address policy questions related to "network neutrality" a distinction needs to be drawn between the nature and advantages of existing protocols and practices, and various practices that are being proposed
(I'll add more points as I think of them. As I think ISOC likely can see very well, it is eminently possible to issue a highly important statement that can focus on technical issues like the above, without necessarily moving to a place that is more polemical. The above points are chiefly about the responsibility that the Internet Society holds for assuring the integrity of standards. -- Seth)
The Issues
(Quoting FTC)
Issues are raised by recent legal and regulatory determinations that providers of certain broadband Internet services, such as cable modem and DSL, are not subject to the Federal Communications Commission’s common-carrier regulations. In the absence of such regulations, some have raised concerns about broadband Internet service providers discriminating against, degrading, or blocking users’ access to unaffiliated content and applications. In addition, concerns have been raised regarding ISPs and other network operators charging providers of unaffiliated content and applications fees for prioritized delivery of their products to end users. To prevent harm to competition and consumers from these and other related types of conduct, some have advocated network neutrality regulation that would require equal treatment of all Internet traffic.
In response, opponents of network neutrality have argued that such regulation would have adverse consequences for innovation and competition in the market for broadband access by, among other things, making it more difficult for ISPs and other network operators to recoup their investments in broadband networks. Opponents also have argued that such regulation is unnecessary because: 1) to date there is insufficient evidence of harm to competition or consumers to warrant such regulation; 2) competitive conditions in the market for broadband access will protect consumers from the harm anticipated by net neutrality proponents; and 3) the antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as FCC oversight, are sufficient to address any harms that may arise.
MoveOn.org meeting
Joesph S. has fwded an invite from move-on.org to a meeting with Rep. Yvette Clarke next week to discuss Net Neutrality - Wed Feb 21 in Brooklyn. details
Links
- Wikipedia Network Neutrality
- Wikipedia Network neutrality in the United States
- Dynamic Platform Standards Project -- includes an interesting legislative proposal.
- Cerf vs Farber: the Great Debate mp3 pdf Comments: [1] [2]
- www.savetheinternet.com/
- Tim Wu's Network Neutrality FAQ
- Yoo vs Wu: another debate [3]
