Net neutrality in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Net neutrality in the United States is the principle that
internet service providers
(ISPs) and governments should treat all data on the internet equally
and not discriminate by use. It has been an issue of contention among
network users and access providers in the US since the 1990's.
[1][2] Up until February 26, 2015 when the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) applied
Title II (common carrier) of the
Communications Act of 1934 and
Section 706 of the
Telecommunications act of 1996 to the
Internet, there had been no clear legal restrictions against practices impeding
net neutrality.
[3][4][5]
In 2005 and 2006, corporations supporting both sides of the issue had spent large amounts of money lobbying
Congress.
[6]
Between 2005 and 2012, five attempts to pass bills in Congress
containing net neutrality provisions failed. Each 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.
[7]
In April 2014, the FCC had reported a new draft rule that would have
permitted ISPs to offer content providers a faster track to send
content, thus reversing its earlier
net neutrality position.
[8]
In May, 2014, the FCC decided to consider two options: permitting fast
and slow broadband lanes, thereby compromising net neutrality; and
second, reclassifying broadband as a
telecommunication service, thereby preserving net neutrality.
[9] In November 2014,
President Obama recommended the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service.
[10] In January 2015,
Republicans presented a
H. R. discussion draft bill, that made concessions to net neutrality, but prohibited the FCC from enacting any further regulation affecting ISPs.
[11]
In February 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by
reclassifying broadband as common carrier under Title II of the
Communications Act of 1934.
[12][13] The FCC Chairman,
Tom Wheeler, commented, "This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the
First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept."
[14]
Regulatory history
Early history 1980-2000
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) have been considered
common carriers under U.S. law, which means that they have been akin to
public utilities and expressly forbidden to give preferential treatment. They have been regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in order to ensure fair pricing and access.
In the late 1980s the
Internet
became legally available for commercial use. It was not until the late
1990s and early 2000s, that US consumers and businesses began to attach
new devices to their Internet connections, and use Internet services
that were not in existence prior.
Also in the 1980s, arguments about the public interest requirements
of the telecommunications industry in the U.S. arose; whether companies
involved in broadcasting were best viewed as
community trustees, with obligations to society and consumers, or mere
market participants with obligations only to their shareholders.
[15] 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?
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. The debate that started in the U.S. extended
internationally with distinct differences of the debate in Europe
[17]
FCC promotes freedom without regulation (2004)
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:
- Freedom to access content.
- Freedom to run applications.
- Freedom to attach devices.
- 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)
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
competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC).
[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]
- Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
- Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
- Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
- Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
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.
[citation needed]
In December 2006, the AT&T/Bell South merger agreement defined 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."
[24]
FCC tries and fails to punish Comcast for throttling BitTorrent (2007-2010)
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.
[25]
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.".
[26] In December 2009 Comcast reached a proposed settlement of US$16 million, admitting no wrongdoing
[27] and amounting to no more than US$ 16 dollars per share.
[28]
In August 2008, the FCC made its first Internet network management decision.
[29]
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.
[30][31]
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.
[32]
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."
[33] In May 2010, the FCC announced it would continue its fight for net neutrality.
[34] 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 ISPs to keep their networks open, while employing reasonable
network management practices, to all forms of legal content.
[35]
FCC's conditions for spectrum auction (2008)
In February 2008,
Kevin Martin, then
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission,
said that he is "ready, willing and able," to prevent broadband ISPs
from irrationally interfering with their subscribers' Internet access.
[36]
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:
[37]
- 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.
[38]
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.
Expansion and legal overturn of 2005 FCC rules (2009)
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.
[39]
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.
[40] In October 2009, the FCC gave notice of proposed rule making on net neutrality.
[41] 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 ISPs to keep their networks open to all forms of content.
[42]
FCC Open Internet Order (2010)
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":
- Transparency: Consumers and innovators have a right to know the
basic performance characteristics of their Internet access and how their
network is being managed;
- 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;
- 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;
- 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;
- 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;
- 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.[43]
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.
[44][45] Advocates of net neutrality criticized the changes.
[46]
FCC's authority narrowed (2014)
On January 14, 2014, the DC Circuit Court determined in the case of
Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission[47]
that the FCC has no authority to enforce Network Neutrality rules,
since service providers are not identified as "common carriers".
[48]
The court agreed that FCC can regulate broadband and may craft more
specific rules that stop short of identifying service providers as
common carriers.
[49]
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.
[50]
Section 706 vs. Title II
As a response to the DC Circuit Court's decision, a dispute developed
as to whether net neutrality could be guaranteed under existing law, or
if reclassification of ISPs was needed to ensure net neutrality.
[51]
Wheeler stated that the FCC had the authority under Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 to regulate ISPs, while others, including
President Obama,
[52]
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." Advocates of net neutrality have
generally supported reclassifying ISPs under Title II, while FCC
leadership and ISPs have generally opposed such reclassification. The
FCC stated that if they reclassified ISPs as common carriers, the
commission would selectively enforce Title II, so that only sections
relating to broadband would apply to ISPs.
[51]
FCC policy proposals (2014)
Users with faster Internet connectivity (e.g., fiber) abandon a
slow-loading video at a faster rate than users with slower Internet
connectivity (e.g., cable or mobile).
[53] A "fast lane" in the Internet can irrevocably decrease the user's tolerance to the relative slowness of the "slow lane".
On February 19, 2014 the FCC announced plans to formulate new rules
to enforce net neutrality while complying with the court rulings.
[54]
On April 23, 2014, the FCC reported a new draft rule that would permit broadband ISPs such as
Comcast and
Verizon, to offer content providers, such as
Netflix,
Disney or
Google,
willing to pay a higher price, faster connection speeds, so their
customers would have had preferential access, thus reversing its earlier
net neutrality position.
[8][55][56] [55][57][58]
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.
[9][59]
The same day, the FCC opened a public comment period on how FCC
rulemaking could best protect and promote an open Internet, garnering
over one million responses, the most the FCC had ever received for
rulemaking.
[60] The FCC proposal for a
tiered Internet
received heavy criticism. Opponents argued that a user accessing
content over the "fast lane" on the Internet would find the "slow lane"
intolerable in comparison, greatly disadvantaging any content provider
who is unable to pay for "fast lane" access. They argued that a tiered
Internet would suppress new Internet innovations by increasing the
barrier to entry. Video providers Netflix
[61] and Vimeo
[62] in their comments filed with the FCC use the research of S.S. Krishnan and
Ramesh Sitaraman that provided quantitative evidence of the impact of Internet speed on online video users.
[53]
Their research studied the patience level of millions of Internet video
users who waited for a slow-loading video to start playing. Users with
faster Internet connectivity, such as fiber-to-the-home, demonstrated
less patience and abandoned their videos sooner than similar users with
slower Internet connectivity.
[63][64][65]
Opponents of the rules declared September 10, 2014 to be the
"Internet Slowdown". Participating websites were purposely slowed down
to show what they felt would happen if the new rules took effect.
Websites that participated in the Internet Slowdown included:
Netflix,
[66] Reddit,
Tumblr,
Twitter,
Vimeo and
Kickstarter.
[67][68][69][70]
The Economist described the "Battle for the Net [...] now casting the
upcoming FCC decision as an epic clash between "Team Internet" (a plucky
band of high-tech multi-millionaires) and "Team Cable" (a dastardly
bunch of Big-ISP billionaires)."
[71]
On November 10, 2014,
President Obama had recommended the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve
net neutrality.
[10][72][73]
FCC Ruling 2015
On January 16, 2015,
Republicans presented legislation, in the form of a
U. S. Congress H. R. discussion draft bill,
that makes concessions to net neutrality but prohibits the FCC from
accomplishing the goal or enacting any further regulation affecting
ISPs.
[11][74]
On January 31, 2015, AP News reported the FCC would present the
notion of applying ("with some caveats") common carrier status to the
internet in a vote expected on February 26, 2015.
[75][76][77][78][79] Adoption of this notion reclassified internet service from one of information to one of
telecommunications[80] and, according to
Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC, ensure net neutrality.
[81][82] On the day before the FCC vote, it was expected to regulate the Internet as a
public good.
[12][83]
On February 26, 2015 the FCC applied common carrier of the
Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications act
of 1996 to the internet.
[3][4][5][12][13]
Violations
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.
[84]
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.
[85]
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".
[86]
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 AT&T was
violating net-neutrality rules by restricting use of Apple's
video-conferencing application "FaceTime" to certain customers. The
application could formerly be used over Wi-Fi signals was suddenly
restricted to cellular connection and customers with a shared data plan
on AT&T, excluding those with older unlimited or tiered data plans.
[87]
Broadband providers can 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]
Attempted legislation
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.
[88]
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."
[89]
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[90][91] |
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.”[92]
- 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..."[92]
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."[92]
|
Killed by the end of 109th Congress. |
| Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Bill of 2006[93][94][95] |
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.[96]
- 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.[97]
|
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.[98] |
| Network Neutrality Act of 2006[99] |
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.[99]
|
Defeated 34-22 in committee with Republicans and some Democrats opposing, most Democrats supporting.[100] |
| Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Bill of 2006[101] |
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[102] |
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.[103]
- 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.[103]
- 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.[103]
|
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)[104] |
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.[96]
- 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.[105]
|
Read twice and referred to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. |
| Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008[106] |
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.[96]
- 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.[107]
- 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.[107]
|
Introduced to the House Energy and Commerce Committee |
| 111th Congress of the United States (January 2009 – January 2011) |
| Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009[108][109] |
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.[96]
- 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.[110]
- 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.[111]
|
- |
| 112th Congress of the United States (January 2011 – January 2013) |
| Data Cap Integrity Act of 2012[112] |
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
Support of net neutrality
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.
[113][114][115] Tim Berners-Lee (the inventor of the World Wide Web) has also spoken out in favor of net neutrality.
[116] On May 16, 2014, some websites are reported to have throttled FCC staffers to protest their position on net neutrality.
[117]
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.
[118]
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 internet's ability to
encourage start-ups.
[119]
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.
[120]
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.
[121]
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.
[122]
Opposition to net neutrality
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.
[123]
Organizations opposing net neutrality are the free-market advocacy organizations
FreedomWorks Foundation,
[124]Americans for Prosperity and their website
No Internet Takeover,
[125] 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.
[126] 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.
[127][128][129][130] Many conspiracy theorists allege corporate
astroturfing.
[127]
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.
[131]
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,"
[132]
sparking a furious debate. SBC spokesman Michael Balmoris said that
Whitacre was misinterpreted and his comments only referred to new tiered
services.
[133]
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.
[134][citation needed]
In 2014
Professor Susan Crawford, a legal and technology expert at
Harvard Law School suggested that
municipal broadband might be a possible solution to net neutrality concerns.
[135]
Alternative FCC proposals
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
[136] 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 ISP 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".
[137]
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.
[138]
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 ISPs 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, ISPs, 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.
[138] The official proposal is rumored to become public by the end of 2014.
[139]
Opinions cautioning against legislation
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."
[140]
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."
[141] 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.
[142]
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".
[143]
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."
[143] 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."
[143] 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."
[143]
"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."
[143]
Unlimited vs usage-based pricing
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
[when?] looking for alternative pricing models that will be accepted by the market.
[citation needed]
State regulations
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] In practice, net neutrality is influenced by state level politics.
[144][better source needed]
Unresolved issues
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]
As of 2006 the debate over "neutrality" did 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.
[145]
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]
Alternatives to cable and DSL
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.
In 2006 it has been proposed 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.
[146]
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
Tennessee public utility
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.
[147]
See also
References
Further reading
External links
| [hide]
Network neutrality in North America
|
|
| Sovereign states |
|
|
|
Dependencies and
other territories
|
|
|
Navigation menu
Siddiqui, Harris (May 20, 2014). "The Death of Net Neutrality And The Open Internet'". Best VPN Service. Retrieved May 20, 2014.
Wyatt, Edward (April 8, 2011). "House Votes Against 'Net Neutrality'". New York Times. Retrieved September 23, 2011.
Staff (February 26, 2015). "FCC Adopts Strong, Sustainable Rules To Protect The Open Internet" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Ruiz, Rebecca R.; Lohr, Steve (February 26, 2015). "In Net Neutrality Victory, F.C.C. Classifies Broadband Internet Service as a Public Utility". New York Times. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Flaherty, Anne (February 25, 2015). "FACT CHECK: Talking heads skew 'net neutrality' debate". AP News. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
"AT&T, Comcast Rout Google, Microsoft in Net Neutrality Battle". Bloomberg News. July 20, 2006. Retrieved January 7, 2007.
"Bill Text - 109th Congress (2005-2006) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)". loc.gov. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Wyatt, Edward (April 23, 2014). "F.C.C., in ‘Net Neutrality’ Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane". New York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2014.
Staff (May 15, 2014). "Searching for Fairness on the Internet". New York Times. Retrieved May 15, 2014.
Wyatt, Edward (November 10, 2014). "Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules". New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
Weisman, Jonathan (January 19, 2015). "Shifting Politics of Net Neutrality Debate Ahead of F.C.C.Vote". New York Times. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
Weisman, Jonathan (February 24, 2015). "As Republicans Concede, F.C.C. Is Expected to Enforce Net Neutrality". New York Times (CNBC). Retrieved February 24, 2015.
Lohr, Steve (February 25, 2015). "The Push for Net Neutrality Arose From Lack of Choice". New York Times. Retrieved February 25, 2015.
Liebelson, Dana (February 26, 2015). "Net Neutrality Prevails In Historic FCC Vote". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 27, 2015.
Mark S. Fowler and 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.
"Remarks as Delivered". Artcontext. January 11, 1994. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Jan
Krämer, Lukas Wiewiorra, Christof Weinhardt, Net Neutrality in the
United States and Europe, CPI Antitrust Chronicle, March 2012(2)
Powell, Michael (February 8, 2004). "Preserving Internet Freedom: Guiding Principles for the Industry" (PDF). Retrieved July 7, 2006.
"In the Matter of Madison River Communications, LLC and affiliated companies". Consent Decree DA 05-543. FCC. 2005. Retrieved April 30, 2014.
Federal Communications Commission (August 5, 2005). "New Principles Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet" (PDF). Retrieved July 7, 2006.
"Before the Federal Communications Commission". Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Isenberg, David (August 7, 2005). "How Martin's FCC is different from Powell's". Retrieved July 7, 2006.
"Policy statement". Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved August 26, 2009.
"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 Docket No. 06-74". Federal Communications Commissions. December 28, 2006. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Cheng, Jacqui (October 19, 2007). "Evidence mounts that comcast is targeting Bittorrent Traffic". Ars Technica. Condé Nast. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
Kumar, Vishesh (March 27, 2008). "Comcast, BitTorrent reached an agreement to work together on network traffic". Wall Street Journal.
Duncan, Geoff (December 23, 2009). "Comcast to Pay $16 Million for Blocking P2P Applications". Digital Trends. Retrieved December 23, 2009.
Cheng, Jacqui (December 22, 2009). "Comcast settles P2P throttling class-action for $16 million". Ars Technica (Condé Nast). Retrieved December 23, 2009.
"THE FCC TACKLES NET NEUTRALITY: AGENCY JURISDICTION AND THE COMCAST ORDER". Berkley Technology Law Journal. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
"Toy-safety bill advances, No to Internet rationing". The Week. August 8, 2008. Retrieved March 4, 2009.
Kathleen Ann Ruane (February 20, 2009). "Net Neutrality: The Federal Communications Commission's Authority to Enforce its Network Management Principles" (PDF). Retrieved March 9, 2009.
Hansell, Saul (August 2, 2008). "F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage". New York Times.
McCullagh, Declan (April 6, 2010). "Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality". CNET.
Matthew Lasar (May 5, 2010). "FCC on net neutrality: yes we can". arstechnica.com. Condé Nast. Retrieved May 6, 2010.
Ann Ruane, Kathleen (April 29, 2013). "The FCC's Authority to Regulate Net Neutrality After Comcast v. FCC". Congressional Research Service. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
"FCC says will act on Web neutrality if needed". Reuters. February 25, 2008.
"Google Intends to Bid in Spectrum Auction If FCC Adopts Consumer Choice and Competition Requirements". Retrieved August 26, 2009.
"FCC sets 700 MHz auction rules: limited open access, no wholesale requirement". July 2007. Retrieved August 26, 2009.
[1][dead link]
Nate Anderson (September 21, 2009). "FCC Chairman wants network neutrality, wired and wireless". Retrieved October 6, 2009.
Tim Greene (October 22, 2009). "FAQ: What's the FCC vote on net neutrality all about?".
Gross, Grant (April 6, 2010). "Court rules against FCC's Comcast net neutrality decision". Reuters. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
Gustin, Sam (December 21, 2010). "FCC Passes Compromise Net Neutrality Rules". Wired.
Bartash, Jeffry (December 22, 2010). "FCC adopts web rules". MarketWatch. Retrieved December 22, 2010.
"FCC Adopts Net Neutrality Rules". Care2.com. December 21, 2010. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Kang, Cecilia (December 22, 2010). "FCC Approves Net-Neutrality Rules; Criticism is Immediate". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 23, 2011.
Full text of decision and correction
Robertson, Adi. "Federal court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules". The Verge. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Brodkin, Jon. "Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC's anti-blocking rule". Retrieved January 14, 2014.
""Ohio State Live" - The Ohio State University". Ohio State University. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Berkman, Fran (May 20, 2014). "Title II is the key to net neutrality—so what is it?". The Daily Dot. Retrieved November 13, 2014.
Wyatt, Edward (November 10, 2014). "Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved November 13, 2014.
"Video Stream Quality Impacts Viewer Behavior, by Krishnan and Sitaraman, ACM Internet Measurement Conference, Nov 2012.".
Nancy Weil (February 19, 2014). "FCC will set new net neutrality rules". Computerworld. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Staff (April 24, 2014). "Creating a Two-Speed Internet". New York Times. Retrieved April 25, 2014.
Carr, David (May 11, 2014). "Warnings Along F.C.C.’s Fast Lane". New York Times. Retrieved May 11, 2014.
Wyatt, Edward (April 23, 2014), In Policy Shift, F.C.C. Will Allow a Web Fast Lane, Washington, DC, retrieved April 23, 2014
Nagesh, Gautham (April 23, 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 April 23, 2014
Wyatt, Edward (May 15, 2014). "F.C.C. Backs Opening Net Rules for Debate". New York Times. Retrieved May 15, 2014.
Hu, Elise (July 21, 2014). "1 Million Net Neutrality Comments Filed, But Will They Matter?". National Public Radio. Retrieved July 23, 2014.
"NetFlix comments to FCC, page 17, Sept 16th 2014".
"Vimeo Open Letter to FCC, page 11, July 15th 2014".
"Patience is a Network Effect, by Nicholas Carr, Nov 2012".
"NPR Morning Edition: In Video-Streaming Rat Race, Fast is Never Fast Enough, October 2012". Retrieved July 3, 2014.
Christopher Muther (2 February 2013). "Instant gratification is making us perpetually impatient". Boston Globe. Retrieved July 3, 2014.
Rose Eveleth (September 10, 2014). "Why Netflix Is 'Slowing Down' Its Website Today". The Atlantic. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Fight for the Future. "Join the Battle for Net Neutrality". Battle For The Net. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Samuel Gibbs. "Battle for the net: why is my internet slow today?". the Guardian. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
The Christian Science Monitor. "Internet Slowdown Day: Why websites feel sluggish today (+video)". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Sharon Gaudin (September 10, 2014). "Internet Slowdown Day becomes an online picket protest". Computerworld. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
M.H. (10 September 2014). "Net neutrality: Faux go-slow". The Economist. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
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.
Sepulveda, Ambassador Daniel A. (January 21, 2015). "The World Is Watching Our Net Neutrality Debate, So Let’s Get It Right". Wired (website). Retrieved January 20, 2015.
Staff (January 16, 2015). "H.
R. _ 114th Congress, 1st Session [Discussion Draft] - To amend the
Communications Act of 1934 to ensure Internet openness..." (PDF). U. S. Congress. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
Lohr, Steve (February 2, 2015). "In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility". New York Times. Retrieved February 2, 2015.
Lohr, Steve (February 2, 2015). "F.C.C. Chief Wants to Override State Laws Curbing Community Net Services". New York Times. Retrieved February 2, 2015.
Flaherty, Anne (January 31, 2015). "Just whose Internet is it? New federal rules may answer that". AP News. Retrieved January 31, 2015.
Fung, Brian (January 2, 2015). "Get ready: The FCC says it will vote on net neutrality in February". Washington Post. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
Staff (January 2, 2015). "FCC to vote next month on net neutrality rules". AP News. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
Lohr, Steve (February 4, 2015). "F.C.C. Plans Strong Hand to Regulate the Internet". New York Times. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
Wheeler, Tom (February 4, 2015). "FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality". Wired (magazine). Retrieved February 5, 2015.
The Editorial Board (February 6, 2015). "Courage and Good Sense at the F.C.C. - Net Neutrality's Wise New Rules". New York Times. Retrieved February 6, 2015.
Lohr, Steve (February 25, 2015). "The Push for Net Neutrality Arose From Lack of Choice". New York Times. Retrieved February 25, 2015.
NETWORK NEUTRALITY, BROADBAND DISCRIMINATION, Tim WuJournal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 2, p. 141, 2003
Comcast Blocks Bible From Being Uploaded October 22, 2007 Fox News,Associated Press
Adario Strange (April 16, 2012). "Netflix CEO Attacks Comcast Over Net Neutrality Issues". PC Magazine. Retrieved April 26, 2012.
Brian X. Chen (September 18, 2012). "Groups Prepare to Fight AT&T Over FaceTime Restrictions". The New York Times. Retrieved October 26, 2012.
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]
"House panel votes for Net neutrality". CNET News.com. May 25, 2006. Archived from the original on January 19, 2013. Retrieved May 30, 2006.
Wyden, Ron (March 2, 2006). "Wyden Moves to Ensure Fairness of Internet Usage with New Net Neutrality Bill". Archived from the original on June 28, 2006. Retrieved July 7, 2006.
"IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES". Public Knowledge. March 2, 2006. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Anonymous (March 2006). "Wyden Offers Bill to Bar Internet Discrimination". Telecommunications Reports (72): 27–28.
U.S. Government Printing Office (May 15, 2006). "FULL TEXT of Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 (H.R. 5252)" (PDF). Retrieved August 11, 2006.
Upton, Fred (March 30, 2006). "Upton Hearing Examines Bipartisan Bill that Will Bring Choice & Competition to Video Services". Archived from the original on July 2, 2006. Retrieved July 7, 2006.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5252 H.R. 5252[109th]
Bagwell, Dana. "A First Amendment Case For Internet Broadband Network Neutrality". University of Washington. Retrieved February 8, 2011.
Barton, Joe (2006). Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act. 109th Congress (2005 - 2006) H.R.5252. Retrieved March 3, 2011.
"Huge Victory for Real People as Telco Bill Dies". Retrieved December 8, 2006.
Markey, Ed (April 3, 2006). "Markey Network Neutrality Amendment" (PDF). Retrieved July 7, 2006.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml
Stevens, Ted (May 1, 2006). "Communications, Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006" (PDF). Retrieved July 7, 2006.
"To amend the Clayton Act with respect to competitive and nondiscriminatory access to the Internet.". Public Knowledge. May 18, 2006. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Sensenbrenner, James, Jr. "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006". 109th Congress (2005 - 2006) H.R.5417. Retrieved March 3, 2011.
U.S. Government Printing Office (January 9, 2007). "FULL TEXT of Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S. 215)" (PDF). Retrieved January 9, 2007.
Snowe, Olympia. "Internet Freedom Preservation Act". Internet Freedom Preservation Act (2006 (S.2917, 109th Congress) and 2007 (2.215, 110th Congress)). Retrieved May 3, 2011.
Open Congress. "FULL TEXT of Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 (H.R.5353)". Retrieved April 21, 2008.
Markey, Ed (2008). "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008". 110th Congress (2007 - 2008) H.R.5353. Retrieved March 3, 2011.
Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, H.R. 3458
Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, H.R. 3458
Markey, Ed (2009). "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009". 111th Congress (2009 - 2010)H.R.3458. Retrieved March 3, 2011.
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
Kravets, David (December 20, 2012). "Net Neutrality, Data-Cap Legislation Lands in Senate". Wired. Retrieved December 21, 2012.
Broache, Anne (March 17, 2006). "Push for Net neutrality mandate grows". CNET News. Archived from the original on June 12, 2006. Retrieved July 9, 2006.
http://cdn.moveon.org/content/pdfs/MoveOnChristianCoalition.pdf
Sacco, Al (June 9, 2006). "U.S. House Shoots Down Net Neutrality Provision". CIO.com. Retrieved July 9, 2006.
Tim Berners-Lee. "Net Neutrality: This is serious".
McMillan, Robert (May 16, 2014). "Websites Throttle FCC Staffers to Protest Gutting of Net Neutrality". Wired (magazine). Retrieved May 16, 2014.
"In Developing Countries, Google and Facebook Already Defy Net Neutrality - MIT Technology Review". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
"Entrepreneurs Explain How The End Of Net Neutrality Would Mean Their Startups Don't Exist". Techdirt. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
"Net Neutrality and the Future of the Internet". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
"MIT OpenCourseWare - Free Online Course Materials". mit.edu. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
[2][dead link]
Thierer, Adam (December 21, 2010) Who'll Really Benefit from Net Neutrality Regulation?, CBS News
"Net neutrality is bad policy for the U.S. and bad policy for the world". Freedom Works Post. July 16, 2012. Retrieved January 10, 2013.
"No Internet Takeover". Retrieved June 18, 2010.
Kessler, Andy (June 26, 2006). "Give Me Bandwidth...". The Weekly Standard. Retrieved July 9, 2006.
Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, "No Neutral Ground in This Internet Battle," The Washington Post, July 26, 2006.
Hands Off the Internet, "Member Organizations," at http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/members.shtml (last visited August 4, 2006).
Anne Veigle, "Groups Spent $42 Million on Net Neutrality Ads, Study Finds," Communications Daily, July 20, 2006.
SaveTheInternet.com, "One Million Americans Urge Senate to Save the Internet," at http://www.savetheinternet.com/=press11 (last visited August 4, 2006).
"Hands Off the Internet," full page print ad in The Washington Post, May 24, 2006
"At SBC, It's All About "Scale and Scope"". Information Technology/Online Extra (BusinessWeek). November 7, 2005.
"SBC Head Ignites Access Debate". washingtonpost.com. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Schor, Elana (May 3, 2006). "Finance firms may weigh in on net-neutrality battle". The Hill (newspaper). Archived from the original on June 12, 2006. Retrieved July 9, 2006.
Crawford, Susan (April 28, 2014). "The Wire Next Time". New York Times. Retrieved April 28, 2014.
Anderson, Nate (May 6, 2010). "Virgin Queen meets broadband: a third way for net neutrality". Ars Technica. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
Lasar, Matthew (July 19, 2010). "Few neutrals in debate over "third way" net neutrality plan". Ars Technica. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
"Log In - The New York Times". nytimes.com. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
[3]
Livingstone, Adam (May 30, 2006). "BitTorrent: Shedding no tiers". BBC News. Retrieved May 20, 2010.
"Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy Staff Report". ftc.gov. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
"Senate Chair Takes on FTC in Net Neutrality Fight". PCMAG. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Watal, Aparna A Co-regulatory Approach to Reasonable Network Management
State Level Net Neutrality, Joho the Blog, David Weinberger date=?
"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)
Various (August 31, 2006). "Scenarios for the Network Neutrality Arms Race" (PDF). web.si.umich.edu. Archived from the original on December 7, 2008. Retrieved September 6, 2006.
end quote from:
