Net Neutrality. Tussle Who’s battling? What’s at issue? Is it contained?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Freedom of Speech (Part 3)
Advertisements

Status of broadband in the US High speed lines as of December 2008: –102 million total high speed connections 84% were faster than 200 kbps in both directions.
Earl Comstock President and CEO COMPTEL. The World Has Changed FCC adopts Cable Modem Order and Supreme Court upholds FCC in Brand X FCC adopts Wireline.
WHAT THE IP TRANSITION MEANS FOR CONSUMERS AND A UBIQUITOUS, AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM David C. Bergmann Telecom Policy Consulting.
The status of broadband FCC defines –High-speed lines that deliver services at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction –Advanced services.
Net Neutrality Content Providers vs. ISP vs. Consumers Blake Wright.
The Old Rules Just Don’t Fit Anymore: A Panel Discussion on the Proposed Revision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 John Windhausen, Jr., Past President,
John Windhausen, Telepoly Consulting Cathy Sloan, Computer and Communications Industry Association May 19, 2010.
Net Neutrality1. Definition Net Neutrality can be broadly defined as the policy of Internet Service Provider’s (ISP’s) and Telecom Carriers treating all.
FISPA W EBINAR M ARCH 18, 2015 T HE S KY I S NOT F ALLING : FCC D ECISION A PPLYING T ITLE II TO B ROADBAND I NTERNET Kristopher E. Twomey Law Office of.
CSE534 – Fundamentals of Computer Networks Lecture 16: Traffic Shaping + Net Neutrality Created by P. Gill Spring 2014, updated Spring 2015.
Broadband’s Triple Play The National Broadband Plan, the Comcast Decision, and the Google/Verizon Proposal Jim Chen Dean and Professor of Law University.
Net Neutrality By Guilherme Martins. Brief Definition of what is Net Neutrality? Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. – Think.
Continuing Uncertainty Under FCC Network Neutrality Rules Prof. Barbara A. Cherry Indiana University Presented at EDUCAUSE Live! Webcast January 26, 2011.
Regulation and Innovation October 7, Issues  The Internet is a public network ;  Net neutrality  Can it be regulated? How?  Why should it.
Human Rights in the Digital Era Conference Net Neutrality Policy in the UK & the Citizen’s Interest in Neutral Networks Giles Moss Institute of Communications.
Net Neutrality – An Overview – Bob Bocher Technology Consultant, WI Dept of Public Instruction, State Division for Libraries ,
Federal Communications Commission Policy Statement Adopted Aug. 5, 2005Released: Sept. 25, 2005.
Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow ’ s internet D.Clark, J.Wroclawski, K.Sollins & R.Braden Presented by: Ao-Jan Su (Slides in courtesy of: Baoning.
What you talk 'in bout?. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership.
Net Neutrality Questions. What if? Customer Lamps for Less Luxurious Lumination Telephone Company Welcome to lamps [click] [dial tone] Welcome to Luxurious.
Internet 3.0: Assessing the Scope of a Non-Neutral and Tiered Web Internet 3.0: Assessing the Scope of a Non-Neutral and Tiered Web Rob Frieden, Pioneers.
Overview on Broadband Mark Uncapher, Senior Vice President & Counsel, ITAA October 1, 2003.
Network neutrality is the idea that all internet traffic should be treated equally. It does not matter who is downloading and what is being downloaded.
1 ICT 5: Driving demand - Accelerating adoption: Regulator’s role Daniel Rosenne Chairman, Tadiran Telecom Communications Services, Israel October 7 th,
Network Neutrality By: Jacob Hansen CPE 401. Introduction What is network neutrality? Who wants to get rid of it? Why is it important? What is at stake?
O pen Internet Challenges in Mobile Broadband Networks Jennifer Rexford Princeton University
Net Neutrality The debate in the US and in the EU Balázs BARTÓKI-GÖN CZY.
Questions about broadband What do we do about broadband services? –Why didn’t the ILECs deploy DSL faster? Could regulation be to blame? –How do we get.
Survey for Consumers Received: 364 updated. Q1: To your knowledge, is Internet service available to you? A. Yes B. No C. Don’t know.
U.S. Telecommunications Regulation and Market Developments September 2008.
By: Matt Klena Nathan Crapis. The principle that Internet service providers (ISP’s) should enable access to all content and applications regardless of.
Changes in State and Federal Telecommunications Policies: How Do They Affect US All? SCAN NATOA 16 th Annual Spring Conference and Star Awards Long Beach,
Wireline Competition Bureau State of the Bureau Presentation January 20, 2006.
Title II Reclassification What it means to rural communities.
The Battle for the Soul of the Internet. The Future of our Internet cable, telephone companies and wireless providers Versus Internet content and application.
ISP Policy Position: For A university should monitor university networks and connected computers for improper activities such as copyright infringement.
Legal & Regulatory Classification of Broadband Demystifying Title II.
Overview of Network Neutrality Kyle D. Dixon Senior Fellow & Director, Federal Institute for Regulatory Law & Economics The Progress & Freedom Foundation.
Wireless Services TC 310 June 2,2007. Why Regulate License Legacy Substituting Wireline  Regulatory Parity Network Effects  Interconnection  Standards.
Media and Communications Policy at a Critical Juncture University of Wyoming Joel Kelsey, Policy Analyst September 25 th, 2008.
VoIP Regulation: State and Federal Developments LAMPERT & O’CONNOR, P.C K Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC (202)
First Amendment Issues Triggered by a Non- Neutral and Tiered Web First Amendment Issues Triggered by a Non- Neutral and Tiered Web Rob Frieden, Pioneers.
PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA. OECD GUIDELINES: BASIC PRINCIPLES OF NATIONAL APPLICATION Collection Limitation Principle There should be limits to the collection.
Wireline Competition Bureau 2006 Annual Report January 17, 2007.
Spectrum and the Concept of Net Neutrality Todd D. Daubert Partner Kelley, Drye & Warren, LLP.
Network Neutrality Juergen Hahn MIS 304 November 23, 2010.
PRESENTED AT THE STAKEHOLDERS FORUM ON QUALITY OF SERVICE AND CONSUMER EXPERIENCE LAICO REGENCY HOTEL Creating Space for Consumer Rights in.
Decoding the Network Neutrality Debate in the United States Rob Frieden, Pioneers Chair and Professor of Telecommunications and Law Penn State University.
Dennis Weller Chief Economist, Verizon Trans-Atlantic Forum IDATE, Montpellier 22 November 2005 Policies for Next-Generation Infrastructure.
VoIP Regulation Klaus Nieminen TKK Table of Contents Background EU Regulatory Framework Objectives, PATS and ECS definitions VoIP Classification.
Issues in New Media: Net Neutrality. What is “net neutrality?” What is Net Neutrality? (Video)(Video) Net Neutrality (Video)(Video) Save the Internet!
The Rise of Quasi-Common Carriers and Conduit Convergence The Rise of Quasi-Common Carriers and Conduit Convergence A Presentation at Competition and Innovation.
Network Neutrality: An Internet operating principle which ensures that all online users are entitled to access Internet content of their choice; run online.
1 Network Management: Maintaining Flexibility to Promote Investment and Innovation Telecommunications Industry Association July 24, 2008.
Differential pricing of Data Services Akhilesh Kumar Trivedi Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, India.
September 2009Network Neutrality – the Norwegian ApproachPage 1 Network Neutrality – the Norwegian Approach Senior Adviser Frode Soerensen Norwegian Post.
Internet Myth Busting and Control of the Internet: Are Internet Service Providers the New Internet Gatekeepers? By Catherine Sandoval Assistant Professor.
Comparative Telecommunications Law Spring, 2007 Prof. Karl Manheim 16: Internet III (Net Neutrality) Copyright © 2007.
Legal Framework for Broadband Internet Access Notice of Inquiry June 17, 2010.
Net Neutrality Gavin Baker Association of Information Technology Professionals, North Central Florida Chapter Gainesville, FL 13 November 2007.
Net Neutrality in the US Past, present, possible future(s)
Net Neutrality: WhaT YOU NEED TO KNOW
Net Neutrality By: Jonathan Zamora.
Kristopher E. Twomey Law Office of Kristopher E. Twomey, P.C.
Net Neutrality – Economics and other things
Net Neutrality The Great Debate.
Pent-Up Regulatory Change (U.S.)
The Use and Abuse of the Carterfone Principle
Modernising Regulatory Frameworks
Presentation transcript:

Net Neutrality

Tussle Who’s battling? What’s at issue? Is it contained?

Discrimination? Harmful? –Examples? Beneficial? –Examples? Unpredictable? –Examples? How to differentiate… –Tests? Who should differentiate? –Market –Regulators When should differentiation happen? –ex ante –ex post

Neutral? Madison River Tel. Co.-Vonage (2005) –Vonage complained to FCC that Madison River blocked VoIP ports Verizon Wireless-NARAL (2007) –NARAL sought permission for opt-in text messaging program –Verizon initially denied; cited policy about “controversial or unsavory” messages –Verizon backtracked, reinterpreted “dusty” internal policy Free Press and Public Knowledge against Comcast (2008) –broadband Internet access over cable selectively targeting and interfering with connections of P2P applications

“Last Mile” and regulatory categorization Underlies Net Neutrality Debate Consumer A Backbone Broadband ISP Cable DSL FCC regulates “last mile” of cable, DSL from ISP to consumer Few last mile carriers  market power? Broadband’s status as “information service” exempts it from common carrier duties, e.g., interconnection and nondiscrimination **slide courtesy of Aaron Burstein

Common Carriers Telephone carriers subject to common carrier duties: –Interconnection –Right to exchange lawful messages –Right to attach devices to the network –Nondiscrimination **slide courtesy of Aaron Burstein

Relevant Common Carrier Regulations Hush-a-Phone (D.C. Cir. 1956) –Principle: Consumers may attach devices that are “privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental”. Carterfone (FCC 1968) –Followed Hush-a-Phone, required carrier to allow devices that provide “nonharmful interconnection” Computer Inquiries (FCC, 1970s & 80s) –Applied Hush-a-Phone principle to computers attached to phone system **slide courtesy of Aaron Burstein

Broadband Providers “information service” NCTA v. Brand X (U.S. Supreme Court, 2005) –Upheld FCC classification of cable modem access as “information service,” not common carrier Wireline Broadband Order (FCC 2005) –Extended Brand X to DSL  Common Carrier Duties do NOT apply **slide courtesy of Aaron Burstein

Disparate treatment Last mile Net neutrality = duty of nondiscrimination for broadband network providers.

Values Conflict Net neutrality quality of service Security privacy

Transparency Tussle Is transparency sufficient?

FCC’s Internet Policy Statement “to ensure that broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable, and accessible to all consumers…to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet” consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice. consumers are entitled to run applications and use 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 consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers

Comcast order practices do not constitute reasonable network management, a judgment that is generally confirmed by experts in the field.. contravene industry standards and have significantly impeded Internet users ability to use applications and access content of their choice… ill-tailored to the company professed goal of combating network congestion… poses a substantial threat to both the open character and efficient operation of the Internet, and is not reasonable.

Comcast order Although we have not adopted (and we decline to adopt today) general disclosure requirements for the network management practices of providers of broadband Internet access services, the anticompetitive harm perpetuated by discriminatory network management practices is clearly compounded by failing to disclose such practices to consumers.