Net+Neutrality

= Network Neutrality = toc

Network (or net) neutrality refers to a basic philosophy that all legal data and applications on the Internet, as long as they don’t harm the network, should be treated equally by Internet Service Providers (ISP's) and Broadband Service Providers (BSP's). Advocates for net neutrality believe that Congress and/or the Federal Communications Commission need to make it law in order to protect intellectual freedom, stop anti-competitive practices, and to stop BSP’s and ISP’s from secretly interfering with consumer choice. As early as 2002, Google CEO Eric Schmidt saw a threat to net neutrality in the ability of telephone and cable network operators to charge discriminatory and exorbitant fees to access networks (Travis, 2008, pp. 222-223). In 2006, a diverse group of organizations, including Moveon.org, the Christian Coalition, Gun Owners of America, the American Library Association, Google, Ebay, and Microsoft (just to name a few) issued a statement in support for net neutrality (Kraus, p. 8). Most ISP's and BSP's oppose any regulation enforcing neutrality on their networks. They say that they need flexibility to manage the networks, especially at times of peak activity. Others object simply from a blanket opposition to government regulation.

Net Neutrality and Libraries
On March 1, 2010, the ALA sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski asking him to take decisive measures to protect net neutrality. The letter was cosigned by representatives of ten other library and higher education organizations (American Library Association, 2010). Among the reasons cited are:

1. To protect Intellectual Freedom
The ALA’s letter to Genachowski expresses concern that without regulation there is no guarantee of neutrality (American Library Association, 2010). Meinrath and Pickard (2008) list numerous occasions where BSP’s and ISP’s disrupted content and applications in ways that can only be described as censorship (p. 14). The cases listed clearly had nothing to do with network management but rather the content transmitted over the network. This is not a case where BSP’s and ISP’s //might// censor certain content without mandated neutrality. They already have.

2. To stop anti-competitive practices
The ALA’s letter to Genachowski expresses concern that BSP’s could degrade services from competitors’ video and telephone services (American Library Association, 2010). Without mandated neutrality, these companies will continue to stifle competition and harm consumers. Comcast, for example, was caught disrupting their competitors twice.

3. To stop BSP’s and ISP’s from secretly interfering with consumer choice
The ALA letter to Genachowski expresses concern that new network management technologies make it possible for network operators to control traffic secretly (American Library Association, 2010). Comcast’s actions and the actions of other companies enumerated in Part 1 were done secretly, that is, with no notice to end users about how they were managing the network or why certain applications were blocked. Once again, this concern is not speculation. It has already happened.

4. Two-tiered access


One more concern is that BSP's will create a two-tiered system, where many content providers will be regulated to a slow network. Networks with broadband speed would be only available to commercial interests who can afford to pay a high premium.

The ALA's Office of Information Technology Policy says of this type of system, "A world in which librarians and other noncommercial enterprises are of necessity limited to the Internet’s “slow lanes” while high-definition movies can obtain preferential treatment seems to us to be overlooking a central priority for a democratic society -- the necessity of enabling educators, librarians, and, in fact, all citizens to inform themselves and each other just as much as the major commercial and media interests can inform them."

Comcast v. FCC
In August 2005, the FCC adopted an Internet Policy Statement. This Statement contains four principles to protect consumers on the Internet: “[1]] the freedom to access the content of their choice; [2] the freedom to use the applications of their choice; [3] the freedom to access the Internet using their choice of devices; and [4] a marketplace that fosters ‘competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers’” (Hayes, 2009, pp. 506-507). It also allows for “the reasonable network management practices of the broadband providers,” and applies only to legal activity (Hayes, 2009, p. 507).

In 2008, the FCC found that Comcast was interfering with @BitTorrent, a web application some websites use for streaming video and audio, and other Peer to Peer (or P2P) applications. They determined Comcast was engaging in anti-competitive practices against BitTorrent. Furthermore, Comcast’s indiscriminate disruption of P2P applications did not meet standards of “reasonable network management practices” (Hayes, 2009, p. 520). They ordered Comcast to disclose their network management practices and to stop its anti-competitive practices (Brauer-Rieke, 2009, p. 610). Comcast appeared to comply at first, but in January, 2009, they were caught interfering with a competitor’s VoIP service. (VoIP is the technology used by Skype that allows people to make phone calls over their broadband connections). The FCC again asked Comcast to stop engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Comcast responded by filing an appeal, claiming that the FCC had no authority to regulate them through Adjudication (Hayes, 2009, pp. 521-522; Braur-Rieke, 2009, pp. 606-607). On April 6, 2010, a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the FCC overreached its authority against Comcast (Jayasuriya, 2010; Comcast v. FCC, 2010). A primary objection of the Court of Appeals was that the FCC relied on a policy statement, which does not have the force of law (Jayasuriya, 2010; Comcast v. FCC, 2010). The FCC tried this. Using the language and principles of the Internet Policy Statement of 2005, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on October 22, 2009. To the original four principles, they added two more: nondiscrimination and transparency (Hayes, 2009, p. 507). In relation to the case, however, this occurred after the FCC ordered Comcast to change its practices. Therefore, at the time, the FCC did not have authority to regulate Comcast in how it managed its network, according to this court.

Next round
Dec. 2010: FCC approves new rules for net neutrality: 1) a transparency rule that requires fixed and wireless broadband-service providers to provide relevant information about their services to both consumers and to content, applications, and device providers; 2) a no-blocking rule that prevents fixed broadband providers from blocking content, applications, services or devices, subject to “reasonable network management,” and, in the mobile space, prevents the blocking of access to websites and applications that compete with voice or video telephony services, also subject to reasonable network management; and 3) a rule, applying only to fixed broadband, that prevents unreasonable discrimination by broadband providers in delivering the traffic on their networks.

April, 2011: Lawsuit from Verizon, MetroPCS, rejected by court as premature. House passes law to cancel new neutrality rules, but it fails in the Senate.

Sept. 23, 2011: Upon publication of the FCC's net neutrality rules, Verizon sues to stop rules from going into effect.

Nov. 10, 2011: Bill to stop FCC's net neutrality rules fails in the Senate, 52-46.

Nov. 20, 2011: Date neutrality rules went into effect.

**References**
American Library Association. (2010, March). Library, higher education groups call on FCC to adopt net neutrality principles. [Press Release].

Ammori, M. (2009, March). Beyond content neutrality: Understanding content-based promotion of democratic speech. Federal Communications Law Journal, 61(2), 273-324. Retrieved from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale:http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=EAIM&userGroupName=usclibs

Anderson, B. (2007). Net neutrality: What librarians should know. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 25(2), 93-98.

Bailey, C. W. (2006, Sept). Strong copyright + DRM + weak net neutrality = digital dystopia?. Information Technology and Libraries, 25, 3. p.116(13). Retrieved from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=EAIM&userGroupName=usclibs

Barratt, N., & Shade, L. (2007). Net neutrality: Telecom policy and the public interest. Canadian Journal of Communication, 32(2), 295-305. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Brauer-Rieke, A. K. (2009, Wntr). The FCC tackles net neutrality: Agency jurisdiction and the Comcast order. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 24(1), 593-615. Retrieved from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=EAIM&userGroupName=usclibs

Burstein, A. J., & Schneider, F. B. (2009, June). Trustworthiness as a limitation on network neutrality. Federal Communications Law Journal, 61(3), 591-623. Retrieved from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=EAIM&userGroupName=usclibs

Crawford, S. P. (2007, Spring). Network rules. Law and Contemporary Problems, 70(2), 51-90. Retrieved from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=EAIM&userGroupName=usclibs

Greyson, D. (2010, March). Net neutrality: a library issue. Feliciter, 56(2), 57-59. Retrieved from General OneFile via Gale:http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=ITOF&userGroupName=usclibs

Hayes, C. M. (2009, Fall). Content discrimination on the Internet: calls for regulation of net neutrality. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 2009(2), 493-525. Retrieved from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=AONE&userGroupName=usclibs

Jayasuriya, M. (2010, April 6). D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Comcast/BitTorrent Decision is out [Blog, Updated]. Public Knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2987

Kraus, D. (2006, Sept). Net neutrality and how it just might change everything.(Washington). American Libraries, 37(8), 8-9. Retrieved from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=AONE&userGroupName=usclibs

Meinrath, S., & Pickard, V. (2008). Transcending net neutrality: Ten steps toward an open Internet. Journal of Internet Law, 12(6), 1-21. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.

Newman, J. L. (Fall 2008). Keeping the Internet neutral: Net neutrality and its role in protecting political expression on the Internet. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal (COMM-ENT), 31, 1. p.153-171. Retrieved from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=AONE&userGroupName=usclibs

Rosston, G. L., & Topper, M. D. (2010, March). An antitrust analysis of the case for wireless network neutrality. Information Economics and Policy, 22( 1), 103-119. Retrieved from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=AONE&userGroupName=usclibs

Travis, H. (2008, Annual). The future according to Google: technology policy from the standpoint of America's fastest-growing technology company. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 11, 209-227. Retrieved from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=EAIM&userGroupName=usclibs

US Senate. (2011, Nov. 10). Roll call votes 112th Congress, 1st Session. Wong, R., & Garrie, D. B. (2008, Summer). Network neutrality: Laissez-faire approach or not?. Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 34(2), 315-366. Retrieved from Expanded Academic ASAP via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=EAIM&userGroupName=usclibs

Yoo, C. S. (2010, Wntr). Innovations in the Internet's architecture that challenge the status quo. Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, 8(1), 79-99. Retrieved from Academic OneFile via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=AONE&userGroupName=usclibs

One more concern is that BSP's will create a two-tiered system, where many content providers will be regulated to a slow network. Networks with broadband speed would be only available to commercial interests who can afford to pay a high premium.  "A world in which librarians and other noncommercial enterprises are of necessity limited to the Internet’s “slow lanes” while high-definition movies can obtain preferential treatment seems to us to be overlooking a central priority for a democratic society -- the necessity of enabling educators, librarians, and, in fact, all citizens to inform themselves and each other just as much as the major commercial and media interests can inform them