Net Neutrality

12 Key excerpts on "Net Neutrality"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  US Power and the Internet in International Relations

  The Irony of the Information Age

  • M. Carr(Author)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  6 Network Neutrality

  Network neutrality refers to the principle of an agnostic network, that is, one which does not discriminate against the content which travels across it or the applications or hardware which engage with and connect to it. The understanding that the network itself is ‘dumb’ and the packets of data which travel across it will not be interrogated during transmission is considered by many to be fundamental to the original architectural conception of the Internet and integral to privacy, equality of access and freedom of information.1 In the early years of the commercialized Internet, there had been minimal interference in the order in which data packets were delivered but a number of compelling developments emerged to challenge this ‘hands off’ practice. These developments prompted political debates about how the Internet should function, how the power to control information should be distributed and the implications of these decisions for US power.

  In common with the previous two case studies, network neutrality is regarded by politicians as having implications for both material and social factors of US power. Network neutrality is a politically divisive issue but politicians from both sides of this debate agree on some key points. They all regard network neutrality as having implications for how the Internet can best continue to enhance US economic power although they differ fundamentally on which policies are most likely to achieve this. Those politicians in favour of network neutrality argue that the huge economic benefits delivered through Internet growth in the past were largely a consequence of the principles of network neutrality. These principles, they argue, promote material power through innovation which stimulates economic growth and social power by establishing the United States as ‘leaders’ in Internet technology and by promoting ‘freedom’ which they regard as a norm that underpins US power more broadly. This is a view which regards US power as emerging from a set of norms, values and principles much in the way discussed in the social power conception in Chapter 4

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Telecommunication Network Economics

  From Theory to Applications

  • Patrick Maillé, Bruno Tuffin(Authors)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  Table 7.5 lists the values of Internet transit prices, illustrating their constant decrease. Those suggestions to discriminate against traffic or to charge content providers seem in contradiction with the traditional vision of the Internet providing a universal connectivity and serving all packets in the same way. This has engendered the so-called network neutrality debate. But discussing network neutrality first requires one to define what a neutral (or non- neutral) behavior is. Surprisingly, there is no well-defined notion of such neutrality. Authors sometimes make a distinction between strong and weak neutrality, where a strongly neutral network is one that does not allow one to manage packets differently in any way whatsoever, while a weakly neutral network just prohibits user discrimination but allows discrimination between application types. In the former case, the network is understood to be as “dumb” as possible, just carrying packets, and the “intelligence,” if any, is rather placed at the source and destination. The idea in the latter case, on the other hand, is that some applications may have more stringent QoS requirements (typically, video needing limited delay and latencies in comparison with e-mail services), hence there is no harm but only benefits for users when there is a need to discriminate in the case of congestion. A quite generally used definition of neutrality was introduced by Professors Timothy Wu and Lawrence Lessig, namely that “Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally.” A kind of “official” definition has been summarized by the four following items, and was provided by the FCC in the USA in 2005 [97]: (i) no content access can be denied to users; (ii) users are free to use the applications of their choice;

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Digital Era 3

  Customs and Practices

  • Jean-Pierre Chamoux(Author)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Wiley-ISTE

    (Publisher)

  Variations on Network Neutrality 103 Net Neutrality: a polysemous notion Is there only a single step between the risk of political inquisition and InterNet Neutrality? Is it really the same thing? This concept of “neutrality” is poorly defined, albeit widely used, in public debate and it has even crept into texts, in America and more recently in Europe. However, there is nothing obvious about it: what kind of neutrality is it 7 ? Is it about protecting people against generalized social surveillance? Against a commercial insistence likely to coerce consumers? A political investigation to detect the expression of non-standard ideas or dissent? Of chasing out dissent? Of regulating political commitments, as suggested by the spokesperson of La Quadrature du Net, quoted above? Of any dissent to be eradicated later? Although difficult to define, neutrality has aroused both excitement and numerous reservations in the United States. Certain rules that claim to implement a rate-neutrality of Internet infrastructures were contested, even cancelled, before they had any real influence on actual behavior. We will come back to this in the following pages. We begin by examining the wide spectrum of meanings underlying the expression Net Neutrality. In America and Europe, various standard regulations use this wording; one or more of these meanings are questionable upon examination, because they concern networks, devices, uses and services that already concern more than one in three inhabitants of our planet. The services provided by social networks such as Facebook, by messaging systems or by commercial sites, such as Amazon, are global enough to escape standards that are specific to a limited territory such as the European Union and North America. They must now be assessed on a global scale. Moreover, both technology and behavior are changing rapidly.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Global War for Internet Governance

  • Laura DeNardis(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Yale University Press

    (Publisher)

  Network neutrality, as a principle, also focuses primar-ily on individual citizen access to the Internet rather than how businesses access the Internet. The central question of network neutrality addresses whether a net-work operator should be legally prohibited from prioritizing or blocking the delivery of certain types of traffi c relative to other traffi c on its net-work. Practically speaking, the various things that could be blocked, prioritized, or delayed include specific content such as pirated movies, indecent material, controversial speech, or speech critical of government; specific classes of traffi c, for example, prioritizing voice or video over text-based information or premium subscriber traffi c over lower priced service; specific protocols such as P2P file-sharing protocols or VoIP; specific web sites such as YouTube, Netflix, or Hulu; or specific applica-tions such as Skype or BitTorrent clients. The local, geography-bound aspect of Net Neutrality distinguishes this issue from other network governance topics that transcend jurisdic-tional boundaries and are more global than local and more virtual than physical. In this regard, Net Neutrality is a national or even regional pol-icy issue rather than a clear issue of global Internet governance. Last- mile access is only one component of an immense ecosystem of Internet infrastructure. But because this is the network segment mediating between individuals and the global Internet, it is a de facto choke point determining the nature of one’s access to information. It is also an area that, in some subscriber markets, often does not provide significant user choice. Some areas lack even one option for broadband Internet access and, in others, there may be only one or two alternatives such as an in-cumbent monopoly cable service provider and an incumbent monopoly telecommunications carrier.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Net Neutrality

  Towards a Co-Regulatory Solution

  • Christopher T. Marsden(Author)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Bloomsbury Academic

    (Publisher)

  What is Net Neutrality? Legalistic and technical definitions will be compared and contrasted throughout the book as it is as much a term of art as a term of science. By way of introduction, I should lay out what it is not: it is not a panacea in the absence of effective inset competition in telecoms markets. In the United States, urban duopoly and rural monopoly telecoms throughout the latter Bush years led to significant fears of gatekeeper control over information flows by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). However, Net Neutrality is an issue that arises in all competitive and non-competitive information environments that use Internet Protocol (IP) and the public Internet to communicate. World Wide Web (WWW) inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee puts the problem like this:

  Net Neutrality is this: If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level. That’s all. It’s up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens. Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the Internet for free. Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn’t pay more money for high quality of service. We always have, and we always will. There have been suggestions that we don’t need legislation because we haven’t had it. These are nonsense, because in fact we have had Net Neutrality in the past – it is only recently that real explicit threats have occurred.8

  In short, Net Neutrality is about the rules of the road for Internet users, and about the relationship between the owners of those roads and the users. Government is asked to make a decision as to which users have priority and whether road charging should be introduced, ostensibly to build wider and faster roads in future.9

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Best of the Independent Journals in Rhetoric and Composition 2012, The

  • Julia Voss, Beverly Moss(Authors)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Parlor Press, LLC

    (Publisher)

  Larger files and encrypted files would, of course, take longer to trans-mit but all would have the same access to the network. As explained in the mis-sion statement of the Open “I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality. Because once providers start to priv- ilege some applica-tions or websites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out and we all lose. The Internet is perhaps the most open net- work in history, and we have to keep it that way” –Barack Obama (2007) COMPUTERS AND COMPOSITION—HEIDI A. MCKEE 72 Internet Coalition (2010), a coalition of Internet companies who sup-port preserving an open Internet (or, as in the case of some companies such as Google, claim to support): Internet openness (network neutrality) means that users are in control of where to go and what to do online, and broadband providers do not discriminate among lawful Internet content or applications. This is the fundamental principle of the In-ternet’s design. It shouldn’t matter whether you’re visiting a mainstream media website or an individual’s blog, sending emails or purchasing a song. The phone and cable companies that provide you with the access to the Internet should route all traffic in a neutral manner, without blocking, speeding up, or slowing down particular applications or content. In the U.S., Net Neutrality was understood to be an essential part of what the Internet was (note the past tense). But then a series of events happened that now challenge Net Neutrality as a founding principle and put the future of the Internet in jeopardy. In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), work-ing with the antiregulatory policies of President George W. Bush’s ad-ministration, chose to classify the Internet as an information service rather than as a telecom- munications service.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Towards Future Technologies for Business Ecosystem Innovation

  • Ramjee Prasad, Leo P. Ligthart(Authors)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • River Publishers

    (Publisher)

  c 2018 River Publishers. All rights reserved. 118 The Situation of Network Neutrality in Service Innovation Era telephone meeting and a live video streaming, which are improving human’s Quality of Life and benefiting the whole society. We have entered a service innovation era, in which every part of the industry chain is making contribu-tion to the telecom industry. Internet Services Providers (ISPs) are continuing to upgrade the network, the Content Providers (CPs) are making several contributions to keep the telecom industry prosperous. How these innovative service run over the telecommunication network is governed by not only technology, but also by the rules as proved by government or authorities in some region. NN, as a regulation, aims that every end user have the equal right to access the internet and use the legal internet content and applications. Since On December 14, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) abolished Obama’s neutral network policy and re-empowered telecom operators with control over broadband Internet access. This neutral network policy was repealed and it can also be regarded as the official opening of the Light-touch Regulation era in the United States. CONASENSE, as will be discussed later in this chapter, is a telecom convergence concept that will be run above ICT platform. This chapter will focus on the service in CONASENSE, and analyze the abolishment of NN rules impact on this service. 8.1.1 NN Network Neutrality rules aims to provide an open internet [2] to the end users. The open internet is defined by FCC and refers to “ uninhibited access to legal online content without broadband Internet access providers being allowed to block, impair, or establish fast/slow lanes to lawful content ” [1]. This means that a legitimate content, whether it is an application or data, must reach users without the intermediate communication system controlling its flow.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Network Neutrality and Digital Dialogic Communication

  How Public, Private and Government Forces Shape Internet Policy

  • Alison N. Novak, Melinda Sebastian(Authors)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  1 Overview of Network Neutrality

  In a 2017 article from Medium, Simon reflected on the historical and current truth behind network neutrality:

  The fight over Net Neutrality is one of the most important political debates America is facing at the moment…And yet, there is one odd thing. Type “Net Neutrality” into your search bar and you will inevitably get a variation of one particular article as a result: The ‘Why you should care about Net Neutrality’-piece .’1

  Simon’s reflection is correct; the internet is filled with thousands of articles that attempt to convince the public that network neutrality is a critical issue for 21st-century citizens. Beyond these cries for civic attention, the articles also suggest that there is a culture and history of citizen apprehension and ambivalence toward the regulatory topic. Although there are groups of involved and engaged citizens, the overall conclusion is that network neutrality, although important, is largely removed from public attention. Perhaps this backdrop illustrates the mandate to research and understand the moments of engagement throughout the network neutrality debate. Their perceived rarity (by journalists) encourages the examination of other forces, such as organizations, regulators, journalists and elected officials, in the network neutrality debate and how they shape contemporary policy. In addition, if there is a perception of a disengaged public, this suggests a need for scholarly attention to engagement, in the form of digital dialogic communication practices. Dialogue involves a desire for communication and adjustment from both participating parties. If one party is disengaged (or perceived as disengaged), then the ability to form a true dialogue may be challenged, as sociologist Eliasoph described the hesitation of public involvement in politics or policymaking.2

  A large deterrent to public engagement rests on the perception that public policy is unapproachable and largely handed down from government elites. However, as Weible, Sabatier and McQueen argue, this perception of elitism is faulty, and in reality, most public policies are co-constructed by a number of actors invested in the process, including members of the public.3 Thus, public policy is a construction of the values of government, public, media and organizational interests.4

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Security within CONASENSE Paragon

  • Ramjee Prasad, Leo P. Ligthart(Authors)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • River Publishers

    (Publisher)

  As gatekeepers, they can block access; target competitors, extract unfair tolls ” [1], but the open internet is regarded to the guarantee to the innovation, economy and investment. This is one of the vital reasons why more and more governments enact the NN rules. Presently, more than 10 countries enacted relevant rules [5]. Figure 8.2 shows the countries that either have enacted NN or are in their discussion phase. On December 14, 2017, the FCC Committee voted 3: 2 to repeal “Internet Open Regulations.” 8.2.1 The Concept NN NN commonly indicates that Internet services providers make or keep the Internet open and ensure all the users have same right to access to the network and use the content and services without any discrimination [1]. 8.2 The Network Neutrality 109 8.2.2 The Principles of NN Currently, Network Neutrality is a global debate [5]. FCC released its updated Open Internet Order in 2015, to enact strong, sustainable rules to protect the Open Internet. The order includes 3 bright-line rules as [1]: • No Blocking (NB), to prohibit the network providers to block the legal applications, contents and devises. • No Throttling (NT), to prohibit the network providers to degrade the traffic of legal applications and contents. • No Paid Prioritization (NPP), to prohibit the network providers to provide and charge the differentiated service for the applications and contents. “No unreasonable interference or disadvantage to consumers or edge providers” [1], and, enhanced transparency between users and ISPs. “A s with the 2010 rules, this Order contains an exception for reasonable network management, which applies to all but the paid prioritization rule ” [1] is also emphasized in FCC rules. Nonetheless, in October 2015, the European Parliament approved the first EU-Wide rules on NN that enshrined its principle into EU law [6] that says: “ No blocking or throttling of online content, applications and services.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Mass Surveillance and State Control

  The Total Information Awareness Project

  • E. Cohen(Author)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  Nevertheless, in the absence of any clear legislation that prevents such violations of Net Neutrality, it is likely that the giant Internet service pro- viders will continue to become more emboldened in their efforts to deter- mine what content we can access through the net. For example, in 2005, AT&T was gearing up to create a “pay for play” system, according to which they would charge their premium web companies more for preferential treatment of their traffic. In late 2006, AT&T agreed to put its plan on hold as a condition of the FCC’s granting its merger with BellSouth. 12 The Congressional Battle over Net Neutrality At the time of this writing, Congress has yet to pass legislation that clearly protects Net Neutrality. In 2009, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act was introduced in the House amending the Communications Act of 1934 to “protect the right of consumers to access lawful content, run lawful applications, and use lawful services of their choice on the Internet.” 13 And President Obama had verbalized the importance of Net Neutrality. However, there was ongoing, strong opposition in Congress, especially WEB OF DECEIT 79 from Republicans, such as Kay Bailey Hutchison (S.R., Texas), who had taken the standard telecom line that any such attempt to regulate the Internet would stifle competition and decrease incentive to invest in the Internet. 14 There have also been resolutions, such as House Resolution 30, “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that in order to continue aggressive growth in our Nation’s telecommunications and tech- nology industries, the United States Government should ‘Get Out of the Way and Stay Out of the Way.’” 15 It is not clear how regulations of telecom and phone companies aimed at preserving Net Neutrality could have untoward consequences on compe- tition and investment.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Digital-Age Resistance

  Journalism, Social Movements and the Media Dependence Model

  • Andrew Kennis(Author)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  This concern was voiced in a Guardian op-ed authored by a senator 60 and also established via scholarship (Tufekci, 2015). One scholarly book argued that Google’s algorithms often furthered racist stereotypes and, even more worrisome, attributed such failings to the corporate conglomerate, institutional makeup (Noble, 2018). Algorithmic discrimination was surveyed specifcally in relation to social movements and journalism in an article that found that a non-net neutral environment all but blanked out news about the Ferguson protests against police brutality, in sharp contrast to a net-neutral environment, with the latter having been argued to have pushed national news outlets into increasing coverage of the important political resistance (Tufekci, 2014). These issues were further explored in a scholarly follow-up publication covering the same Ferguson case study (Tufekci, 2015). Additionally, some observers have pointed out that Net Neutrality protections are meant, in part, to protect competition and prevent barriers of entry from new, up-and-coming competitors but that the current digital area is one rife with anti-trust realities and dominated by trillion- and billion-dollar corporate conglomerates, such as Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook and Microsoft. 61 Certainly, Net Neutrality protections are a minimal start in order to address the challenging realities of hyper-commercialism during the digital age and only add to the urgency and importance of the protections. The idea of Net Neutrality protections being a minimal but necessary measure was expounded on at length in one of the most thoroughly explored studies on Net Neutrality (Newman, 2019). Therein, Newman posited a thorough-going critique of Net Neutrality as falling largely within the purview of neo-liberal concerns and priorities while also pointing out the inadequacies of solutions limited to the technological realm.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Network neutrality

  From policy to law to regulation

  • Christopher T. Marsden(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Manchester University Press

    (Publisher)

  Sørensen states that ‘market players that have not formally endorsed the guidelines follow the guidelines in practice’. He explains that:

  CDN servers that are connected to dedicated transmission lines or that use a higher priority level than ‘best effort’ will not be considered net neutral. IPTV provided on a closed network (i.e. not over the Internet) can, in principle, be considered a modern form of cable TV. These types of services are often referred to as ‘specialised services’ and as long as these are not provided at the expense of the Internet service, Net Neutrality will not apply for them.’85

  Neutrality was defined as excluding zero rating in 2014, in order to ensure that IAPs did not attempt to introduce such a practice: ‘zero-rating lead to selected traffic from the Internet service provider itself or affiliated providers being favoured above other traffic. And this is exactly the kind of situation Net Neutrality aims to avoid.’86 Norway is unique in that its co-regulatory Net Neutrality approach was agreed prior to other European nations, yet remains in place unchallenged by affected companies (although Telenor actively zero rates in Asian nations such as Myanmar and Bangladesh). It may therefore prove an exception to the general rule of litigious companies and captured regulators. Note that Norway practises an advanced form of Scandinavian social democracy, supported by strong and independent bureaucracy and government, a social compact between companies and society, and economic growth fuelled by North Sea oil wealth. It is an atypical example.

  Netherlands and Slovenia 2012

  In mid-June 2011 the Netherlands moved to implement the powers to require Quality of Service guarantees without discrimination.87 Netherlands network neutrality regulation was voted on by its Senate on 6 March 2012,88 which made it the first European nation to formally introduce mandated network neutrality. Implementation of the law was delayed until spring 2013 by the need for secondary legislation from the ministry mandating the regulator to implement the law, and the regulator was merged into the competition authority in April 2013, delaying implementation by over two years.89

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book