|
awareness
education
support ALA
 “Net neutrality” means that
consumers can access any legal content or run any Internet applications
regardless of their network provider. Current telecommunications laws
are being revamped but language prohibiting preferential treatment of
network traffic has been removed. Internet service providers could
decide to provide lots of bandwidth to certain customers and not to
others. So telecommunications companies could dictate which Internet
sites get preferential treatment (e.g. a company could pay their carrier
a premium to deliver movies, videos, etc.). As bandwidth is a limited
resource, every prioritized packet pushes aside another packet that
is deemed less important. Internet network owners could be allowed to
decide on their own how and when to restrict content or different kinds
of traffic.
Issue for Academic Libraries: Library services could be impaired or
blocked by providers, particularly if "free" services and content
provided by libraries are given low priority.
SaveTheInternet.com's primer
Net Neutrality
101
collection of
over four dozen short
videos advocating for net neutrality
|
Civil liberties protect the individuals from government
and, increasingly, from corporations. Civil liberties set limits so that government and
corporations cannot abuse their power and interfere with the lives of
citizens and customers.
 freedom of association
freedom of assembly
freedom of religion
freedom of speech
due
process
privacy
Most employees
lose their civil liberties on the job.
A neutral internet does not interfere with who we associate with online,
hang out with online, or say and write online. 
Save the
Internet Coalition The Coalition believes that the Internet is a crucial engine for economic growth
and free speech. We are working together to urge Congress to preserve Network
Neutrality, the First Amendment for the Internet that ensures that the Internet
remains open to innovation and progress.
From its beginnings, the Internet has leveled the playing field for all comers.
Everyday people can have their voices heard by thousands, even millions of
people. The SavetheInternet.com Coalition -- representing millions of Americans
from all walks of life -- is working together to ensure that Congress passes no
telecommunications legislation without meaningful and enforceable Network
Neutrality protections.
Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a
little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.
-- Benjamin Franklin |
|
We Are the Web
by Kevin Kelly,
Wired 13.08, August 2005
World of Ends
What the Internet Is and How to Stop Mistaking It for Something Else.
by Doc Searls and David Weinberger
 The
Paradox of the Best Network
Rise
of the Stupid Network
Lawrence Lessig
Lawrence Lessig suggests that the struggle is between old control
and new control.
Old business models vs new business models. He sees a third way: less control,
much less.
Free Culture: How Big Media Uses
Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity
The
Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World -
web site
Code
and Other Laws of Cyberspace -
excerpt | conclusion
Creative Commons
The Berkman Center for Internet and Society
articles by Lawrence
Lessig
 Michael Geist
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at
the University of Ottawa.
Geist was educated at the University of Western Ontario, Osgoode Hall
Law School, Cambridge University and the Columbia Law School.
His weekly columns on new technology and its legal ramifications appear
in the Toronto Star and the Ottawa Citizen, among others.
From
consumers to users: Shifting the deeper structures of regulation towards
sustainable commons and user access
by Yochai Benkler
Federal Communication Law Journal, 2000
The emergence of the digitally networked environment makes
possible the development of a robust, open social conversation in which all can
participate as peers. This technological and economic possibility is not,
however, preordained.
Decisions about the organization and regulation of the
content, logical, and physical layers of the Internet will determine whether the
digital environment will eventually, in large measure, replicate the mass media
model, or whether it will indeed change the deep structure of our information
environment.
The focus of the policy concerns that have traditionally justified
structural media regulation should, at this time, be focused on assuring that
the digitally networked environment evolves into a stable system for peer users,
rather than towards a system in which commercial producers and passive consumers
are the primary players. These goals suggest that we:
 develop and sustain
commons, wherever possible, in the resources necessary for the production and
exchange of information
design provisions
enabling access to the resources that cannot be sustained as commons
Such a policy focus would be a more effective means than traditional structural
media regulation of securing robust democratic discourse and individual
expressive freedom
Breaking the digital gridlock (.pdf)
CNET News.com, July 26, 2004
High-speed Internet access is rapidly evolving from a
Web-surfing luxury into an everyday necessity. But the development of broadband
technology remains stunted by market uncertainty and mind-numbing bureaucracy.
This special series identifies the crucial elements of any policy agenda aimed
at building a national broadband network.
It's Our Net
The giant phone and cable companies are trying to take
control of the Internet away from the public and convert it into their own
private, corporate network.
Services, Infrastructure & Opportunity
by Bob Frankston
Why You Should Care About Network
Neutrality
by Tim Wu
Slate, May 1, 2006
Telecom bill would leave U.S. lagging behind rest of world
by Michael Weisman
Seattle Times, June 29, 2006
The thousands of startup visionaries living in the Northwest
might want to find their passports, because creating new business models in the
U.S. will become much more complicated, and expensive. In the rest of the
developed world, it won't be a problem, because every developed country has a
strong network-neutrality law in place, extending not just to the Internet, but
also to mobile networks, cable TV and television. Stevens' bill puts the U.S.
out of step with the rest of world, a world that is fast passing us in
productivity, the knowledge economy and broadband connectivity. ...
Every other major developed country has strong network-neutrality laws in place,
far stronger than anything the Congress is considering in any of the many
amendments to Stevens' bill.
Because these countries have strong laws, keeping the networks open to
competition and free for any budding startup to use, they have far surpassed the
U.S. on the information highway. They have faster networks, lower fees and
more-advanced services like IPTV, distance learning, and remote medical and
security monitoring. Their networks are more reliable and secure, because
reliability, security and speed are built in.
|
 The
Economics of Net Neutrality: Why the Physical Layer of the Internet Should Not
Be Regulated (635 KB .pdf)
by Christopher S. Yoo
Progress & Freedom Foundation, July 11, 2004
The rigid application of the end-to-end argument embodied in the major network
neutrality proposals envisions promoting innovation at the network’s edge to the
exclusion of innovation in the network’s core. While effective in promoting
deployment of the applications that currently dominate the Internet, such as
e-mail and web browsing, this approach is ill suited to the more demanding types
of applications that are emerging today. It also runs the risk of introducing a
regulation-induced bias in favor of certain types of applications and against
others.
A
Skeptic’s Primer on Net Neutrality Regulation
by Kyle Dixon et al.
Progress and Freedom Foundation, June 2006
In a broad sense, the debate is about whether law and
regulation should dictate completely “open” or “dumb” broadband networks or
whether “openness” should be left to the marketplace. Net neutrality
regulations might weaken the competitive vibrancy of the content,
applications and device components of the Internet, for example applications
that depend on a steady transfer of data like voice or video. Neutrality
mandates and a fixation on “end-to-end” principles could also complicate
efforts to keep the Internet safe and reliable. Network providers make money
by signing up customers, and have a strong incentive to provide the openness
their customers demand. But forcing commoditization of broadband
infrastructure prohibits providers from experimenting with different network
architectures that could benefit customers, and discourages entry and
investment in an industry with high fixed costs and low marginal costs. Net
neutrality regulations also wouldn’t necessarily remain limited to the
platform layer; other layers such as services could be regulated as well. In
addition, a natural extension of net neutrality regulation would be price
regulation; pricing should be left to markets. In short, common carrier
regulations dating from a telephone monopoly era have no place in a
competitive broadband market. Net neutrality is a premature bit of
industrial policy that favors companies in one tier of the Internet over
companies in another tier. We remain skeptical of the premises for net
neutrality regulation, critical of the regime necessary to implement it, and
fearful of the unintended consequences issuing from such a regulatory
mandate. Panel Discussion:
Should the Net’s Physical Layer be Regulated? (250 KB .pdf)
by Randolph May, C. Lincoln Hoewing, John Nakahata, Adam Thierer, Joe Waz,
Richard Whitt, and Christopher Yoo
Progress & Freedom Foundation, September 14, 2004
Don't Regulate
Hands off the Internet
Internet of the Future
Beware
of Hidden Agendas in the Net Neutrality Debate
by Sonia Arrison
Next-Generation Internet Not Guaranteed
by Sonia Arrison
TechNewsWorld, June 23, 2006
If Congress and other lawmakers decide to treat the Internet like
telecommunications by passing net neutrality regulations, disallowing the reform
of barriers to entry in cable and allowing for government-run muni WiFi, then
Netizens should brace for the worst. The Internet, as we know it, will be over.
...
There are two potential futures for communications technologies in America. If
Congress and other lawmakers decide to treat the Internet like
telecommunications by passing net neutrality regulations, disallowing the reform
of barriers to entry in cable and allowing for government-run muni WiFi, then
Netizens should brace for the worst. The Internet, as we know it, will be over.
If government gets involved in making decisions that properly belong in the
marketplace, the innovation and freedom that have come to be associated with the
Net will fade away.
On the other hand, legislators can choose a more prudent course. They can refuse
to micromanage the Net with neutrality regulations, pass cable franchise reform
to allow freer entry by new competitors in the cable market, and discourage
governments from unfairly competing with the private sector using tax dollars.
Such actions will place America on a better path that reaffirms freedom and
innovation. Entrepreneurs will be turned loose to create new technological
wonders.
Netcompetition.org's Pro Net Competition Documents - Studies
| Press
Releases
|
|
Christian Coalition of America
Christian Coalition of America announced its support for the
effort to amend pending telecom legislation in Congress in order to prevent the
large phone and cable companies from discriminating against web sites.
Roberta Combs, the President of Christian Coalition of America said, "Christian
Coalition is joining a broad array of organizations, representing consumers,
businesses, and all ends of the political spectrum. The Coalition is committed
to working on behalf of our supporters to ensure that the Internet remains the
free marketplace of ideas, products and services that it is today."
Net Losses
by James Surowiecki
New Yorker, March 20, 2006
The logic of the tiered-access approach is simple: broadband
companies do the work of providing Internet access, so they should be able to
charge what they can for it. Telecom executives say that the revenue from tiered
access would let them invest more in adding bandwidth and improving download
speeds, and argue that Web sites are parasites taking, as A.T. & T.’s chairman,
Edward E. Whitacre, Jr., put it, a “free ride” on the pipes the broadband
companies own. But these companies have pipes into people’s homes in the first
place only because of a long history of government regulation, and people want
to use those pipes only because of all the value the so-called parasites have
created. And it’s that value which tiered access—even if it does improve the
Internet’s infrastructure—will put in harm’s way. The Internet has become a
remarkable fount of economic and social innovation largely because it’s been an
archetypal level playing field, on which even sites with little or no money
behind them—blogs, say, or Wikipedia—can become influential. If the Internet
turns into a zone of tiered access, it will be harder for noncommercial sites or
startup companies to compete with bigger firms.
If we build it
they will come: It's time to own our own last mile
by Robert X. Cringely
PBS.org, June 29, 2006
The effect of this move would be beyond amazing. It would be astounding. No more
arguments about Net Neutrality, for one thing, because we'd effectively be
extending our ownership and control of the wires all the way to the ISP
interconnect. Of course you'd still have to buy Internet service, but at NerdTV
rates the amount of bandwidth used by a median U.S. broadband customer would be
less than $2.00 per month. Though with that GREAT BIG PIPE most of us would be
tempted to use a lot more bandwidth, which is exactly the point.
There would be a community-financed Internet revolution and this time, because
it would be locally funded and managed, very little money would be stolen. Dark
fibers would be lighting up all over America, telco capital costs would plummet,
and a truly competitive market for Internet services would emerge. In 2-3 years
whatever bandwidth advantage countries like Korea have would be erased and we'd
be back on track building even more innovative online industries.
This would be a real marketplace not a fake one. Today's system is a fake
because it depends on capturing the value of the application -- communications
-- in the transport and that would no longer be possible because with the
Internet the value is created OUTSIDE the network.
|
Do we need Net
neutrality?
Infoworld Special Report
Battle lines drawn over Net neutrality
Ranks are joined on either side of traffic prioritization issue
Experts debate merits of tiered Net traffic
Bill McCloskey and Jon Taplin take differing positions on Net neutrality
Net neutrality lobbying intensifies
Tech companies and consumer groups continue their efforts to strengthen Net
neutrality provisions in broadband bill
Think tank forum: Net neutrality equals property theft
Progress and Freedom Foundation criticized Net neutrality bills, which would
prohibit broadband providers from blocking or slowing services to competing
services such as VoIP
Net neutrality debate makes for strange allies
Christian Coalition, rockers Moby and R.E.M. voice support of Net neutrality
bill
Verizon offers rebuttal on Net neutrality
Proposed legislation will 'shut the door' to new services, Verizon exec says
|