Network Rules

Crawford compares the debate between the telcos and the online companies over broadband access regimes often called the network neutrality debate to the ongoing tussle between intellectual property maximalists and free culture advocates which are strikingly parallel sets of arguments. The maximalists claim that creativity comes from lone genuises (the romantic author) who must be given legal incentives to works but intellectual property scholars have carefully examined the incentives of their arguments and have pointed out that granting overly strong property rights to copyright holders might not be socially appropriate. Moreover, the network providers claim that they (the romantic builders) must be allowed by law to price-discriminate vis-a-vis content sources in order to be encouraged to build the network

The State of Network Neutrality Regulation

The Network Neutrality (NN) debate refers to the battle over the design of a regulatory framework for preserving the Internet as a public network and open innovation platform. Fueled by concerns that broadband access service providers might abuse network management to discriminate against third party providers (e.g., content or application providers), policymakers have struggled with designing rules that would protect the Internet from unreasonable network management practices. In this article, we provide an overview of the history of the debate in the U.S. and the EU and highlight the challenges that will confront network engineers designing and operating networks as the debate continues to evolve.BMBF, 16DII111, Verbundprojekt: Weizenbaum-Institut für die vernetzte Gesellschaft - Das Deutsche Internet-Institut; Teilvorhaben: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)EC/H2020/679158/EU/Resolving the Tussle in the Internet: Mapping, Architecture, and Policy Making/ResolutioNe

Network neutrality: Hong Kong's perspectives

--

Does the net neutrality really preserve the open internet? A critique from the implications of broadband policy

--

Legislative and Regulatory Strategies for Providing Consumer Safeguards in a Convergent Information and Communications Marketplace

The Federal Communications Commission desires to apply a single regulatory category to services and service providers, a process the Commission can achieve when ventures concentrate on one function and offer one readily identifiable service, such as telephony. However, technological convergence, digitization and the ability of the Internet to handle many different service types within a single bitstream now make it possible for companies to offer quadruple play bundles of wireless and wireline telephony, video, and Internet access services. Following Comcast Corp. v. FCC, the FCC must rethink how to best serve the public interest and safeguard consumers. Absent a legislative remedy, the FCC has experienced great difficulty in finding ways to sanction ISP anticompetitive practices regulations within the Commission\u27s limited statutory authority. This article explains how the FCC backed itself into a corner when it sought to free the Internet of most regulatory oversight by determining that the information service classification applies to all Internet access technologies. Facing complaints about ISP anticompetitive practices, the FCC currently lacks explicit statutory authority to provide a needed remedy. The article also provides recommendations on how Congress and the FCC might recognize that convergent services, such as Internet access, combine both unregulated information service and telecommunications components in much the same way as wireless cellular telephone companies. The article recommends that in light of the ascending importance of Internet access and the lack of sustainable competition that would foster effective self-regulation, Congress should amend the Communications Act to authorize the FCC to apply limited Title II safeguards to ISPs that already wireless telephony