A primer on network neutrality

Intereconomics

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 4-15

  Frieden, Rob ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 39049120847     PISSN: 00205346     EISSN: 1613964X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10272-008-0237-z     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. For background on how the Internet evolved from a government underwritten project to a privatized and commercialized medium, cf. Rob Frieden: Revenge of the Bellheads: How the Netheads Lost Control of the Internet, in: Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 125-144, Sep./Oct. 2002
2. cf. also Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, Stephen Wolff: A Brief History of the Internet, Internet Society, available at: http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml.
3. "[T]raditional phone companies that are primed to offer a 'triple play' of voice, high-speed Internet access, and video services over their respective networks." Exclusive Service Contracts for Provision of Video Services in Multiple Dwelling Units and Other Real Estate Developments, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 22 FCC Rcd. 5935, 5938 (2007). The quadruple play refers to the combination of "video, broadband Internet access, VoIP and wireless service..." AT&T Inc. and Bellsouth Corporation, Application for Transfer of Control, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd. 5662, 5735 (2007).
4. "TCP/IP routes packets anonymously on a 'first come, first served' and 'best efforts' basis. Thus, it is poorly suited to applications that are less tolerant of variations in throughput rates, such as streaming media and VoIP, and is biased against network-based security features that protect e-commerce and ward off viruses and spam." Christopher S. Yoo: Beyond Network Neutrality, in: Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 19, Fall 2005, pp. 1, 8.
5. Cf., e.g., J. Gregory Sidak: A Consumer-Welfare Approach to Network Neutrality Regulation of the Internet, in: Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Vol. 2, Sep. 2006, pp. 349, 460
6. Thomas W. Hazlett: Neutering the net, in: Financial Times, FT.com Online, posted March 20, 2006, available at: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ 392ad708-b837-11da-bfc5-0000779e2340.html
7. Testimony of J. Gregory Sidak, United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Feb. 7, 2006, available at http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/sidak-020706.pdf.
8. The Internet cloud refers to the vast array of interconnected networks that make up the Internet and provider users with seamless connectivity to these networks and the content available via these networks.
9. Cf. Jeff Chester: The End of the Internet?, in: The Nation, posted Feb. 1, 2006, available at: www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester.
10. A safe harbor constitutes "[a]n area or means of protection [or a] provision (as in a statute or regulation) that affords protection from liability or penalty." in: Black's Law Dictonary, 8th ed., 2004.
11. For background on the history of Internet development cf. Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, Stephen Wolff: Internet Society, A Brief History of the Internet, 2003, available at: http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml
12. cf. also William B. Norton: The Evolution of the U.S. Internet Peering Ecosystem, Draft 1.1, Nov. 19, 2003, available at: http://www.equinix.com/pdf/whitepapers/PeeringEcosystem.pdf.
13. A positive network externality exists when the cost incurred by a user of the Internet does not fully refl ect the benefi t derived with the addition of new users and points of communications. Cf. John Farrell, Garth Saloner: Standardization, Compatibility and Innovation, in: RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 16, 1985, pp. 70 ff.
14. Michael L. Katz, Carl Shapiro: Network Externalities, Competition and Compatibility, in: American Economic Review, Vol. 75, 1985, pp. 424 ff.
15. cf. also Mark A. Lemley, David McGowan: Legal Implications of Network Economic Effects, in: California Law Review, Vol. 86, 1998, pp. 479 ff.
16. For helpful background on how peering developed cf. Scott Marcus: Global Traffic Exchange among Internet Service Providers, OECD Briefi ng, 2001, available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/9/1894955.pdf
17. Geoff Huston: Interconnection Peering and Settlements, INET'99 presentation, available at: http://www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/1e/ 1e_1.htm
18. William B. Norton: Interconnection Strategies for ISPs, Document v.2.0, available at: http://pharos.equinix.com/pdf/whitepapers/ ISPInterconnectionStrategies2.pdf
19. The Evolution of the U.S. Internet Peering Ecosystem, Draft 1.1, available at: http://pharos.equinix.com/pdf/whitepapers/ PeeringEcosystem.pdf
20. A Business Case for ISP Peering, Draft 1.3, available at: http://pharos.equinix.com/pdf/whitepapers/Businesss_case.pdf
21. Bill Woodcock: White Paper on Transactions and Valuation Associated with Inter-Carrier Routing of Internet Protocol Traffi c or BGP for Bankers, Version 0.2, available at: http://www.pch.net/resources/papers/ bgpfor-bankers/BGP-for-Bankers-v02.doc
22. Daniel C.H. Mah: Explaining Internet Connectivity: Voluntary Interconnection Among Commercial Internet Service Providers, March 26, 2003, available at: http://tprc.org/papers/2003/181/ Explaining_Internet_Connectivity_Mar26-03.DOC.pdf
23. Steve Gibbard: Economics of Peering, Oct.H2004, available at: http://www.pch.net/resources/papers/Gibbard-peering-economics.pdf
24. cf. also Network Startup Resource Network: Routing, BGP and IXP Resources, available at: http://www.nsrc.org/route-bgpixp.html
25. The North American Network Operators' Group: Peering Links, available at: http://www.nanog.org/subjects.html#P.
26. "As a consequence of these changes, the share of costs for international connectivity for Australian ISPs has fallen from around 70% to about 10%." John Hibbard, John de Ridder, George R. Barker, Rob Frieden: International Internet Connectivity and its Impact on Australia, Final Report on an Investigation for the Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts, p. 4, Canberra, Australia, May 31, 2004, available at: http://www.dcita.gov.au/_data/ assets/word_doc/16616/IIC_report_-_web_version.doc
27. cf. also Australian Competition Commission: Internet Interconnection Service, April 2003, available at: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/ item.phtml?itemId=481925&nodeId=file40315c15de753&fn= Internet%20Interconnection.pdf.
28. Cf. Tim Wu: Wireless Net Neutrality: Cellular Carterfone and Consumer Choice in Mobile Broadband, New America Foundation, Wireless Future Program, Working Paper No. 17, Feb. 2007, available at: http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/wireless_net_neutrality
29. Robert W. Hahn, Robert E. Litan, Hal J. Singer: The Economics of "Wireless Net Neutrality", AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Related Publication 07-10, April 2007, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=983111
30. and http://jcle.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/nhm015v1.pdf.
31. Information service is defi ned as "the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service." 47 U.S.C. §153(20). "[T]he language and legislative history of [the Communications Act of 1996] indicate that the drafters ... regarded telecommunications services and information services as mutually exclusive categories." Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501, 11522 (1998)
32. cf. also Vonage Holdings Corp., 290 F. Supp.2d at 994, 1000 (applying the FCC's dichotomy).
33. 47 U.S.C. 2§01 et seq.
34. Common carriers, including providers of basic telecommunications services, must offer service on a nondiscriminatory basis, subject to numerous entry regulations, tariffi ng, and operating requirements.
35. Section 509(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, codified at, 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1), states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
36. Cf. Rob Frieden: Internet Packet Sniffi ng and Its Impact on the Network Neutrality Debate and the Balance of Power Between Intellectual Property Creators and Consumers, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, (publication pending).
37. "Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!" At SBC, It's All About "Scale and Scope," Businessweek, online extra, November 7, 2005, available at: http://www.businessweek.com/n34h*IUQu7KtOwgA/ magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm.
38. For background on the economics and logistics of peering, cf. Geoff Huston: Where's the Money? - Internet Interconnection and Financial Settlements, Jan. 2005, available at: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/ 2005-01/
39. Steve Gibbard: Economics of Peering, Oct.H2004, available at: http://www.pch.net/resources/papers/Gibbard-peering-economics.pdf
40. Daniel C.H. Mah: Explaining Internet Connectivity: Voluntary Interconnection Among Commercial Internet Service Providers, March 26, 2003, available at: http://tprc.org/papers/2003/181/ Explaining_Internet_Connectivity_Mar26-03.DOC.pdf
41. William B. Norton: A Business Case for ISP Peering, Draft 1.3, Feb. 19, 2002, available at: http://www.equinix.com/pdf/whitepapers/ Businesss_case.pdf
42. Jean-Jacques Laffont, Scott Marcus, Patrick Rey, Jean Tirole: Interconnection and Access in Telecom and the Internet, in: American Economic Review, Vol. 91, May 2001, No. 2, pp. 287-291
43. Bill Woodcock: White Paper on Transactions and Valuation Associated with Inter-Carrier Routing of Internet Protocol Traffic, or BGP for Bankers, Aug. 2000, available at: http://www.pch.net/resources/papers/ routing-economics/pch-routing-economics.htm.
44. Cf., e.g., Associated Press: Comcast Admits Delaying Some Traffic, Oct. 23, 2007, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/ AP-Comcast-Data-Discrimination.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.
45. "[I]n Load Shift, Enron traders submitted false energy schedules and bids to the California market to create the appearance of congestion on a transmission line. This would trigger payments attached to easing congestion and let Enron profi t from its own lies when it used its transmission rights to ease the sham congestion." Mary Flood, Tom Fowler: The Fall of Enron: Ex-Trader Pleads Guilty To Schemes; Prison, Fines Likely In California Deals, The Houston Chronicle, Business, Feb. 5, 2003, p.1.
46. ISPs surely should have the option of offering a premium peak service that would offer higher likelihood of undropped packets and timely delivery even under truly congested conditions. Cf. Christopher S. Yoo: Network Neutrality and the Economics of Congestion, Vanderbilt University Law School Law and Economics Working Paper 05-28, 2005, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=825669.