Net neutrality law

Last updated

Net neutrality law refers to laws and regulations which enforce the principle of net neutrality. [1] [2]

Contents

Opponents of net neutrality enforcement claim regulation is unnecessary, because broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance. [3] Opponents of net neutrality regulation also argue that the best solution to discrimination by broadband providers is to encourage greater competition among such providers, which is currently limited in many areas. [4]

On 23 April 2014, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was reported to be considering a new rule that would permit Internet service providers to offer content providers a faster track to send content, thus reversing their earlier position on net neutrality. [5] [6] [7] Municipal broadband could provide a net neutral environment, according to Professor Susan Crawford, a legal and technology expert at Harvard Law School. [8] On 15 May 2014, the FCC decided to consider two options regarding Internet services: first, permit fast and slow broadband lanes, thereby compromising net neutrality; and second, reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service, thereby preserving net neutrality. [9] [10] On 10 November 2014, President Obama recommended the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve net neutrality. [11] [12] On 26 February 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service and thus applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to Internet service providers. [13] On 14 December 2017, the FCC voted to repeal these net neutrality regulations, particularly by reclassifying broadband providers so that they are not considered common carries under Title II of the Communications Act of 1936. The FCC would reverse this decision on 25 April 2024, instituting net neutrality once more. [14]


Historical precedent

The concept of network neutrality predates the current Internet-focused debate, existing since the age of the telegraph. [15] In 1860, a U.S. federal law (Pacific Telegraph Act of 1860) was passed to subsidize a telegraph line, stating that:

messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority ...

— An act to facilitate communication between the Atlantic and Pacific states by electric telegraph, June 16, 1860. [16]

In 1888 Almon Brown Strowger, suspecting his loss of business was caused by a nepotistic telephone operator redirecting his business calls to a competitor, invented an electromechanical-based automatic telephone exchange that effectively removed human interference of telephone calls. [15]

Degrees of enforcement

Full neutrality

Chile became the first country in the world to pass net neutrality legislation in 2010. [17] The laws adopted there prohibit organizations such as Facebook and Wikipedia from subsidizing mobile data usage of consumers. [18] The adoption of net neutrality law usually includes allowance for discrimination in limited conditions, such as preventing spam, malware, or illegal content. The law in Chile allows exceptions for ensuring privacy and security. [17] The law in the Netherlands, allows exceptions for congestion, security, spam, or legal reasons.

Cardozo Law School professor Susan P. Crawford believes that in a neutral Internet, packets on the network must be forwarded on a first-come, first-served basis, with no consideration given to quality-of-service concerns. [19]

A number of net neutrality interest groups have emerged, including SaveTheInternet.com which frames net neutrality as an absence of discrimination, saying it ensures Internet providers cannot block, speed up, or slow down content on the basis of who owns it, where it came from, or where it's going. It helps create the situation where any site on the Internet could potentially reach an audience as large as that of a TV or radio station, and its loss would mean the end for this level of freedom of expression. [20]

Only allow discrimination based on type of data

Columbia University Law School professor Tim Wu observed the Internet is not neutral in terms of its impact on applications having different requirements. It is more beneficial for data applications than for applications that require low latency and low jitter, such as voice and real-time video. He explains that looking at the full spectrum of applications, including both those that are sensitive to network latency and those that are not, the IP suite isn't actually neutral. He has proposed regulations on Internet access networks that define net neutrality as equal treatment among similar applications, rather than neutral transmissions regardless of applications. He proposes allowing broadband operators to make reasonable trade-offs between the requirements of different applications, while regulators carefully scrutinize network operator behavior where local networks interconnect. [21] However, it is important to ensure that these trade-offs among different applications be done transparently so that the public will have input on important policy decisions. [22] This is especially important as the broadband operators often provide competing services—e.g., cable TV, telephony—that might differentially benefit when the need to manage applications could be invoked to disadvantage other competitors.

The proposal of Google and Verizon would allow discrimination based on the type of data, but would prohibit ISPs from targeting individual organizations or websites: [23] Google CEO Eric Schmidt explains Google's definition of Net neutrality as follows: if the data in question is video, for example, then there is no discrimination between one purveyor's data versus that of another. However, discrimination between different types of data is allowed, so that voice data could be given higher priority than video data. Google and Verizon are both agreed on this type of discrimination. [24]

Individual prioritization without throttling or blocking

Some opponents of net neutrality argue that under the ISP market competition, paid-prioritization of bandwidth can induce optimal user welfare. [25] Although net neutrality might protect user welfare when the market lacks competition, they argue that a better alternative could be to introduce a neutral public option to incentivize competition, rather than enforcing existing ISPs to be neutral.

Some ISPs, such as Comcast, oppose blocking or throttling, but have argued that they are allowed to charge websites for faster data delivery. [26] AT&T has made a broad commitment to net neutrality, but has also argued for their right to offer websites paid prioritization [27] [28] [29] and in favor of its current sponsored data agreements. [30]

No direct enforcement

While many countries lack legislation directly addressing net neutrality, net neutrality can sometimes be enforced based on other laws, such as those preventing anti-competitive practices. This is currently the approach of the US FCC, which justifies their enforcement based on compliance with "commercially reasonable" practices. [31]

In the United States, author Andy Kessler argued in The Weekly Standard that, though network neutrality is desirable, the threat of eminent domain against the telecommunication companies, instead of new legislation, is the best approach. [32]

In 2011, Aparna Watal of Attomic Labs said that there had been few violations of net neutrality. She argues that transparency, threat of public backlash, and the FCC's current authority was enough to solve the issues of net neutrality, claiming that the threat of consumers switching providers and the high cost of maintaining a non-neutral network will deter bad practices. [33]

The Wall Street Journal has written about the government's responsibility being more along the lines of making sure consumers have the ability to find another Internet provider if they are not satisfied with their service, as opposed to determining how Internet providers should go about managing their networks. [34]

By country

CountryStatus on net neutralityYear
Flag of Argentina.svg  Argentina Not enforced2014
Flag of Australia (converted).svg  Australia Not enforced
Flag of Belgium (civil).svg  Belgium Enforced
Flag of Brazil.svg  Brazil Enforced2014
Flag of Canada (Pantone).svg  Canada Enforced
Flag of Chile.svg  Chile Not enforced2010
Flag of the People's Republic of China.svg  China Not enforced
Flag of India.svg  India Enforced2018
Flag of Indonesia.svg  Indonesia Not enforced
Flag of Israel.svg  Israel Enforced2014
Flag of Japan.svg  Japan Enforced
Flag of Mexico.svg  Mexico Enforced
Flag of the Netherlands.svg  Netherlands Enforced2012
Flag of New Zealand.svg  New Zealand Not enforced
Flag of Russia.svg  Russia Enforced2016
Flag of Slovenia.svg  Slovenia Enforced2013
Flag of South Korea.svg  South Korea Enforced
Flag of Sri Lanka.svg  Sri Lanka Not enforced
Flag of Switzerland (Pantone).svg   Switzerland Enforced2021
Flag of the United States.svg  United States Enforced2024
Flag of Uruguay.svg  Uruguay Not enforced

Concerns with regulation

Potential for government abuse

George Mason University fellow Adam Thierer has argued that "any government agency or process big enough to control a major sector of our economy will be prone to influence by those most affected by it", and that consequently "for all the talk we hear about how the FCC's move to impose Net Neutrality regulation is about 'putting consumers first' or 'preserving Net freedom and openness,' it's difficult to ignore the small armies of special interests who stand ready to exploit this new regulatory regime the same way they did telecom and broadcast industry regulation during decades past." [35]

Grant Babcock, in the libertarian magazine Reason , wrote in 2014 that U.S. government oversight of ISPs could allow government agencies like the NSA to pressure ISPs into handing over private communication data on their users. He noted that there was a history of U.S. governmental abuse of regulation, including the Federal Reserve forcing some banks in 2008 to accept Troubled Asset Relief Program funding by threatening to use their regulatory powers against non-compliant banks. [36]

Violation of corporate rights

One concern of many Internet service providers is government enforcement of information anti-discrimination. Arguing that such enforcement is an infringement on the freedoms of their businesses, American ISPs such as Verizon have argued that the FCC forcing anti-discrimination policies on information flowing over company networks is a violation of the ISPs constitutional rights, specifically concerning the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment in a court case challenging the Open Internet Order. [37]

Verizon challenged the Open Internet Order on several grounds, including that the Commission lacked affirmative statutory authority to promulgate the rules, that its decision to impose the rules was arbitrary and capricious, and that the rules contravened statutory provisions prohibiting the Commission from treating broadband providers as common carriers. [38]

Potential for banning legitimate activity

Poorly conceived legislation could make it difficult for Internet service providers to legally perform necessary and generally useful packet filtering such as combating denial of service attacks, filtering E-Mail spam, and preventing the spread of computer viruses. Quoting Bram Cohen, the creator of BitTorrent, "I most definitely do not want the Internet to become like television where there's actual censorship...however it is very difficult to actually create network neutrality laws which don't result in an absurdity like making it so that ISPs can't drop spam or stop...attacks". [39]

Some pieces of legislation, like The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, attempt to mitigate these concerns by excluding reasonable network management from regulation. [40]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Communications Commission</span> Independent U.S. government agency

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet service provider</span> Organization that provides access to the Internet

An Internet service provider (ISP) is an organization that provides myriad services related to accessing, using, managing, or participating in the Internet. ISPs can be organized in various forms, such as commercial, community-owned, non-profit, or otherwise privately owned.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Net neutrality</span> Principle that Internet service providers should treat all data equally

Network neutrality, often referred to as net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, offering users and online content providers consistent transfer rates regardless of content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication. Net neutrality was advocated for in the 1990s by the presidential administration of Bill Clinton in the United States. Clinton's signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, set a worldwide example for net neutrality laws and the regulation of ISPs.

Bandwidth throttling consists in the limitation of the communication speed, of the ingoing (received) or outgoing (sent) data in a network node or in a network device such as computers and mobile phones.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on how to regulate Internet service providers are eligible for Chevron deference, in which the judiciary defers to an administrative agency's expertise under its governing statutes. While the case concerned routine regulatory processes at the FCC and applied to interpretations of the Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996, the ruling has become an important precedent on the matter of regulating network neutrality in the United States.

In the United States, net neutrality—the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should make no distinctions between different kinds of content on the Internet, and to not discriminate based on such distinctions—has been an issue of contention between end-users and ISPs since the 1990s. With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge different rates for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block specific types of content, while charging consumers different rates for that content.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet in the United States</span>

The Internet in the United States grew out of the ARPANET, a network sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense during the 1960s. The Internet in the United States of America in turn provided the foundation for the worldwide Internet of today.

Net neutrality in Canada is a debated issue, but not to the degree of partisanship in other nations, such as the United States, in part because of its federal regulatory structure and pre-existing supportive laws that were enacted decades before the debate arose. In Canada, Internet service providers (ISPs) generally provide Internet service in a neutral manner. Some notable incidents otherwise have included Bell Canada's throttling of certain protocols and Telus's censorship of a specific website critical of the company.

The Telecoms Package was the review of the European Union Telecommunications Framework from 2007 – 2009. The objective of the review was to update the EU Telecoms Framework of 2002 and to create a common set of regulations for the telecoms industry across all 27 EU member states. The review consisted of a package of directives addressing the regulation of service provision, access, interconnection, users' contractual rights and users' privacy, as well as a regulation creating a new European regulatory body (BEREC).

<i>Comcast Corp. v. FCC</i> 2010 US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia case

Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642, is a case at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have ancillary jurisdiction over the content delivery choices of Internet service providers, under the language of the Communications Act of 1934. In so holding, the Court vacated a 2008 order issued by the FCC that asserted jurisdiction over network management policies and censured Comcast from interfering with its subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

Tiered service structures allow users to select from a small set of tiers at progressively increasing price points to receive the product or products best suited to their needs. Such systems are frequently seen in the telecommunications field, specifically when it comes to wireless service, digital and cable television options, and broadband internet access.

The Federal Communications Commission Open Internet Order of 2010 is a set of regulations that move towards the establishment of the internet neutrality concept. Some opponents of net neutrality believe such internet regulation would inhibit innovation by preventing providers from capitalizing on their broadband investments and reinvesting that money into higher quality services for consumers. Supporters of net neutrality argue that the presence of content restrictions by network providers represents a threat to individual expression and the rights of the First Amendment. Open Internet strikes a balance between these two camps by creating a compromised set of regulations that treats all internet traffic in "roughly the same way". In Verizon v. FCC, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated portions of the order that the court determined could only be applied to common carriers.

Internet bottlenecks are places in telecommunication networks in which internet service providers (ISPs), or naturally occurring high use of the network, slow or alter the network speed of the users and/or content producers using that network. A bottleneck is a more general term for a system that has been reduced or slowed due to limited resources or components. The bottleneck occurs in a network when there are too many users attempting to access a specific resource. Internet bottlenecks provide artificial and natural network choke points to inhibit certain sets of users from overloading the entire network by consuming too much bandwidth. Theoretically, this will lead users and content producers through alternative paths to accomplish their goals while limiting the network load at any one time. Alternatively, internet bottlenecks have been seen as a way for ISPs to take advantage of their dominant market-power increasing rates for content providers to push past bottlenecks. The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has created regulations stipulating that artificial bottlenecks are in direct opposition to a free and open Internet.

Net bias is the counter-principle to net neutrality, which indicates differentiation or discrimination of price and the quality of content or applications on the Internet by ISPs. Similar terms include data discrimination, digital redlining, and network management.

<i>Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC</i> (2014)

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 740 F.3d 623, was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order of 2010, which the court determined could only be applied to common carriers and not to Internet service providers. The case was initiated by Verizon, which would have been subjected to the proposed FCC rules, though they had not yet gone into effect. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zero-rating</span> Internet access under certain conditions

Zero-rating is the practice of providing Internet access without financial cost under certain conditions, such as by permitting access to only certain websites or by subsidizing the service with advertising or by exempting certain websites from the data allowance.

<i>United States Telecom Association v. FCC</i> (2016)

United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 825 F. 3d 674, was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholding an action by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the previous year in which broadband Internet was reclassified as a "telecommunications service" under the Communications Act of 1934, after which Internet service providers (ISPs) were required to follow common carrier regulations.

"Net Neutrality" is the first segment devoted to net neutrality in the United States of the HBO news satire television series Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. It aired for 13 minutes on June 1, 2014, as part of the fifth episode of Last Week Tonight's first season.

Net neutrality is the principle that governments should mandate Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

<i>Mozilla Corp. v. FCC</i> 2019 American court case

Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F. 3d 1 was a ruling the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2019 related to net neutrality in the United States. The case centered on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s decision in 2017 to rollback its prior 2015 Open Internet Order, reclassifying Internet services as an information service rather than as a common carrier, deregulating principles of net neutrality that had been put in place with the 2015 order. The proposed rollback had been publicly criticized during the open period of discussion, and following the FCC's issuing of the rollback, several states and Internet companies sued the FCC. These cases were consolidated into the one led by the Mozilla Corporation.

References

  1. ↑ Lohr, Steve (30 March 2017). "Net Neutrality Is Trump's Next Target, Administration Says". New York Times . Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  2. ↑ The Editorial Board (10 April 2015). "Editorial - Global Threats to Net Neutrality". New York Times . Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  3. ↑ Hart, Jonathan D. (2007). Internet Law. BNA Books. p. 750. ISBN   9781570186837.
  4. ↑ John Podhoretz. "Who Runs the Internet: What Lobbying is Really All About". Archived from the original on 25 December 2010. Retrieved 3 January 2011.
  5. ↑ Wyatt, Edward (23 April 2014). "F.C.C., in 'Net Neutrality' Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane". New York Times . Retrieved 23 April 2014.
  6. ↑ Staff (24 April 2014). "Creating a Two-Speed Internet". New York Times . Retrieved 25 April 2014.
  7. ↑ Carr, David (11 May 2014). "Warnings Along F.C.C.'s Fast Lane". New York Times . Retrieved 11 May 2014.
  8. ↑ Crawford, Susan (28 April 2014). "The Wire Next Time". New York Times . Retrieved 28 April 2014.
  9. ↑ Staff (15 May 2014). "Searching for Fairness on the Internet". New York Times . Retrieved 15 May 2014.
  10. ↑ Wyatt, Edward (15 May 2014). "F.C.C. Backs Opening Net Rules for Debate". New York Times . Retrieved 15 May 2014.
  11. ↑ Wyatt, Edward (10 November 2014). "Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules". New York Times . Retrieved 15 November 2014.
  12. ↑ NYT Editorial Board (14 November 2014). "Why the F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet Regulation". New York Times . Retrieved 15 November 2014.
  13. ↑ Staff (26 February 2015). "FCC Adopts Strong, sustainable Rules To Protect The Open Internet" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission . Retrieved 26 February 2015.
  14. ↑ Staff (25 April 2024). "FCC Restores Net Neutrality" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission . Retrieved 28 April 2024.
  15. 1 2 "A Short Heard 'Round the World Wide Web: Comcast Violates "Net Neutrality"" (PDF). Media Law Bulletin. Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP. December 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 February 2009. Retrieved 23 June 2009.
  16. ↑ "The Pacific Telegraph Act (1860)". Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum. 2003. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  17. 1 2 "Cámara aprueba modificaciones del Senado a proyecto que protege derechos de usuarios de internet". Cámara de Diputados. 13 July 2010. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
  18. ↑ Jessica McKenzie (2 June 2014). "Face Off in Chile: Net Neutrality v. Human Right to Facebook & Wikipedia". TechPresident. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
  19. ↑ Uhls, Anna (19 April 2007). "Digital Divide: The Issue of Net Neutrality". Imprint Magazine. Retrieved 29 November 2008.
  20. ↑ "Save the Internet : Frequently Asked Questions". SaveTheInternet.com. December 2008. Archived from the original on 11 December 2008.
  21. ↑ Wu, Tim (2003). "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination". Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law. 2: 141. doi:10.2139/ssrn.388863. S2CID   19857168. SSRN   388863.
  22. ↑ Mowshowitz, Abbe; Kumar, Nanda (2007). "Net Neutrality: Private vs. Public Interest on the Internet". Communications of the ACM. 50 (7): 23–25. doi:10.1145/1272516.1272533. S2CID   27194624.
  23. ↑ Goldman, David (5 August 2010). "Why Google and Verizon's Net neutrality deal affects you". CNNMoney. Retrieved 6 August 2010.
  24. ↑ Fehrenbacher, Katie (6 August 2010). "Caught on Video: Google CEO Dishes on Google Wave, Verizon & Social Strategy". Gigaom. Retrieved 15 June 2014.
  25. ↑ R. T. B. Ma; V. Misra (2011). The Public Option: a Non-regulatory Alternative to Network Neutrality (PDF). ACM Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT), Tokyo, Japan, December.
  26. ↑ Todd Spangler (14 May 2014). "Comcast's Cohen: Whatever an Internet 'Fast Lane' Is, We're Allowed to Do It". Variety. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
  27. ↑ Nate Anderson (5 October 2010). "AT&T: no one can stop our "paid prioritization"". ArsTechnica. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
  28. ↑ Jon Brodkin (24 March 2014). "AT&T promises to lower your Internet bill if FCC kills net neutrality". ArsTechnica. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
  29. ↑ To clarify the issue, AT&T is strongly opposed to specific types of "paid prioritization" outlined on their website, but is strongly in favor paid prioritization in general.
  30. ↑ Marguerite Reardon (9 January 2014). "AT&T says 'sponsored data' does not violate Net neutrality". Cnet. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
  31. ↑ Iain Marlow (21 December 2010). "U.S. regulator adopts Internet traffic rules". The Globe and Mail]. Retrieved 16 November 2014.
  32. ↑ Kessler, Andy (26 June 2006). "Give Me Bandwidth..." The Weekly Standard. Archived from the original on 27 August 2006. Retrieved 9 July 2006.
  33. ↑ Watal, Aparna A Co-regulatory Approach to Reasonable Network Management
  34. ↑ "An Alternative to 'Net Neutrality'". The Wall Street Journal. 12 April 2008. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  35. ↑ Thierer, Adam (21 December 2010) "Who'll Really Benefit from Net Neutrality Regulation?", CBS News
  36. ↑ Babcock, Grant (12 November 2014). "Net Neutrality—and Obama's Scheme for the Internet—Are Lousy Ideas". Reason.
  37. ↑ Bomboy, Scott. "First Amendment Issues Remain Open in Net Neutrality Ruling." Constitution Daily. N.p., 20 Jan. 2014. Web. 15 Aug. 2014.
  38. ↑ "United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit:." Gaming Law Review 5.5 (2001): 509-22. Web
  39. ↑ Livingstone, Adam (30 May 2006). "News.bbc.co.uk". BBC. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  40. ↑ Anna Eshoo, Edward Markey (31 July 2009). "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009". United States Congress. Sec 3., Sec. 11 (of the Communications Act of 1934), (d) Reasonable Network Management
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.