Nancy Scola

One section of AT&T’s network neutrality comments has caught the attention and earned the ire of some fans of neutrality regulations.

It has to do with the idea that in some cases, some of its customers might chose to, say, dedicate more of the bandwidth that they pay for to certain applications, effectively degrading others.

A Q&A with Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Back in 1996, then-Reps Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Christopher Cox (R-CA) added 26 words to the Communications Decency Act that have, in the 18 years that followed, perhaps done more than any other law to shape how the Internet has evolved in the United States. Called Section 230, the provision said that Web sites that host users' writings, videos, and more aren't held liable as publishers of that content. That obscure provision is widely credited with allowing the Internet economy and online communications to flourish.

Now, a new generation of Internet-powered yet offline companies such as Airbnb, Aereo and Uber is invoking the spirit of Section 230 to argue that, as mere platforms for the activities of users, they should have the same operational freedom enjoyed by first-generation Internet companies. The car-hailing service Uber has argued that it simply uses the Internet to pair drivers and riders. Are these new online platforms stretching the spirit of Section 230 too far? Or are regulators and the courts failing to see its relevance in an age when what the law calls an "interactive computer service" isn't as clear-cut as it once was?

“One of the things that's been learned over this 20-year odyssey is that you should not try to force old legal regulatory or tax regimes on fundamentally new innovations," Sen Wyden said. "That does not mean that there should be no regulation at all. But all too often the machinery of government has been used to protect old business models against innovation. That is what I have tried resolutely to push back against.”

Some of the United States’ bigger urban library systems have begun lodging a public protest against the formula federal rulemakers are considering for the distribution of billions of dollars for wireless Internet infrastructure.

The Federal Communications Commission is thinking of divvying up so-called E-Rate funds to libraries based on square footage rather than users or some other metric, a calculation that city libraries argue gives an unfair advantage to their more sprawling suburban counterparts. And now perhaps the biggest name in the US public libraries has dipped into the debate.

The New York Library system - a billion-dollar entity with 92 branches and some 17 million volumes -- sent a letter to the FCC under the signature of Anthony "Tony" Marx, its chief executive and president. Marx reiterated the "smaller footprints but higher attendance rates" argument made by his peers in Hartford, Memphis, Seattle and elsewhere, but he put a local twist on it, writing that Internet access and Internet-enabled training programs, like ESL classes, are "essential in helping to address the inequalities we face in New York City and across the country."

[Commentary] It’s not you. “Net neutrality” is confusing. As broadband Internet has replaced dial-up in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission has struggled to come up with rules to make sure high-speed Internet service providers adhere to the principle of “neutrality.” Fans and foes of net neutrality both say that if they don’t get their way, the Internet will be ruined. But will it?

1. The Internet has never been regulated -- no need to start now.
2. If new net neutrality rules aren’t adopted, the Internet will quickly fall apart. If net neutrality were imposed, the Internet would oses the experimentation that has long been its hallmark.
3. Net neutrality rules will limit the growth of broadband Internet.
4. Net neutrality is a battle between corporate giants. It’s the online grass-roots that has kept the vision of a neutral Internet alive for nearly a decade, with assists from advocacy groups such as Free Press and Consumers Union, and tech leaders such as Reddit’s Alexis Ohanian and Craigslist’s Craig Newmark. They’ve taken a highly technical -- and arguably poorly branded -- idea and turned it into a statement of values.
5. Either the Internet’s neutral or it’s not. That’s never been true. Wu said himself in his 2003 law journal article, “Neutrality, as a concept, is finicky.” For one thing, even allies on the pro-regulation side of the debate haven’t settled on one definition of “net neutrality.”