Debate heats up over Net neutrality

DEBATE HEATS UP OVER NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Marguerite Reardon ]
At the Voice over the Net (VON) conference at the San Jose Convention Center on Tuesday, companies on both sides of the bandwidth isle debated how much Net regulation is needed. But the broader discussion was what exactly Net neutrality means and whether legislators are discussing a solution to a problem that doesn't yet exist. "I am hopelessly confused about Net neutrality," said Blair Levin, a managing director and regulatory analyst for Stifel, Nicolaus and Co., a financial research company. "I know what the Bells are saying, but it's unclear what they mean."
http://news.com.com/Debate+heats+up+over+Net+neutrality/2100-1037_3-6049...
* USIIA calls Network Neutrality 'A solution in search of a problem'
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/0...
* Stop using Broadband
http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/2006/03/15/stop-using-broadband/

TOLLS MAY SLOW WEB TRAFFIC
[SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Gregory M. Lamb]
For now, the Internet is a superhighway open to all. Information is delivered quickly via phone lines and cable to homes and businesses worldwide. But for online businesses, the express-lane ride may be over. As the Internet matures, new bandwidth-gobbling online television channels and phone services may soon be charged to access the superhighway. That could turn the Internet of tomorrow into a toll road, with those who can't pay a premium shunted into the slow lane. In one online forum, Vonage customers shared suspicions that cable company Comcast is degrading the quality of their Vonage phone calls. (Comcast is rolling out a digital phone service.) Comcast and Vonage Holding Corp. have denied that any such problem exists. "You can imagine all kinds of scenarios," says David Isenberg, an independent telecommunications analyst (www.isen.com/blog) and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. "Once you establish the principle, you can see where it leads.... Maybe they'll charge a lower price for publications the carrier deems politically acceptable and a higher price - maybe a prohibitively high price - for publications the carrier considers unacceptable. Or maybe you won't be able to get them at all." Mr. Isenberg is helping to sponsor the Freedom to Connect conference April 3-4 in Washington, D.C. He hopes to spur "an in-depth conversation" about what's at stake in the "net neutrality" debate. "You're not looking at a free marketplace of competitors," says Wendy Seltzer, a former staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a consumer rights group, who now teaches Internet law at Brooklyn Law School. Without forcing some commitment to net neutrality from Internet providers, small startups may never get a chance to see where their ideas could lead, advocates say. The very vitality of the Internet will be threatened. "That's certainly something that the net neutrality forces will be trying to argue," says Ms. Seltzer. "Network neutrality might be a little bit of regulation, but it's regulation that's good for [promoting] a lot more free market."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0315/p14s01-stct.html

A BETTER IDEA FOR NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Randolph J. May, Progress&Freedom Foundation]
[Commentary] Thus far, there have been virtually no complaints that any network operator has actually engaged in any discriminatory conduct. No network operator has entered into a business arrangement, say, that somehow favors Amazon's content over that of Borders. There have been a few statements made by AT&T Chief Executive Ed Whitacre and other network operator executives to the effect that network owners ought to have the flexibility to consider charging content providers such as Google or Yahoo a higher fee for speedier service on their Internet backbone facilities if these content providers desire some form of premium service to better serve their customers. In a competitive marketplace, the government usually does not require that vendors treat all customers and all suppliers alike for all purposes. Very often such differences in treatment in a competitive marketplace reflect economic efficiencies to be realized from that result in cost savings, and these cost savings enhance overall consumer welfare. Avoiding broad prohibitions on such differential treatment gives operators the freedom and flexibility to invest with confidence in new facilities and innovative services consumers may value. So any legislation containing specific Net neutrality provisions is a bad idea. There is a better approach that should go far to assuage the Net neutrality advocates' fears. This is to adopt a regulatory framework under which specific Net neutrality complaints are adjudicated on a case-by-case basis under an "unfair competition" standard that is tied closely to real-world marketplace developments.
http://news.com.com/A+better+idea+for+Net+neutrality/2010-1028_3-6048882...
See also --
* Network Neutrality Regulation
[SOURCE: Heritage Foundation, AUTHOR: James L. Gattuso]
[Commentary] At first glance, “network neutrality” may seem an unobjectionable principle. Who, after all, would want their telephone company to keep them from accessing CNN.com, or force them to use one the provider owns? However, in practice, no major operator has ever blocked sites, and likely never will. The reason is competition: operators know that if they don't give consumers what they want, those consumers will go to a competing provider. Proposals to impose “network neutrality” regulations on the Internet should be rejected. Instead, policymakers should work to expand further competition among network operators in order to protect consumers.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/Regulation_brief031306.cfm