1. "Last-Mile" Neutrality?
Christopher Yoo argues that net neutrality regulation especially "last-mile" access regulation is more of a hoax than an issue of pressing national interest. He states that
At the end of the day, a large part of the net neutrality debate can be viewed as nothing more than an intramural fight between the large content providers (like Google) and the large network providers (like Verizon and Comcast). The market power that last-mile providers possess vis-a-vis consumers exists because most Americans currently only have two choices in last-mile broadband providers. Mandating network neutrality would not alter that fact one iota. As a result, it would not reduce the prices that cable modems and DSL charge consumers. That said, network neutrality would affect the way that resulting profits would be divided between the Googles and Verizons of the world. Althouth the division of profits between network providers is crucial to those companies and their shareholders, it is not ultimately a policy issue. [Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo, "Keeping the Internet Neutral? Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo Debate," Federal Communications Law Journal, Vol. 59 (2007), 575-592.]
Yoo has a point. The large corporations among Internet businesses have ramped up their lobbying efforts for and against the FCC's proposed net neutrality regulations. According to the Washington Post, AT&T has spent over $8 million in lobbying in 2009 including $180,000 in campaign contributions to 52 Democratic members of Congress who have written to the FCC in opposition of the net neutrality proposals. In the same vein, Verizon has reportedly spent $6.8 million and another $6 million by Comcast in opposition to the FCC proposal. On the other hand, Google has spent $1.8 million for lobbying efforts. Other content providers including Amazon, eBay, and Facebook have entered the fray to support the FCC net neutrality rules. Thus, we can conclude that the proposed regulations have at least gotten their attention.
[from The Washington Post, October 22, 2009.]
But is Yoo's analysis of the issue the whole story? Is this merely government intervention in a corporate tussle? Or are there compelling national interests that justify the federal government's involvement? Explain and support your views.
| response #1 | reply |
| response #2 | reply |
2. What is Neutral?
Opponents of net neutrality regulations have argued that its enforcement robs consumers of the choice for higher-quality or premium services over the Internet. Consumers have the right to use the less expensive (and slower) national postal service or can choose from parcel post services such as FedEx and UPS for premium services at a premium price. Doesn't net neutrality limit individual freedoms in this context?
Proponents have replied that net neutrality is better thought as non-discriminatory regulation rather than forcing all Internet packets to be treated the same. As Vinton Cerf put it simply: neutrality does not rule out quality-of-service. It is more about preventing anti-competetive practices than managing network services.
Which side do you favor on this issue? Does leveling the playing field for market entry also mean reducing the menu for consumers? Why? Why not? Explain and support your views.
| response #1 | reply |
| response #2 | reply |
3. Progress is Our Most Important Product?
The U.S. has long been recognized as the worldwide leader in creating and developing Internet technology. Many economists have often cited the importance of information technology and the Internet for developing the U.S. economy. For example, former Federal Reserve Board Chairmen, Alan Greenspan noted that though the technology sector of the U.S. economy represented a much smaller segment, it generated more than one-third of the nation's economic growth from 1995 to 1998.
Since 1996, the trend in government has been to deregulate the technology sector in order to spur more competition and investment. (e.g., the Telecommunications Act of 1996.) As a result, the newest entry in Internet “last-mile” connectivity market are broadband providers.
If we compare the cost and quality of service available to U.S. consumers, the picture is not so glowing. In a recent study, of the countries reported,
Has deregulation or a “hands-off” policy here been beneficial? Has it served consumers’ interests? Has it promoted our national interests (economically)? Or, is it too difficult or too early to assess? What do you think? Explain and support your views.
| response #1 | reply |
| response #2 | reply |
4. Free-loading or Innovation?
Lee and Wu argue that the current practice of protecting the rights of access for Internet content providers can be justified as an example of a zero-pricing strategy in two-market analysis. Unlike conventional cases (e.g., credit card companies and auction services), there is a twist. Specifically, instead of subsidizing the consumer, the producer or content providers are subsidized. The outcome, they argue, is that this strategy encourages and increases innovation in Internet services and content. In addition, it prevents or discourages special alliances among content providers and ISPs that might lead to exclusivity and a splintering of Internet access for consumers.
What they don't talk about is this. In a traditional two-market scenario, the non-subsidized side usually bears the costs of the subsidy, which are passed along by the service provider. Does this mean that consumers must bear the cost of subsidizing content providers such as Google, YouTube, Ebay, and the like? If not, then the analysis seems to breaks down.
What do you think? Does the two-market analysis fit here? If so, are the outcomes realistic? If the analysis is faulty, does this justify the complaints by access providers and ISPs that content providers are really free-loaders in the system? Explain and support your views.
| response #1 | reply |
| response #2 | reply |
5. Dude, Where is My Datagram?
Many ISPs justify interference with the transmission of Internet datagrams across their network as an instance of network management. Specifically, these networks have not been designed and built to support the demand of all of its subscribers simultaneously. During peak times, the network is heavily congested, so preventive measures must be taken in order to preserve the integrity of the network. This may mean choking or slowing down certain high-bandwith applications such as p2p file sharing or perhaps choking high-bandwidth users. But, these practices, ISPs maintain, are for the good of the order. Without them, the whole network might fail.
Critics, of course, reject these explanations as mostly smoke. Prominent ISPs have been caught differentiating network traffic based on a variety of motivations. Chief among them are impeding competitors of services that the ISP's corporation offers (example: normal phone service vs. Voice-Over-Internet Protocol, VoIP).
What do you think? Is network management legitimate or just a ploy? If justified, what are its limits and applications? If not justified, then explain why traffic differentiation is onerous? As before, take time to explain and support your views.
| response #1 | reply |
| response #2 | reply |
6. The New Emperor's Clothes?
IETF veteran Geoff Huston argues that vendor promises of end-to-end QoS (Quality of Service) performance enhancements are mostly "snake oil" marketing. While QoS is possible over enterprise networks and even single-vendor networks, it cannot be acheived over the public Internet today. Furthermore, it is unlikely that it ever could be satisfactorily implemented. According to Huston, there are too many complex technical, economic, and political factors that serve are genuine barriers.
In spite of this criticism, most Internet access providers market and support a variety of QoS categories to commercial users.
What do you think? Who is right here? Does Huston's argument render Internet QoS as more myth than reality? Has he overstated the case? What impact does this issue have on the net neutrality debate? As before, take time to explain and support your views.
| response #1 | reply |
Maintained by JT Allen, Furman University
Last Modified: 11/2013