Protecting Acces and innovation: Net

Neutrality or Deregulation

Cesiah Lozano, Lizbeth Ramos, Daniela Guerra, Eliana Alfaro,

Karina Granados

• Direct censorship is not the only way that internet can be limit, large companies often use lobbies to restrict competition.

• The issue that is being disscused is lobbing for competitive advantage by large companies, in part, paying for a fundamental internet service.

• Net neutraly: refers to a variety of proposals for restrictions on how telephone companies interact with their broadband customers and hoe they set charges for services.

For internet in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s the Federal Communication commission maintained open access requirements for telephone companies. The phone companies had to lease lines to rival broad band operators at neutral regulated low prices.

Between 2003 and 2005, the FCC eliminated line-sharing requirements for telephone company lines, including fiber optic lines, and regulation on residential broadband service. The issue, generating much debate and lobbying in congres, is whether this regulation is a good thing or whether new regulations should be established.

Net neutrality

Advocates of net neutrality want goverment to mandate the telecommunication companies treat all content that travels throught their broadband lines in the same way.

Same charging rate for sending information over the internet.

Companies choose who would have special treatment to content depending of the content.

OR

Provide diferent types of speed levels at different prices.

Charging different rates for products and servicies is not unusual and makes economic sense in many areas.

Some institutions and business, hospitals for example, pay a higher rate for services such as electricity under contracts the guarantee higher priority for repairs or emergency service when necessary.

We all have a choice of paying standard delivery charges for products we buy online or paying more for faster delivery.

Thus, the notion that every costumer should pay the same amount does not have intrinsic merit.

Supporters of neutral pricing fear the lack of pricing regulation will erode the diversity of the Internet.

Only big companies and organizations will be able to afford the prices necessary to ensure that their content moves fast enough to be relevant.

Content that individuals and smaller organizations provide will get lost.

Some argue that flexible pricing will give telecommunications companies too much power over content on the Internet.

Vinton Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist at Google, argues that there is not enough competition in the network operator industry now to protect against abuses.

Opponents of net neutrality

•Opponents of net neutrality argue that neutrality regulations will slow the advance of high-speed Internet connection and improvements in infrastructure.

•Before the FCC relaxed regulations, telecommunications companies had little incentive to invest in broadband capacity and when they invest hundreds of billions, the speed increased, prices fell. And the added capacity was essential for new phenomena such as video sharing.

•Opponents of proposed regulations say that existing laws to stop abuse by network operators are sufficient and there shouldn’t be no major new regulation without evidence of harm in the current system.

• David Farber, another highly respected Internet pioneer, opposes neutrality legislation.

• Both sides argue that their position will protect innovation and outlets for free speech on the Internet.

• Supporters of net neutrality requirements emphasize the importance of the “level playing field” in achieving these goals.

• Opponents emphasize the importance of flexibility and market incentives.

• In 2007, AT&T agreed to follow net neutrality principles for two years. The agreement might pause the controversy and the heavy lobbying for a few years, to be renewed when the company agreement expires.