NETWORK NEUTRAILTY “ALL BITS ARE CREATED EQUAL”

1. NETWORK NEUTRAILTY“ALL BITS ARE CREATED EQUAL” Jordan EversonWill Levendis Tommy BarrowsHollon Hursh Robert Dunlap

2. TERMINOLOGY • Computer Network: Multiple computers connected together via a telecommunication system for the purpose of communicating and sharing resources. • Internet: the worldwide, publicly accessible network of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP). It is a "network of networks" that consists of millions of smaller domestic, academic, business, and government networks, which together carry various information and services, such as electronic mail, online chat, file transfer, and the interlinked Web pages and other documents of the World Wide Web. • Network Neutrality: The principle applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all broadband networks that necessitates the network be free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment attached and the modes of communication allowed.

3. TERMINOLOGY • End-to-End: A property of the Internet that allows all nodes of the network to send packets to all other nodes of the network, without requiring intermediate network elements to further interpret them. • Network Operator: Monitors and maintains the operation of a communications network. Examples: AT&T, Comcast, Verizon. • Broadband: The signaling method which includes or handles a relatively wide range of frequencies which may be divided into channels or frequency bins. The wider the bandwidth, the more information can be carried.

4. Competition Restriction • “Until FCC decisions made last summer, consumers’ ability to choose the content and services they want via their broadband connections was assured by regulatory safeguards. Innovators likewise have been able to use their ingenuity and knowledge of the marketplace to develop new and better online offerings. This ‘‘innovation without permission’’ has fueled phenomenal economic growth, productivity gains, and global leadership for our nation’s high tech companies.” – Paul Misener, VP for Global Public Policy, Amazon.com • Image: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://isen.com/blog/ • ｷ

5. Competition Restriction • “Innovation without permission” will change to “Innovation only with permission” if net-neutrality is not protected. • Network operators have stated their intentions to use their market power to limit Internet competition. • Success of websites would no longer be determined by merit, but by whether an Internet site or service is able to strike a favorable deal with the network operator. • The Internet would morph into an entity much like TV – preset channels with limited, “approved” content.

6. MADISON RIVER CASE • North Carolina based telephone company blocked network users’ access to Voice-over-Internet-protocol phone services provided by Vonage • Madison River sought to limit the competitive threat posed by Vonage • Only stopped when the FCC stepped in

7. NETWORK VALUE • Metcalfe’s Law: Users^2 • Tim Wu: A maximally useful public network treats all content, sites and platforms equally • End-to-end: Users, not Networks, make decisions

8. 4 PRINCIPLES OF NETWORK FREEDOM • Freedom to access content • Freedom to run applications • Freedom to attach devices • Freedom to obtain service plan information

9. WHO WANTS TO GET RID OF NET NEUTRAILTY? • The nation’s largest telephone & cable companies - AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, etc. - can become “internet gatekeepers” • Tax content providers in order to prioritize their data while slowing down or blocking competitors • Their actions are not in the user’s best interest

10. CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATION PRACTICES • In 2005 Telus (Canadian company) blocked access to over 600 websites during a labor dispute, including one supporting the Telecommunication Workers Union • Shaw, a cable TV company, charges $10 extra a month to subscribers in order to “enhance” competing Internet telephone services.

11. Conclusion • Computer networks are connected via a telecommunications system just like phone conversations • A massive network of networks, the Internet, has revolutionized the way people communicate and receive media. • Some believe network operators like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon should be able to discriminate between the hypermedia available to consumers

12. Free Speech • Allowing the telecommunication companies to regulate network conversations would greatly imperil free speech • Internet browsers would be unable to choose the networks with which they communicate; there would be no end to end neutrality. • It is similar to a phone company charging bills based on types of conversation

13. Free Market • Furthermore, the regulation of content would hurt free market operation. • As was stated earlier, “the more people connected and the more equally they are treated, the more valuable the network” • The ability of the consumer to maximally consume and the entrepreneur to maximally supply runs hand and hand with network neutrality

14. Net Neutrality: A common sense choice • In conclusion, there can be no benefits from opposing the principles of network neutrality and, the principles of our nation • Network operators should be able to charge only based on the volume of content being distributed. They should not be able to discriminate between the information. • Supporting net neutrality is common sense and upholds the principles of free speech, and secures the economic livelihood of the Internet.

16. WORKS CITED • http://www.savetheinternet.com/ • http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html • http://www.wikipedia.org • “Network Neutrality: competition, innovation, and non-discriminatory access” Hearing before the House of Representatives, April 25 2006