Anderson, Steve. (2009). “Net Neutrality: The View from Canada.” In Media Development, 56(1), 8-11. Retrieved November 27, 2010, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Anderson presents net neutrality as a design to maintain a level playing field for online innovation and communication. He explains the past telecommunication policy rules called ‘common carriage’, which provided the foundational basis for the current principles of net neutrality. According to these common carriage rules, telecommunication networks must provide access to communication infrastructure on a neutral basis, and when applied to the Internet, mandates that ISPs provide a neutral network for people and organizations to communicate and publish media. He discusses the current situation in which ISPs in North America already have blocked or slowed access to websites and content (Comcast), limited bandwidth for applications (Comcast), and have raised the prospect of charging extra fees for access to an exclusive Internet fast lane (AT&T). Anderson points out that this battle for the Internet is between a handful of big telecommunication companies and online innovation, free speech, small business, independent media, artists, and civil society.
Bollman, Melissa. (2010). “Net Neutrality, Google, and Internet Ethics.” In The Humanist, 70(6), 6-7. Retrieved November 13, 2010, from ProQuest. Bollman discusses the conditions of net neutrality while considering the implications of a joint legal framework released by Google and Verizon this past summer, 2010, intended for the consideration of those Internet policy makers that would grant ISPs greater control over the way consumers could access content in the digital world. She explains that it’s obvious why Verizon, as an ISP, would support this framework in opposition to net neutrality, but that Google’s participation comes as a surprise because up until this point they have stood in support of an open Internet. Bollman argues that this just goes to show that Google, for all its forward thinking ideas and great work environment, is still just a corporation doing what it can to get ahead.
Cheng, Kenneth H., Bandyopadhyay, Subhajyoti, and Guo, Hong. (2008). “The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective.” From Information Systems Research, Forthcoming. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=959944. The authors explained that the phrase “net neutrality” was first coined by Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, and is used to signify the concept that the Internet is merely a carrier of online content that does not distinguish one website from another. They determined that the absence of meaningful competition in providing broadband access to consumers in many areas of the United States makes the broadband service provider a de facto monopolist, and therefore the sole gatekeeper in determining (a) the content that gets across to the end users and (b) in what fashion. Therefore the debate about net neutrality assumes tremendous importance to a policymaker. This research aims to answer two issues therein in a stylized framework. The authors found that if the principle of net neutrality is abolished, the ISP definitely stands to gain from the arrangement, as a result of extracting the preferential delivery charge from the content providers. The content providers are thus left worse off, mirroring the stances of the two sides in the debate. A final finding that should be of interest to policymakers is that under net neutrality, the ISP invests in broadband infrastructure to reach the socially optimal level, but when there is no net neutrality, the ISP either under- or over-invests in infrastructure.
Freiburger, Tina and Crane, Jeffery S. (2008). “A Systematic Examination of Terrorist Use of the Internet.” In the International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2(1), 309-319. Retrieved from http://www.cybercrimejournal.com/tinacraneijccjan2008.htm. The authors discuss the ability of terrorist groups to utilize the Internet to more effectively perform important activities within their operation, such as recruitment, training and planning, and the distribution of their propaganda. They explain that the Internet should be considered as a social learning tool to be used by the government to counter terrorists’ accomplishments, arguing that because of the free flow and accessibility of information currently allowable on the Internet, it is unlikely that counterterrorist actions will be able to stop websites from posting materials for training and imitation, so instead of trying to remove all of these websites, counter efforts should concentrate on the monitoring of these websites. Whether the authors are in favor or opposed to the conditions of net neutrality was not discussed, but it seems as if they are in support of an indiscriminate Internet because an open Internet works in both directions; one side gives it and the other side can take it and learn from it.
Hudson, David L. Jr. (2009). “Hate Speech Online.” From the First Amendment Center. Retrieved from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/Internet/topic.aspx?topic=Internet_hate_speech. Hudson discusses freedom of hateful speech on the Internet. He examines several court cases concerning the matter, and quotes various influential individuals to point out reasons why some feel that hate speech should either be protected or not protected under the First Amendment. He notes that currently hate speech receives protection under the First Amendment until it crosses a subjective line into one or both of two unprotected categories; incitement to imminent lawless action, and/or true threats. Concerning the issue of net neutrality, Hudson appears to be in its favor, arguing that the First Amendment is what distinguishes the United States from other countries, many of which criminalize hate speech. His concluding words come from Justice Louis Brandeis' in Whitney v. California (1927), in which he wrote: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Jordan, Scott. (2009). “Implications of Internet Architecture upon Net Neutrality.” In the ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 9(2), 5:1-5:28. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3466f4pp. Jordan presents a comprehensive examination of net neutrality, arguing that it is, at its core, an attempt to address problems posed by a fragmented communications policy unable to deal with network convergence. He asserts that the academic literature has been split on the issue, but argues that congressional action on net neutrality will substantially affect the evolution of the Internet and of future Internet research. Jordan contends that neither the pro nor anti net neutrality positions are consistent with the philosophy of Internet architecture, because both misconstrue the end-to-end principle. He develops a net neutrality policy founded on a segmentation of Internet services into infrastructure services and application services, based on the Internet’s layered architecture. This policy restricts an ISPs ability to engage in anticompetitive behavior while simultaneously ensuring that it can use desirable forms of network management.
Karlekar, Karin Deutsch and Cook, Sarah G. (2009). “Freedom on the Net: A Global Assessment of Internet and Digital Media.” A special report from Freedom House. Retrieved from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=383&report=79. The authors examined how; as the Internet and other new media have come to dominate the flow of news and information around the world, governments have responded with measures to control, regulate, and censor the content of blogs, websites, and text messages. Their study evaluates the level of Internet and mobile-phone freedom experienced by average users and activists in a sample of 15 countries across 6 regions, covering the calendar years 2007 and 2008. They found that access to and usages of Internet and mobile-phone technologies have grown exponentially in recent years, which unfortunately however, has been met in most cases with the clear emergence of new and multiple threats to other aspects of Internet freedom, particularly restrictions on certain content or heightened prosecution and surveillance of users. The authors contend that in this fast-changing digital world, vigilance is required if we are to ensure continued freedom on the net. This article highlights the importance of an open and free Internet to everyone and everything, which can either be in support of, or opposition to, net neutrality depending upon ones perception of regulation. Net neutrality is a regulation that is supposed to prohibit discrimination, but as demonstrated by many of the countries within this study, once regulation begins, no one really can be sure exactly where it will end.
No Author. (2010). “Internet Censorship in China.” In the New York Times. Retrieved from http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/international/countriesandterritories/china/Internet_censorship/index.html. This article discusses what censorship and regulation of the Internet might look like if it ever came to the United States by focusing on China where government censors began a campaign, ostensibly against Internet pornography and other forms of deviance that eventually resulted in the shutting down of more than 1,900 Web sites and 250 blogs -- not only overtly pornographic sites, but also online discussion forums, instant-message groups and even cell phone text messages in which political and other sensitive issues were broached. Again, this article too, highlights the importance of an open and free Internet to everyone and everything, which can either be in support of, or opposition to, net neutrality depending upon ones perception of regulation. Net neutrality is a regulation that is supposed to prohibit discrimination, but as demonstrated by China, once regulation begins, no one really can be sure exactly where it will end.
Singer, Hal J. and Litan, Robert E. (2007). “Unintended Consequences of Net Neutrality Regulation.” In the Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=942043. The authors examine one particular aspect of the net neutrality proposals: “nondiscrimination” requirements relating to the provision of network quality of service (QoS) to content providers. They conclude that such requirements, however innocuous they may seem, actually would be detrimental to the objectives that all Americans seemingly should want—namely, the accelerated construction of next-generation networks, and benefits of lower prices, broader consumer choices, and innovations these networks would bring. Mediocrity in broadband service is hardly an objective that policymakers in the United States should be trying to achieve. The authors believe that the rest of the world looks to the United States for creative content, and that net neutrality would force them to look elsewhere.
Smith, Aaron and Rainie, Lee. (2008). “The Internet and the 2008 Election.” In The Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewInternet.org/Reports/2008/The-Internet-and-the-2008-Election/01-Summary-of-Findings.aspx. The authors discuss the new survey results which found that 63% of Internet users—representing 46% of all adults—are going online or using email or text messaging to take part in the political conversation and get news or information about the campaigns. Overall, they concluded that people have mixed views about the Internet’s influence on politics. A decent share of online adults say that the Internet has helped them be more involved in the campaign and feel more personally connected to their candidate of choice, yet even larger numbers feel that the Internet is a megaphone for extreme viewpoints and a source of misinformation for many voters. In accordance with the presumptions of net neutrality; Internet openness and freedom from discrimination has now become essential to the democratically based, political process we employ here in the United States of America.
