Media Activism and Net Neutrality: A call to action

Previous posts on this blog addressed why net neutrality is an important issue (11/9, 11/2, 10/19) and some of the reasons why it hasn’t been covered sufficiently in the mainstream news media (11/2, 10/12). The below post aims to spur on citizen action required in the fight for net neutrality legislation and points to instructive examples as well as resources for engaging a battle that will shape the democratic potential of digital media.

If you’re looking for a catalyst to effective activism on net neutrality, there is no better place to start than SavetheInternet.com and no greater resource than Tim Karr.

I recently interviewed Karr, the campaign director for Free Press. He oversees all online outreach efforts including the SavetheInternet.com Coalition of activist citizens, nonprofits, businesses, educators, bloggers and other dedicated proponents of network neutrality. Karr also authors his own blog, MediaCitizen: A Crash-Scene Investigation at the Crossroads of Old Media and New and covers media issues for the Huffington Post. Previous to joining Free Press, Karr worked as a journalist and served as executive director of MediaChannel.org.

A unique historical moment

Net neutrality may be the most important media issue of our time. We’ve moved into a new era in which media are increasingly being converted to the digital platform. The rules are not quite set. The system is not yet entrenched. When the dust settles, will we end up with a healthier, more democratic media system? Or, a system that reflects and extends today’s model of corporate control and commercial domination over the media landscape? The answer to these questions, in large part, may be determined by our willingness to act in support of net neutrality legislation.

Tim Karr explains that we’re at a critical juncture in history. He cites the history of radio which began as an innovative technology that was fairly cheap and accessible to people from all walks of life. Then, in the 1930s when corporations realized they could make a profit from radio broadcasting, they worked hand-in-glove with regulators in Washington to create a system that made the airwaves a licensed property for large corporations, locking out public involvement with that media, Karr said. “The same thing happened in the 1950s with television and in the 1980s with cable television and we now are at this point where we are looking at this exploding phenomenon of the Internet.”

Net neutrality –the First Amendment of the Internet- was removed as a protection in a 2005 Supreme Court decision and phone and cable company lobbyists continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to do away with net neutrality for good. Karr explains:

There is this increasing tendency for these very large corporations to insert themselves as gatekeepers and try to undermine the people-power of the democratizing aspects of the Internet by taking away choice and trying to control choice. [T]his is a point where people need to get involved in order to ensure that these same very large corporate special interests don’t insert themselves in the rulemaking process and take away this very, very important democratic tool which is the Internet.

To add to the historical significance of the argument for net neutrality, Jeff Chester points to the growing prevalence of digital communications in our lives coupled with the crisis in journalism as grounds for making the digital realm the priority when it comes to media activism:

…for the public interest it’s more strategic to make sure that there are sustainable content services in the digital platform system….Young people have moved on and increasingly we’re living our lives through PC and mobile communications. Television is still important, newspapers are still important. But I think the failure to effectively cover the run-up to the Iraq war, or to maintain a focus on the poor people in the Gulf Coast illustrates how the current news system is unreliable. The focus of the debate really should be what does this all mean for broadband and what can we do about it now?

Mobilizing activism

The Internet has opened up opportunities for innovation and new venues for many to actively participate in dialogue and create their own media content. To the marginalized it has given voice and to the disenfranchised, hope. Isn’t this something worth fighting for?

Tim Karr thinks so. And so do more than a million people that have organized through the SavetheInternet.com Coalition.

By acting locally, we can impact national politics, said Karr. He describes SavetheInternet.com as a “toolkit of activism for people to both influence Congress at the national level and to do things locally like write letters to the editor of their local newspaper or to create local blogs to make media about this issue and share it in their community.” He points to other important local initiatives such as organizing support around net neutrality resolutions which have been effective strategies in both Maine and New York City. “So there is that level of local organizing which is important because it not only mobilizes a community around a local issue, but it also sends a message back to Washington where the issue of net neutrality has been somewhat stalled in Congress,” said Karr. In-district meetings organized by the SavetheInternet.com Coalition are also great opportunities for constituents to urge their members of Congress to support net neutrality, said Karr.

Karr also stresses the power of new online organizing capabilities for activism around the issue of net neutrality:

Fortunately we have these new social networks that are forming around sites such as Facebook and MySpace where people actually are building community online and they are engaging people whom they would never meet face-to-face and there has been some really good organizing on issues of net neutrality…We found that people have access to tools that allow them to make a video and put it up on a site like YouTube on this issue and low-and-behold, some of these videos have had as many as 500,000 views.

Karr goes on to explain that this very activism is a testament to the worth of an Internet governed by the principle of net neutrality:

The interesting thing about the SavetheInternet campaign is that people are using the Internet to save the Internet. By using the Internet to be active on this issue they’re demonstrating the value of a free and open Internet. It’s a tool for free speech; it’s a tool for political expression. And purely by virtue of taking action on this issue they’re demonstrating the worth of keeping it open.

Karr believes the most important battle in media reform is to ensure that digital communications are open, free, and accessible to everyone.

Please visit SavetheInternet.com and take action.

References

Woerner, P. (2007). Phone Interview with Tim Karr. Conducted on November 15, 2007 for http://pwmedia.blogspot.com/

Woerner, P. (2007). Phone Interview with Jeff Chester. Conducted on October 20, 2007 for http://pwmedia.blogspot.com/

A handful of companies vs. the public interest

Part II of our discussion with Jeff Chester addresses the self-serving interests of broadband providers weighed against public-interest benefits of network neutrality.

Cable and telephone companies claim that, since they made the expenditures to build the broadband infrastructure, they are entitled to manage their network however they see fit and should not be constricted by net neutrality regulations. Sounds reasonable, right? Jeff Chester doesn’t think so. “It’s an absurd argument because all the money that they have put in has been paid for by rate payers and the phone and cable companies have gotten huge subsidies over the years,” Chester said.

They have been able to run their lines over public lands. They have been able to develop, in essence, de facto monopoly businesses. The idea that they should be able to impose a discriminatory business model in order to ensure a favorable return on investment: It’s totally self-serving.

For Chester it boils down to one core question: “Is broadband going to be a [public] utility or a kind of private digital fiefdom?” It seems clear that cable and phone companies want to extend their old business models into the new digital era. With a 98 percent lock on the broadband market, they intend to use it by charging extra fees for varying levels of delivery, according to Chester. He also explained that broadband providers all but killed community broadband and community Wi-Fi endeavors because they didn’t want to see any competition at all.

Fighting for broadband “open access” (earlier terminology for net neutrality) since the late 1990s, Chester and his cohorts wanted a similar formula for competition as had evolved for dial-up Internet with many different Internet Service Providers (ISPs) competing, including small, minority and noncommercial ISPs. “If you had a competitive broadband system you would be able to generate many more alternatives that could address the digital divide issue,” said Chester. He looks to the future and is concerned with how we can ensure that the medium evolves so it reflects democratic aspirations. However, he recognizes that phone and cable companies have taken a long view as well, pointing out that they will implement their business model very slowly over the long-term. “They’re going to work on this over time to get what they want,” said Chester.

Chester points out the danger of broadband providers having the ability to slow or block content they find objectionable:

Without network neutrality it’s possible that critical dissenting points of view would be placed on a kind of slow lane depriving the American public of ready access to the information it needs so that it can make decisions about the country’s welfare, let alone their community and family.

It comes down to the questions of what dominates and what is placed in the foreground. Chester thinks net neutrality is part of the answer, but adds that “other policies will likely be needed to make sure that…civic information, news and public affairs [are] not placed in the digital shadows.” Broadband should be similar to a public utility and operated on behalf of the public, Chester said. However, he added that, “if we’re living in a system where, for the short term, the phone and cable companies will dominate…what we should do is simply have rules in place that…require an open network from the monopoly or duopoly players.”

References

Woerner, P. (2007). Phone Interview with Jeff Chester. Conducted on October 20, 2007 for http://pwmedia.blogspot.com/

Coverage in the Corporate Interest: net neutrality and the communications companies

Is net neutrality finally gaining some ground in the national media?

Two weeks ago Comcast delayed and effectively blocked BitTorrent peer-to-peer traffic. Last week Senators Byron Dorgan and Olympia Snowe called for a congressional hearing in order to investigate practices by phone and cable companies that are constricting communications over the Internet and on cell phones (AP, 10/26/07). This week, during an MTV event, Senator and Presidential candidate, Barack Obama voiced his support of net neutrality legislation. Also this week, public interest groups such as Free Press, Public Knowledge, Media Access Project and the Consumers Union filed a petition with the FCC asking to fine Comcast for interfering with file-sharing applications (AP, 11/2/07).

It seems that net neutrality is finally gaining some ground as a national public-interest issue. However, this hasn’t always been the case and it is dubious that this kind of coverage will persist. Historically, the great preponderance of media coverage on net neutrality has been relegated to business or technology sections of the news and has not addressed public interest or democratic concerns.

To explore this issue, I recently spoke with Jeff Chester, founder and executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a national nonprofit dedicated to the promotion of a digital media system that fosters democratic expression and human rights. Chester has been working on public-interest media issues for more than two decades and is author of Digital Destiny: New Media and the Future of Democracy.

Jeff Chester on Network Neutrality Coverage

Chester doesn’t believe the issue of net neutrality has been covered sufficiently in the mainstream news media. He attributes this to an overall crisis in American journalism in terms of concentration, consolidation, and cutbacks in news staffs that have negatively impacted the ability of reporters to investigate stories. Chester explains:

It’s a particular problem when you have issues that are related to the broader concerns of democracy but that are seen by the news media as business stories. Issues such as network neutrality, spectrum reform, media ownership have been allowed to be placed by editors as news business stories. The orientation generally acts favorably towards business interests.

Reporters who cover business don’t view raising larger public concerns as part of their role, Chester said. When there are not enough personnel to seriously tackle issues that require a little footwork by reporters, it’s difficult to generate interest. When there is an emerging story like network neutrality that is not easy to cover or document, it makes it increasingly difficult to get interest in the story, said Chester.

He points out that it was Google, followed by other corporations such as eBay and Yahoo! that generated greater visibility for net neutrality in the media and in Congress. “It shows you the kind of biases of the news media that when corporate interests are fighting other corporate interests it gets noticed,” Chester said. “But you can’t really separate the lack of reporting on network neutrality from the overall failure of the news media to cover its own businesses including media consolidation.”

Moreover, Chester makes the point that Google and other major communications companies in favor of net neutrality are not proponents for democratic purposes, but rather their own business interests. In fact, a Google lobbyist confirmed that to him several months ago. “Namely, they want an open system to deliver the same kind of interactive advertising and big media entertainment communications that the other guys want as well,” said Chester. He points out that failure to have an open network illustrates the political corruption of both parties and suggests that either way you cut it, the future of the Internet will likely be determined by the interests of big communications companies and not the public interest. “I frankly have my suspicions that even in a network neutrality world, the plans of Google and others to advance the interests of the deep-pocketed advertisers and programmers will also ultimately challenge the Internet’s potential to be a more diverse media,” said Chester.

References

Woerner, P. (2007). Phone Interview with Jeff Chester. Conducted on October 20, 2007 for http://pwmedia.blogspot.com/

Are broadband providers cooking their own goose?

Manage your image. Lobby Congress. And for Christ’s sake, keep your infractions out of the news!

Most corporations understand this intuitively and are extremely savvy when it comes to pursuing the bottom line. With government regulations an ever-present potential, it’s a good idea to keep a low profile when it comes to those practices that may prompt discussion of rulemaking.

Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and others are usually quite adroit at duping the public and staying out of the regulatory limelight.

However, earlier today Senators Byron Dorgan and Olympia Snowe called for a congressional hearing in order to investigate practices by phone and cable companies that are constricting communications over the Internet and on cell phones (AP, 10/26/07). This comes after a series of discriminatory practices by cable and phone companies that made headlines recently.

Comcast demonstrated last week that it has the capability to slow down and otherwise affect website applications and services (AP, 10/23/07). Moreover, Comcast actively utilized this capability after consistent denials of blocking peer-to-peer file sharing programs and of employing traffic shaping tactics. In addition to blocking BitTorrent traffic, Wired Magazine blogger, Scott Gilbertson notes that there have been reports that Comcast employs similar methods limiting both Gnutella traffic and Lotus Notes.

Four weeks ago Verizon blocked messages from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, citing their right to stifle “controversial or unsavory” text (NYT, 09/27/07). After the discriminatory action led to an explosion of controversy in the press, Verizon backed down and allowed the messages, but they continue to reserve the right to deny other text messaging programs in the future (Business Week, 10/25/2007).

Similarly, in August AT&T censored a few lyrics made about President Bush by Pearl Jam lead singer Eddie Vedder during a webcast. Namely, “George Bush leave this world alone” and “George Bush find yourself another home.” Although AT&T claims that the censorship was unintentional and caused by a third-party webcast vendor, the event, like those cited above, sparked a discussion of net neutrality in the media. Unintentional or not, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps expressed concerns about broadband companies having the power to control content along with business incentives to do so.

What does this mean for net neutrality?

People are starting to change their minds. Stephen H. Wildstom, writer of a technology column for Buisness Week, and previous supporter of a deregulatory approach to the Internet recently wrote that, the “hands-off approach hasn't served consumers well. And the Web is far too important to entrust the free flow of information to the shifting whims of a few big companies. Government must step in and tell them to leave our content alone.”

Presently, net neutrality principles exist only as policy recommendations by the FCC. The extent to which these principles will be considered by Congress and the FCC for rulemaking will depend on a number of factors including media visibility of discriminatory practices by broadband providers.

So, will Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and others cook their own goose by continuing to misbehave? Well, if they don’t shape up, they’ll likely be regulated. For everyone’s sake, let’s hope they don’t. Although it’s painful to see them continue to violate net neutrality policy recommendations, things may have to get worse before they can get any better.

Competition, Innovation and Net Neutrality

Here we continue our conversation with Vinton Cerf and consider the implications of the current broadband market and FCC regulations on competition and innovation.

There are at least two areas where competition is of concern when it comes to the net neutrality debate. One involves the lack of competition among broadband providers (cable and telephone companies) in providing the physical connection to the Internet and the other involves the issue of discriminatory practices by broadband providers against competing applications or services online. Jeff Chester, executive director and founder of the Center for Digital Democracy explains that since cable and telephone companies provide more than 90 percent of the broadband connections in the United States, they “believe they are in a prime position to become the key Internet gatekeepers” (2007).

In a given community residents typically have a choice between only two broadband providers. Such duopolies are widely considered insufficient competition, but opponents of net neutrality argue that the “cable and telephone companies are competing aggressively with each other in an attempt to increase their market shares by improving service (higher speeds) and lowering prices” (Lenard and Scheffman, 2006). While cable and telephone broadband providers may be involved in an aggressive game of one-on-one, consumer choice remains limited. Vinton Cerf, Google’s Vice President and “Chief Internet Evangelist,” explained that “at least 10% of Americans have NO broadband access, 30% have a choice of only one provider, and no more than 60% have a choice of two. There isn’t a great deal of competition for broadband access in the US.” This lack of competition is largely due to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) loosening of regulations which has allowed telephone and cable companies to consolidate, “in part because companies argued they would use the extra profits to modernize transmission lines” (Clemmitt, 2006).

In addition to the iron-grip that telephone and cable companies have on the market of providing broadband connections, they also maintain the ability to discriminate against competing online applications and services in favor of their own. Since the Internet has not been considered by the FCC to be a communication service but rather an information service, the common carriage requirements that govern telephone do not apply (Yoo, 2006). Vinton Cerf explains:

In the US, the FCC has declared that Internet is not a communication service but is an information service so it is not regulated under Title II of the 1934 and 1996 Telecom Acts. In choosing this characterization of Internet service, they ignore the layered structure of the Internet, its basic communications functionality at the lowest levels of protocol, and thus invite the potential for anti-competitive behaviors by broadband providers with substantial market share or even unique access to, e.g., residential users.

The anti-competitive behaviors Cerf refers to could set up barriers for innovators to enter and flourish in the Internet economy. Moreover, broadband providers would also like to set up a tiered Internet through which they would provide preferential treatment in the form of faster connection speeds to those who could afford and would be willing to pay a fee while others would be relegated to “slow lanes.” Even though Internet companies, such as Google, pay a fee to connect their applications and services to the network, they would potentially be double-charged, having also to pay additional fees to be in a “fast lane”, and possibly to the broadband provider of the consumers they are attempting to reach. “One could imagine that many if not all broadband providers might like a business model in which all application service providers have to pay not only to get onto the Internet but also to reach other subscribers by paying fees to the broadband service providers serving those subscribers,” Cerf said. “Google and other application service providers typically pay a great deal to ISPs to access the public network. Moreover the residential broadband users are paying for what they believe is access to the entire Internet, without discrimination.”

Overall, broadband providers seem to wield considerable power and stand to gain enormous benefits in their favorable position as near sole providers of Internet connections and as “gatekeeper” with the ability to created a tiered structure and discriminate against competitors. Under such conditions, “innovation of competitors might be stymied, leaching incentive for the development of new products and services,” said Cerf.

If the FCC is going to allow broadband providers near-monopoly status, it seems only prudent that they institute net neutrality principles safeguarding the Internet from discriminatory practices ensuring lively competition and un-stifled innovative efforts. Cerf hopes that “consumers will appreciate how important it is that their broadband access to the Internet not be constrained in an artificial fashion by the introduction of limits on their ability to reach services not supplied by their broad band carriers.” If a law is not enacted the “provision of software tools to detect unfair, discriminatory practices by broadband service providers may serve to keep inappropriate behaviors and practices from propagating,” said Cerf.

References

Chester, J. (2007). Net Neutrality and the Supermedia Monopolies. Extra!, 20 (2), 26-29.

Clemmitt, M. (2006). Controlling the Internet: Can it survive as an uncensored global network? CQ Researcher, 16 (18), 409-432.

Lendard, M. T. & Scheffman T. D. (2006). Distribution, Vertical Integration and The Net Neutrality Debate. In T.M. Lenard & R.J. May, Net Neutrality or Net Neutering: Should Broadband Internet Services Be Regulated? New York: Springer Science.

Woerner, P. (2007). Email Interview with Vinton Cerf. Conducted on October 10, 2007 for http://pwmedia.blogspot.com/

Yoo, C. S. (2006). Network Neutrality and Competition Policy: A Complex Relationship. In T.M. Lenard & R.J. May, Net Neutrality or Net Neutering:Should Broadband Internet Services Be Regulated? New York: Springer Science.

Vinton Cerf of Google clarifies the Net Neutrality Debate

To say that Vinton Cerf has been involved with the Internet since its genesis would be a gross understatement. Cerf was integral to designing the architecture of the Internet and co-founder of the Internet Society (ISOC), a nonprofit dedicated to Internet standards, education and policy (http://www.isoc.org/isoc/). Regarded as a “Father of the Internet” for his work on its basic protocols (TCP/IP) and presently Google’s Vice President and “Chief Internet Evangelist,” Cerf is outspoken in favor of a non-discriminatory Internet.

I recently conducted an email interview with Cerf who reined in and made plain a concept that is often exaggerated and skewed by divergent interests in the debate over network neutrality.

When portraying a debate, the media often pervert and simplify an entire spectrum of opinion into two camps representing polar opposites. Net neutrality is no exception. There are many different perspectives on the issue of net neutrality, yet coverage of dialogue in the mainstream insists on two parties, pitted against each other with passion and exaggeration on both sides.

Cerf on the Net Neutrality Debate

“The term “net neutrality” has been badly distorted by the hyperbole and headlines around the debate on this topic,” Cerf said. “All that we are seeking is non-discrimination in access to the services of the Internet for all users of the Internet and non-discrimination in the ability of any service on the Internet to reach any interested user.”

In addition to supplying a relatively straightforward account of the issue, Cerf clarified what is not included in his and Google’s conception of net neutrality:

We are NOT claiming that every packet has to be treated identically (we understand about denial of service attacks, spam, viruses, etc). We are NOT arguing that ISPs should charge the same to every user, regardless of his or her speed of access to the Internet. We are NOT arguing that there cannot be differentiation of service levels – only that the providers of broadband access to the Internet should not abuse their provision of basic Internet transport to discriminate against services that compete with theirs at higher levels of protocol (e.g. video transport).

Cerf explained that “[e]very user benefits by being able to access any service on the Internet without discrimination. Every new application service provider benefits by being able to reach any interested user.” Conversely, broadband providers “may benefit by constraining access to network resources on an exclusive basis, potentially barring other competitors from using these same resources,” said Cerf.

The Internet Evangelist and Net Neutrality

Q: Your title with Google is Vice President & Internet Evangelist. "Internet Evangelist" has a strong religious overtone. Who assigned you that title and why?

A: “Well, you might argue that I have been preaching that Internet is an important infrastructure that everyone should embrace and use so maybe that’s a kind of “article of faith” with me.

Google executives thought this was a good characterization of what I am doing: trying to get more Internet built so that more people can reap the utility of access to this vast quantity of knowledge on the World Wide Web.”

Q: Do you see the fight for Net Neutrality as having similar characteristics to a religious movement?

A: “I think that is probably a bit extreme, but some people are pretty passionate about this question.”

References

Woerner, P. (2007). Email Interview with Vinton Cerf. Conducted on October 10, 2007 for http://pwmedia.blogspot.com/

The Net Neutrality Debate: both sides of the fence

The future of the Internet may be determined in large part by the outcome of the Net Neutrality debate. As Congress drafts new telecommunication legislation it will consider whether to adopt mandatory net neutrality principles. The outcome of this legislation may drastically alter our online experience.

What is Net Neutrality?

Although there does not seem to be one widely accepted definition, a policy statement adopted by the FCC in 2005 outlines four principles commonly considered to fall under the heading of Net Neutrality: 1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; 2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice; 3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and 4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers (May and Lenard, 2006). The Net Neutrality debate revolves around the central question of whether regulations should be imposed in order to keep the Internet open and free from control and discrimination by broadband providers such as telephone and cable companies.

An Internet free of regulations vs. regulations to keep the Internet free

Opponents of Net Neutrality

Those opposed to having net neutrality signed into law include broadband providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast among others. These companies argue that they have made great expenditures “extending fiber-optic cable and other infrastructure to carry today’s much faster broadband Internet” (Clemmitt, 2006). As a result they feel entitled to offer preferential treatment in the form of faster service to those customers able to afford and willing to pay an extra fee. Without net neutrality laws they would also be able to discriminate by assigning priority to their own content and services over those offered by competitors. In a 2005 Business Week interview, Edward Whitacre, then CEO of SBC Communications Inc. (now AT&T), expressed the following when asked if he was concerned about competition from companies like Google and Vonage:

How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. . . .So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts! (2005)

Whitacre and others in the broadband industry as well as advocacy groups such as Hands Off the Internet also argue that up to this point the government has had minimal involvement in regulating the Internet and that its trajectory should be left to competitive market forces that benefit consumers and are “typically not fair and nondiscriminatory” and therefore at odds with the principles of net neutrality (Lenard and Scheffman, 2006).

Proponents of Net Neutrality

Supporters of net neutrality include many web-based companies including Google, Yahoo!, Amazon and eBay as well as groups such as the SavetheInternet.com Coalition coordinated by Free Press. These supporters argue that the architecture that has governed the Internet since its inception has been open and nondiscriminatory. Vinton Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist for Google and one of the co-founders of the Internet expressed the following concerns at a Senate Committee hearing on Network Neutrality:

The Internet’s open, neutral architecture has proven to be an enormous engine for market innovation, economic growth, social discourse, and the free flow of ideas. . . .Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success. (2006)

Cerf and others argue that companies like Google and Yahoo could not have innovated and ascended had the network been discriminatory and limiting. Proponents are concerned that allowing broadband providers the ability to control the speed of service will mean that “only wealthy individuals and companies would get higher speed service leaving poorer, non-commercial users and start-up businesses in slower moving cyber obscurity” (Clemmitt, 2006). In their view, this reinforces preexisting class divisions and threatens the Internet’s ability to serve democracy.

No matter what side of the fence you are one, one thing is for certain: it’s a heated debate.

References

Cerf, G. V. (2006). U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing on "Network Neutrality."

Clemmitt, M. (2006). Controlling the Internet: Can it survive as an uncensored global network? CQ Researcher, 16 (18), 409-432.

Lenard, M. T. & May, J. R. (2006). Net Neutrality or Net Neutering:Should Broadband Internet Services Be Regulated? New York: Springer Science.

Lendard, M. T. & Scheffman T. D. (2006). Distribution, Vertical Integration and The Net Neutrality Debate. In T.M. Lenard & R.J. May, Net Neutrality or Net Neutering:Should Broadband Internet Services Be Regulated? New York: Springer Science.