Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction
This report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of each of the major arguments made by opponents of Network Neutrality.
This report on net neutrality discusses the following "facts":
- FACT #1: Network Neutrality protections have existed for the entire history of the Internet.
- FACT #2: Network discrimination through a “tiered Internet” will severely curtail consumer choice, giving consumer control over the Internet to the network owners.
- FACT #3: Network discrimination through a “tiered Internet” will undermine innovation, investment, and competition.
- FACT #4: Network discrimination through a “tiered Internet” will fundamentally alter the consumer’s online experience by creating fast and slow lanes for Internet content.
- FACT #5: No one has a “free ride” on the Internet. Network operators have the revenue streams to support infrastructure development.
- FACT #6: Telephone companies have received billions of dollars in public subsidies over the years to support network build-out.
- FACT #7: There is little competition in the broadband market, certainly not enough to punish anti-competitive behavior.
- FACT #8: Consumers will bear the costs for network infrastructure regardless of whether there is Network Neutrality or not.
- FACT #9: Investing in increased bandwidth is the most efficient way to solve network congestion problems; discrimination creates an incentive to maintain scarcity.
- FACT #10: Network owners have explicitly stated their intent to scrap Network Neutrality guarantees and build business models based on network discrimination.
- FACT #11: The House and Senate telecom bills will not deter discrimination, and even tie the hands of the FCC from ever preventing it.
- FACT #12: The organizations supporting Network Neutrality represent a broad, nonpartisan, coalition that joins right and left, commercial and noncommercial.
Download (please login and scroll down)
Documents are in common file formats such as Microsoft Word (doc), Powerpoint (ppt), Excel (xls,csv,xlsx), and Adobe pdf.Download
| This paper details current proposals for network neutrality, identifies the problems with them and proposes an alternative solution to address the network neutrality "issue"
| This report evaluates the economics of network neutrality showing that the benefits claimed for abandoning the principle of standardized, open communications network are small, or nonexistent, while the likely harm to consumers and the Internet econ...
| Is net neutrality a debate between "Netheads" who "advocate government regulation to protect themselves from potential anticompetitive actions or monopolistic exploitation by those 'Bellheads' who supply last-mile broadband access to the network?"
| This paper discusses the economics of net neutrality in context i.e. a two sided market model in which an Internet Service Provider (ISP) charges both consumers and providers of content, applications and services. A one-sided analysis of two-sided m...
| This paper discusses the concept of network neutrality (NN) and explores its relevance to global Internet governance.
| This research note provides a definition, background information and discusses the key issues of net neutrality.
| Net neutrality debate - presents net neutrality pros and cons - from customer and provider perspectives.
| The author argues that granting network providers pricing flexibility should reduce the costs borne by consumers.
| This paper explains the "mechanics of network discrimination" i.e. "the technical motivations for discrimination, the various kinds of discrimination and how they would actually be put into practice, and what countermeasures would then be available ...
| The author argues that the claim that net neutrality must be abandoned to build special networks for streaming video is just not credible. Hence, any action on that claim is not productive.
| Against net neutrality - Why the Physical Layer of the Internet Should Not Be Regulated
| This paper discusses the issues around "net neutrality" and goes on to make the economic case against it.
Posted on 12/14/2010 by