As the telephone and digital companies continue to grow due to mergers and acquisitions, the network (& # 39; & # 39; & # 39) neutrality has become a controversial area of law in the United States. Telco’s robust claims by phone networks seem to be monopolizing, fueling the fire of independent internet giants such as Google, eBay and Amazon, who fear that network owners will create a biased two-tier Internet system, unfairly placing telecommunications services. In addition, there is a concern that network owners may seek to completely censor or block content at their discretion, thereby creating an imbalance in partial participation.
A web hosting guide designed to study the implications of this most polarizing, complex, free speech and the recent legislative debacle of attempts to consolidate the principle of pure neutrality in the United States.
Information on cable networks has traditionally been crowned with content that the supplier can regulate at its discretion in accordance with the First Amendment. As networks increasingly provide the same services and fall into the same property, it has become difficult to justify and manage different sets of rules based on underlying technology. This led to the question of which rules should be applied. The FCC reclassified DSL as an information service in 2005, the same year that the US Supreme Court in FCC v. Brand X has maintained the classification of cable Internet access as an information service.
The recent amendment to the Senate was defeated by 269 votes to 152, and the Law on Opportunities, Facilitation and Enhancement of Communication (Cope's Law) was adopted by 321-101 votes. Some fear that the decision will mean that Internet providers will start making decisions on behalf of customers, which websites and services they can visit and use. The principle of net neutrality was abandoned during the debate on the Cope Act, which, among other things, aims to simplify the provision of video services for telecommunications companies across America by replacing 30,000 local franchise councils with a national system, under the supervision of which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) .
Voting is a defeat for Google, eBay and Amazon, which have taken decisive lobbying campaigns before voting in the House of Representatives. A spokesman for Fred Upton, head of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, pointed out that competition could mean that consumers would save between $ 30 and $ 40 each month to pay for Internet access. The amendment to the law tried to add offers that would essentially require Internet service providers to treat all data passing through their cables equally. The amendment was considered necessary after the FCC canceled its rules guaranteeing net neutrality.
Catherine England, a spokesman for eBay, commented: eBay supports Net Neutrality legislation that will prevent network operators from replacing reliable open Internet with & nbsp; Pay per game & # 39; private networks that will crowd out and discriminate content providers and service providers who refuse to pay new fees. The Internet is a global network based on the principle of openness, potentially connecting everyone with everyone. As we saw with eBay, PayPal and Skype, the Internet has the right to create communities on a scale that has never been seen. Replacing the Internet with technologically advanced, but closed. private networks; will end the Internet, as we know it, and reduce the ability of Internet users to reach the global market. Small business sellers rely on this global community and may suffer from new fees and multi-level services that prevent existing and potential customers from accessing their sites. & # 39; & # 39;
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi commented that without an amendment, telecommunications and cable companies will be able to create traffic lanes on the information superhighway. This is the goal of the free and equal nature of the Internet. & # 39; & # 39; Speaking at a conference at the end of May, web creator Sir Tim Berners-Lee warned that the network faced a dark period if access providers were allowed to select traffic to determine priorities.
Critics of the Amendment have stated that this will lead to unnecessary government regulation. Before the vote, Internet companies were worried about the impact of the amendment on business and actively lobbied for the amendment, helped by concerns that their websites would be difficult to access or that they would have to pay to ensure that they could get through web users.
In a statement released by NETCompetition.org, Meg Whitman, chief executive officer of eBay, sent an email to more than one million auction site participants to support the idea of neutral neutrality, while Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, urged the search giant staff to support the idea and movie stars like Alyssa Milano also supported the Amendment.
The exact interpretation of “net neutrality” is a matter of controversy because of the highly politicized use to describe both current and potential uses of the Internet, as well as the proposed role of government in regulating trade and communications related to the Internet. In accordance with Columbia University law by Professor Tim W, net neutrality; This is the term that originally detected network bias to specific classes of applications or content or service providers. According to the analysis of Mr. U., the Internet is not neutral, but should strive to be. Referring to bias in the Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol (TCP) against real-time applications to support this moment, this apolitical and technological look was deciphered by telecommunications companies and cable companies opposing the new rules.
The term also means the general principle that network providers should not distinguish between people or organizations providing services over a network. Companies selling broadband Internet access to consumers should not enter into contracts with service providers (such as websites) to provide better access to the Internet than for service providers who do not have such agreements.
In US policy, network neutrality refers to a variety of proposed laws with different objectives related to limiting data billing by telecommunications companies, usually including a ban on selling voice or video standard quality of service (QoS) improvements for a fee, (Bills sponsored by Markey, Sensenbrenner et al., And Senators Snow, Dorgan and Wieden have included this particular QoS ban.) In this debate, neutralities (such as the largest Internet service providers of the Internet) who wish to Take one of the existing business models for selling Internet access by Internet service providers to content providers in the legislation, as well as to free merchants (including Telcos) who oppose such regulation, considering it counterproductive and even unconstitutional.
The end of network neutrality rules also spawned the creation of activism sites, such as: Save the Internet. and & lt; His Network. & # 39; & # 39; Organizations such as & # 39; Common Cause, & # 39; aroused support, citing the privatization of the media giant as a cause for concern. Telecom companies such as AT and T and Verizon are lobbying Congress for the right to control Internet connections, research, and maintenance costs. Common Cause argues that in case of success in Congress, companies will open the door to violate the civil rights of consumers to access any desired web content, post content and use any application without restrictions or restrictions imposed by Internet Service Providers (ISP).
NETCompeition.org is an electronic forum that was launched to conduct thorough discussions on the substance of legislation and regulation of net neutrality. NETCompetition.org is funded by a wide range of broadband telecommunications, cable and wireless companies who believe that the best way to protect a free and independent Internet is free and open competition, and not more government control over the Internet.
According to company information, Scott Clelend, chairman of NETCompetition.org, showed how gently sounding network neutral language is in fact an extremely regressive political position in a letter to senators. Mr. Cleland explained, while the so-called “progressive” is the champion of his virtues, establishing neutral neutrality will, in fact, lead to the era of the Internet as a result of tremendous innovation, growth and progress. & # 39; & # 39; The full text of Mr. Kleld’s letter can be found here: http://www.netcompetition.org/docs/pronetcomp/resources/Net-Neutrality-is-Regressive.pdf.
Scott Klelan is one of the leading technology analysts and experts in relation to: capital markets, government policies and changes in the technology industry. He is highly respected in industry, government, the media and capital markets as an advanced thinker, free market advocate and leading authority on the future of communications.
Is Net Neutrality Modern-Day & Internet Luddism
In his letter to the senators, Mr. Clelend said: Neutrality-Lyuddites seek state protection to isolate them from changes in technology, competition and progress, comparing neutral neutrality with British workers who put at risk and destruction for labor-saving technologies they feared reduced would be busy, Lyuddity 19th century. Mr. Cleland continues to describe net neutrality as a technological model of the depression era, based on an outdated and discredited approach that the government can better manage technological / economic trade-offs than markets. Mr. Cleland asks, Is the Internet like all other business and technologies that came before it? & # 39; & # 39;
According to Mr. Klelend, Net Neutrality will block, degrade and damage America’s technological progress, as well as a variety of broadband access options for consumers, explaining that currently the offer of neutral neutrality will reduce the average speed and responsiveness of the Internet for everyone, destroying any economic incentive for investment to meet the growing demand for bandwidth. If this succeeds, net neutrality will affect America’s economic growth, productivity and international competitiveness, regulating the natural ability of the market to respond effectively to new demands and risks. & # 39; & # 39;
Intellectual property attorney Philip Graves, a global law firm, Squire, Sanders and Dempsey LLP, had this to say, specifying the legitimacy of net neutrality, defeating the Amendment and passing the Cope Act:
& # 39; & # 39; Currently, the concept of network neutrality as a restriction of the right of broadband providers to download content providers to improve quality
service offers are not part of the legal environment, and the defeat of the Mark Amendment seems to have resolved this problem in the House. If there are no Senate actions, it seems likely that broadband access providers will be able to use their positions as Internet superhighway operators, discussing multi-level pricing structures with content providers. Regardless of the results in a wider consumer choice and efficiency due to prices and innovations based on use, or leads to a decrease in consumer choice due to burdensome fees and restrictions imposed on content providers, it remains to be seen and will be closely monitored by Congress and the FCC . One thing is certain: this issue will not disappear in the near future, as the two additional bills on network neutrality - “Communication Statement, Consumer Access and Broadband Deployment” in the Senate, and the Law on Freedom and Non-Discrimination on the Internet in the House - everything still under consideration by Congress. & # 39; & # 39;
Attorney Philip Graves focuses his practice on patent, trademark and copyright infringement, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of contractual and commercial offenses involving software and technology, and other technology-related disputes. Chosen as a lawyer in Southern California in 2004, 2005 and 2006, Mr. Graves lectures on the development of patents, trademarks and copyright law to professional and industry associations and is a member of the California, Washington and Alaskan bars of the association.
