Internet and Broadcast Regulation

From YouProduce

Contents 1 How To Use This Page 2 Angles 3 Candidate Positions 4 Possible Guests 5 Opening Copy 6 Questions 7 Audio Clips to Use 8 Links to Research Materials 9 What Else?

How To Use This Page

When a Brian Lehrer Show producer works on a segment, there are a number of steps. You'll see some basic ones below on which you can collaborate. You may also want to look at this sample "prep" to get a feel for what the final product will look like. Here are a few tips for using this wiki:

1) Keep it focused. The final prep needs to be easily read on the air and facilitate discussion by the guests.

2) Put your name (or, if you'd prefer, just your initials) next to your contributions so that we can credit you on the air!

And, a reminder from Brian Lehrer: "A wiki is a collaboration, not a debate. Work together with people you agree with and people you don’t to shape a segment that addresses the questions and concerns of all interested parties and the public at large. This is pretty experimental for talk radio. But we believe that the wisdom of the crowd can help produce more thorough, more balanced coverage than any professional journalists can do without you!"

Angles

What are the basic angles to explore in this segment, from left, right or other? We're thinking of topics including the role of Washington in regulating broadcast media in the public interest, the "net neutrality" internet access debate, and John McCain's long history with this area.

What is Network Neutrality?

When we log onto the Internet, we take a lot for granted. We assume we'll be able to access any Web site we want, whenever we want, at the fastest speed, whether it's a corporate or mom-and-pop site. We assume that we can use any service we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, sending instant messages -- anytime we choose.

What makes all these assumptions possible is Network Neutrality -- the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Put simply, Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.

When a consumer buys a connection to the Internet, whether it's a dial-up line, a dsl, or cable connection to the Internet they're paying a company for that pipe to carry some bits. The bigger the pipe the more bits it can feed into your house every second; and no matter how big or small your pipe is you can connect to all of the websites on the planet.

If you're a website you also buy a connection to the Internet, though your connection is probably a whole lot fatter because your (hopefully very popular) web site is sending a lot of bits to a lot of people every second. If you're super popular you may even need a super big pipe that's capable of moving a huge number of bits from your server into the Internet where they are "magically" routed to your website's visitors. You really don't know how your bits get there, but you know that your bits face the same hurdles as every other website's bits.

Thus the network is neutral.

If the network is not neutral then the network that connects a company's website with an individual who is visiting your website asks each packet of bits: "have you paid me a fee to put you @ the front of the line?" It's a toll booth on a previously free road.

Tolls that aren't needed to pay for the roads--cause the roads have already been built without any tolls. No these tolls are a way for some network operators--some network owners--to extract fees from websites. Imagine the look in an eyes of an executive when she hears that though she's making plenty of money renting dsl lines, she can (with the help of a super smart network that can charge tolls) begin charging companies whose services are traveling over those same wires. It's found money.

It's money from people who can--and will--pay. It's a way for phone company to extract money not just from the consumer but from the companies who provide service to the consumer; or in this case from the companies whose websites you're visiting.

Some executives might say, "this sounds too good to be true."

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.

Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?

Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. Pioneers like Vinton Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a neutral network. And "non-discrimination" provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1930s.

But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open Internet -- was put in jeopardy. Now cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.

Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and telephone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor. Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?

No. By far the most significant evidence regarding the network owners' plans to discriminate is their stated intent to do so.

The CEOs of all the largest telecom companies have made clear their intent to build a tiered Internet with faster service for the select few companies willing or able to pay the exorbitant tolls. Network Neutrality advocates are not imagining a doomsday scenario. We are taking the telecom execs at their word.

So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don't like. This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.

The cable and telephone companies already dominate 98 percent of the broadband access market. And when the network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there will be nowhere else for consumers to turn.

Posted by M.Tady, SavetheInternet.com. More info can be found: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

---oo---

White Space Devices ---oo--- 

The City Council is holding a hearing on this on Monday, September 29, at 10am. White spaces are the unused airwaves in between TV channels. 20% of the television airwaves in New York are unused. If the FCC opens that space up to unlicensed use for low-powered devices, we could use it as an alternative to expensive cell phone service or weak wi-fi signals. It would impact the digital divide and boost the tech industry. Television broadcasters oppose this because they don't want to give up the spectrum, even if they're not using it. Wireless microphone manufacturers contend that these devices would interfere with their systems (which Broadway shows use, illegally – only film and TV productions are authorized to use them). The FCC is set to rule on the matter in October.

Check [1] for a local angle.

---

When a Power company does not build out enough power in a neighborhood and during peak demands execute rolling brown outs, why when bandwidth providers in essence do the very same things that they cannot manage their service accordingly? Would "broadband brown-out" be illegal?

As Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac demonstrated, government regulation distorts markets and is usually ineffective. What should Washington regulate broadcast media any more than print media?

---oo--- Mark Brown in Westfield ---oo--- Start with the basics: Did the 1996 "RE-Write" of the Communications Act work? Hypothesis: NO. The only thing that came out of it, was the 7 Regional (RBOCS) Bell Operating Companies became the two national super-carriers. AT&T/So. Bell, Bellsouth/PacTel/ and VERIZON/MCI/everything Else

Carrier Neutrality is a must. When Google owns The Content, the PIPE to your home, and the ADS, what do we do? (look hereGoogle-owns-the-world)

Google is today the Number one proponent of network neutrality, but what if THEY do a "CHURCHILL"?

Recently, the question came up whether Comcast is Carrier Neutral (does it allow Access to ALL sites?) It was PROVEN that they ARE (were and STILL ARE) CENSORING traffic to various SITES.

Today it's 'peer to peer' Tomorrow it could be to 'liberal.org' or 'conservative.org' or even Microsoft.com

---oo--- Mark Brown in Westfield ---oo---

Even though the internet was invented in the US, we have a very poor broadband access. Our internet access is slower and more expensive than most other countries. Regulators are more interested in telecom company profits than in ensuring internet access for all. Some localities tried to roll out their own internet access, but telecom lobbyists bribed state lawmakers to outlaw this "unfair competition". For more information you can see websites for TeleTruth or the New York City Broadband Advisory Committee --jks

-- PGC -- The society has to decide what's important to it, and what it can control/change. It's hard to see how the basic economics of providing communication access which favors a single (or a best, very small number of) access providers (cable, fiber, even fixed wireless) will change or become unimportant any time soon. So we have to find a way which preserves/assures our freedoms and goals in that context. I want to be sure that I can communicate with any one I choose on the Internet, and that my access provider can't limit me in that regard. In other words, I want the network to be neutral with respect to whom I can interact with. (Some of the issues seem a little bit similar to those which led to separating ownership of movie houses from the producing companies in the middle of the last century.)

The Fairness Doctrine - The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated during the Reagan years, (the same year that Rush Limbaugh was allowed to start his radio show). Isn't there an actionable national interest in creating a revised Fairness Doctrine that protects the public from propaganda? -Joshua Vogel (D.C. listener)

-- The Net Affect: Why the Open Internet is Crucial to Independent Music (Future of Music Coalition) --

Net neutrality affords everyone equal access to the most powerful communications and commercial tool of our time. The internet was created and grew under these conditions, but recent decisions have put this familiar web in jeopardy.

• The current structure of the web lets the biggest companies and the smallest bedroom recording artist exist on an equal technological playing field. But companies like Comcast and AT&T want to charge content providers a fee for the faster delivery of their sites, which could make it extremely difficult for many artists to reach their fans.

• The Internet works because it belongs to everyone. All artists — big or small — have been able to use the web as a powerful tool to engage audiences. This all takes place without interference from gatekeepers and middlemen. But if net neutrality goes away, musicians lose an important connection, and fans lose the freedom of choice.

• Imagine if you were only able to shop at the mall. If the net neutrality isn’t preserved, entire genres of music — from bluegrass to extreme metal — could be ignored in favor of manufactured hitmakers.

• These days, artists use the web to alert their fans to live performances, special giveaways, behind-the-scenes stuff, limited edition music and more. If they’re forced to pay a toll to the big telecom companies, they might get priced right out of the digital music marketplace.

• There has been confusion about net neutrality and the separate and distinct issue of filtering. Net neutrality does not prevent network operators from using tools to prevent piracy. It is, simply, a different issue. Net neutrality only preserves the public’s access to lawful content, applications and online services, which gives network operators latitude to combat illegal filesharing, provided they don't discriminate against legal content and lawful applications.

• We can’t allow the old bottlenecks to determine the flow of creativity. Participating in a legitimate digital marketplace is the right of all citizens, including musicians. It’s a right that needs to be preserved.

Future of Music Coaliiton's Rock the Net Campaign: http://www.futureofmusic.org/rockthenet/index.cfm

Candidate Positions

What have McCain and Obama said or done on this issue? Do their actions match their words?

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a non-partisan think tank whose mission is to formulate and promote public policies that advance technological innovation and productivity, has just released a report comparing the candidates' technology and innovation policies. It is available at http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=176. It compares the candidates' specific positions on topics such as broadband Internet access, net neutrality, and innovation policy.

---

BARACK OBAMA

Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.

Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Barack Obama believes that the nation’s rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.

Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Barack Obama believes that America should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access. As a country, we have ensured that every American has access to telephone service and electricity, regardless of economic status, and Obama will do likewise for broadband Internet access. Obama and Biden believe we can get true broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives. Specifically, Obama proposes the following policies to restore America’s world leadership in this arena:

[2]

JOHN MCCAIN

The role of government in the Innovation Age should be focused on creating opportunities for all Americans and maintaining the vibrancy of the Internet economy. Given the enormous benefits we have seen from a lightly regulated Internet and software market, our government should refrain from imposing burdensome regulation. John McCain understands that unnecessary government intrusion can harm the innovative genius of the Internet. Government should have to prove regulation is needed, rather than have entrepreneurs prove it is not.

John McCain Will Preserve Consumer Freedoms. John McCain will focus on policies that leave consumers free to access the content they choose; free to use the applications and services they choose; free to attach devices they choose, if they do not harm the network; and free to chose among broadband service providers.

When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts. John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like “net-neutrality,” but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices. John McCain has always believed the government’s role must be rooted in protecting consumers. He championed laws that penalized fraudulent marketing practices, protected kids from harmful Internet content, secured consumer privacy, and sought to minimize spam. When businesses struggled to assess the legal role of electronic signatures, John McCain led legislative efforts to ensure that these Innovation Age signatures were legally sufficient so that e-commerce could thrive. His record reflects the careful balance between protecting the essential elements of the Internet and securing the Internet as a safe tool of commerce, education and entertainment for our citizens. Offering simple common sense solutions to real problems is at the core of the McCain’s innovation agenda.

[3]

- post by Geoffrey Weg (taken from the candidates' websites).

Barack Obama Stated Position:

“Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet. Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers. It would also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse.” (Source: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/)

Q: You have said network neutrality would be a priority in your administration. Why and how would you go about ensuring a neutral Internet while still allowing networks to manage traffic? A: The Internet is a powerful, democratizing tool. There are very low entry barriers for the delivery of services over the Internet, and public debate is unfettered by either the network owner or any single dominant voice. The neutral nature of the Internet makes that possible, and it is something we should defend. Up to now, legislation has focused on protecting against the discrimination against or in favor of any single voice or legal service. All have made allowances for objective, nondiscriminatory network-management practices. (Source: www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6570325.html )

Obama Legislative Record:

110th Congress Cosponsor of S.215, The Internet Freedom Preservation Act

John McCain Stated Position:

In general, I think we need to move to a different model for thinking about the FCC. I think it should focus on policing clearly anti-competitive behavior and consumer predators. But, frankly, until some foul has been committed, I don’t think it should be interfering in the market, and probably shouldn’t be trying to micromanage American business and innovation. This is a very tough issue, because if you look at the extremes of it, then, obviously it has significant consequences – you can’t restrain the market, you can’t say that people can’t make a living or a profit off of the Internet. That obviously is not the intent of why the Internet was invented, and the reason why it has flourished. So what I would like to do is keep an eye on what goes on with the Internet, whether people are taking unfair advantage of it, whether people are being ripped off, and how this thing progresses. The great thing about the Internet is that it has enjoyed, to a large degree, immunity from federal interference and federal regulation. So, I have a tendency to say, look, let’s see how this thing all turns out, rather than anticipate something that, a problem that so far has not arisen in any significant way. I know that sounds a little bit equivocal, but it has a lot to do with my reluctance to use, my inclination to use government intervention only when it’s absolutely necessary. (Source: Interview with Michael Arrington of TechCrunch, November 12, 2007)

John McCain will focus on policies that leave consumers free to access the content they choose; free to use the applications and services they choose; free to attach devices they choose, if they do not harm the network; and free to chose among broadband service providers. When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts. John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like "net-neutrality," but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices. (Source: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/cbcd3a48-4b0e-4864-8be1-d04561c132ea.htm )

McCain Legislative Record:

109th Congress In 2006 cast the deciding no vote in committee to halt the Snowe/Dorgan net neutrality bill. The bill tied in committee 11-11.

posted by Jon Bartholomew, Common Cause

Possible Guests

Who would help guide this discussion? This could be reporters familiar with the topic; academics or think-tankers who know the issue; people to talk on behalf of the candidates; or more "outside-the-box" guests who may have an interesting perspective.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman President and CEO, Media Access Project (Media Access Project - I saw Mr. Schwartzman speak at my law school about reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which was one of the primary goals of his organization. - Joshua Vogel (DC listener)

Jonathan Zittrain, Internet Society

- would be a good guest. You can contact the Internet Society. Gale Brewer can talk about the internet in NYC. --jks

Bob Frankston

- (Newton, MA) would be a good candidate. He advocates a very open approach, speaking from the user's viewpoint. (He's one of the inventors of spreadsheets, to give a credential.) -- pgc

Philip Napoli, Fordham University

- Have heard him on air a few times; seems to provide well balanced approach to these issues. JA

Tim Westergren, Pandora, Founder

- the founder of Pandora internet radio, who is having to face the possibly going out of business (as are other internet radio stations) due to the RIAA's unfair fee structure. -- PGC -- NO! The fees for Internet radio stations like Pandora are set by a committee that's associated with the Library of Congress, strangely, not the RIAA. I'm sure there's plenty of arm-twisting and other forms of lobbying, but in this small aspect, the RIAA is not the culprit. See the article at http://tinyurl.com/4tmh9o for more info. That said, Westergren probably would make a good participant. -- PGC --

- This raises another point which may be germane to the topic. Historically, a lot of licensing, fee structures, royalties, etc., were described in a way that was very technology dependent. Modern technology is making a mockery of those distinctions. Is it time to make a break with all that and rationalize such things. For example, why should internet radio pay higher (or for that matter, lower) royalties per (estimated) listener than over-the-air radio, for the same music? (I'm not sure the government really should have a role in this, but that's another discussion, and probably harder to change.) -- PGC --

James Grimmelmann, Professor at New York Law School, teaches Internet Law

- He received his J.D. from Yale Law School. Prior to law school, he received an A.B. in computer science from Harvard College and worked as a programmer for Microsoft. He studies how the law governing the creation and use of computer software affects the distribution of wealth, power, and freedom in society. As a lawyer and technologist, he aims to help these two groups speak intelligibly to each other. He writes on such topics as intellectual property, virtual worlds, search engines, electronic commerce, online privacy, and the use of software as a regulator. In 2007, he was named one of Interview Magazine’s “New Pop A-List: 50 To Watch (Age 30 or Under).” http://www.nyls.edu/faculty/faculty_profiles/james_grimmelmann http://james.grimmelmann.net/biography

Michael Connor, Executive Director of the Open Media and Information Companies Initiative. (Open MIC)

- Open MIC is a new non-profit media policy organization that works to foster an open and diverse media environment through market-based solutions - currently via "shareholder activism". One of the issues Open MIC is focused on is ISP Internet filtering; data collection; and network neutrality and its impact on rights of association, freedom of expression and privacy. Michael is a former Wall Street Journal reporter and correspondent for ABC News with a long history as a media executive, entrepreneur and journalist. He's also worked extensively in the field of corporate responsibility. In November 2004, he acquired Business Ethics magazine and served as its Publisher and Executive Editor. Michael offers a truly unique perspective in this debate - the shareholder perspective. Socially responsible investors see socially responsible Internet policy as critical to the financial strength of the companies we own and fundamental to the vitality of our economy, democracy and society.

J.H. Snider, New America Foundation Former Research Director, Wireless Future Program.

- Snider focused on the policy paradigm changing implications of emerging information technologies, including fiber optics and smart radio, in the areas of telecommunications, e-education, e-commerce, and e-democracy. Mr. Snider came to New America after serving in the U.S. Senate on the staffs of Senators Wyden and Leahy as an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow in Communications and Public Policy. Mr. Snider's graduate work on telecommunications and media policy won two graduate student paper awards from the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference and two Goldsmith Research Awards from Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, & Public Policy. His op-eds have been published in The Washington Post, USA Today, and The Atlantic Monthly. He is the author of Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick (iUniverse), a book on telecommunications and media politics and co-author of Future Shop (St. Martin's), an early work on e-commerce. He has testified before Congress a number of times, with one of his congressional speeches receiving the rare honor of being published in Vital Speeches of the Day. http://www.newamerica.net/people/j_h_snider

Michael Botein, Professor of Law & Director, New York Law School, Media Center

- Professor Botein has become a well-respected expert in communications law, and a scholarly witness to the unprecedented growth of the cable industry and the Internet, the advent of direct broadcast satellites, and the break-up of AT&T. He has written more than 70 articles and books, of which 90 percent deal with some aspect of media law, among them Regulation of the Electronic Mass Media Law and Policy for Radio, Television, Cable and the New Technologies (3d ed. West Group, 1999) http://www.nyls.edu/faculty/faculty_profiles/michael_botein

Jason Devitt, Skydeck

- Devitt has testified before the FCC (in 2007) and Congress in regard to internet and broadcast regulation. He was an eloquent and funny advocate for robust open access rules, arguing that open access rules will "unleash a tsunami of innovation in the US." Devitt lobbied for robust, Google-style open access rules thus opening the way for any entrepreneur to access wireless spectrum in a way that is currently impossible. http://skydeck.com/about/management/

Professor Frank Pasquale, Seton Hall University School of Law.

- [4] He has devoted a great deal of his recent scholarship to the legal and policy concerns regarding internet search providers such as Google, and the troubling implications of overbroad trade secret protections for search engine companies. Most recently, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers called on Professor Pasquale to offer testimony regarding Google and other internet search providers before a Task Force on Competition and the internet; he's appeared on CNN to comment on Google's China policy, and has been interviewed regarding search engine regulation on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation. Oh,and he's funny. m. ricciardelli

Tim Karr, Campaign Director of SavetheInternet.com, a project of Free Press.

Ann Chaitovitz, Executive Director of Future of Music Coalition

- Which has been very active on this issue with its ROCK THE NET: Net Neutrality for Musicians. FMC is offering a session for musicians in NYC on October 6. (see http://www.futureofmusic.org/)

Steve Bratt, CEO of the newly formed (announced 09/14/08) World Wide Web Foundation (http://webfoundation.org). Tim Berners-Lee is the founder. it * seeks to advance One Web that is free and open,to expand the Web's capability and robustness, and to extend the Web's benefits to all people on the planet.* there is a one page concept statement at http:http://www.webfoundation.org/about/concept2008 -- paulnyc

Vint Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist at Google would be a terrific guest. There are also a large number of interviews with Mr. Cerf in which discusses the threats we would face from a loss of Internet Neutrality. Just search YouTube for "Vint Cerf" "Net Neutrality", on second thought don't bother, just click here.

Mr. Cerf is no stranger to the Net Neutrality debate and has written, testified, and given lots of interviews on the subject; but clearly not everyone has heard of him as no one has listed him here as a source.

Notes

- Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society has a lot of good folk who can speak on this subject.

- This show makes far too much use of reporters as experts, Find an Internet business leader, from Unilever or the Interactive Advertising Bureau

- New York Law School's Institute for Information Law and Policy [5] is a great center in the NY area who has experts in the field of Internet and Broadcast regulation. In addition to the NYLS professors already mentioned above, a good guest speaker would be the Institute's Director Beth Noveck [6]. -post by Geoffrey Weg, 1L at New York Law School

Opening Copy

How should Brian frame the issue at the beginning of the segment?

I would include the information that the Internet is in fact a "network of networks" with no central administration and only modest mechanisms (assignment of distinct addresses, for example) to facilitate it.

The key issue, I think, is that access is provided by carriers which are nearly always (in the US, at least) either a monopoly or one side of a duopoly. So, as a practical matter, a user has little choice of access provider. But the access providers are also providers of content, and much of the issue is whether they (can) abuse their position of near-monopoly access provider to benefit their content seller role. (Today, this is even more of an issue in the cell phone arena, where the issue of what phones can be used on which networks is an important market factor. Phones built on the Google software platform (Android) is unlikely to be available on networks like Verizon and Sprint, which are active content purveyors. They will not be able to provide the needed DRM. But this is a bit afield, I think.) They may also have relationships with other companies which become "favored" providers of content. -- pgc ---oo---markbnj--oo-- I sort of disagree with pgc... AT&T/Cingular is also a huge content provider, and T-mobile. Having previously worked for AT&T in developing a "walled garden" for cable/cellphones, I can tell you that the ENTIRE concept of walled gardens is to CONTROL the end user, and prevent him (as much as possible) from unlocking the phone and or releasing the customer. I feel that Verizon and sprint will also have (if not sold by them, hacked by users) Android cellphones too. ---oo---markbnj--oo--

---oo---markbnj--oo--

DRM. Arcane, unneeded, and will be proven that is NOT WANTED. When the record industry (RIAA) give me an "UPGRADE" from my VINYL to a CD, then I will say DRM is an issue that can be addressed. Consumers purchased an IMPLICIT right to LISTEN license to the MUSIC, NOT a right to own a piece of vinyl. I STILL have a right to listen to music I purchase, UNRESTRICTED.

---oo---markbnj--oo--I really don't think this belongs here. I've said this on sound-check, and it hasn't changed. but the words DRM make me feel like a bull facing a RED apron being waved at me...---oo---markbnj--oo--

Questions

What are the key questions? What order should they be asked in?

1. What are the benefits of more regulation? What negative effects may the internet see without this regulation?
2. Who has, and will, take on the task of advancing the architecture of the internet (bandwidth, speed, etc.)? Who burdens the cost of doing so?
3. How are the service providers currently being compensated for the use of their networks? - questions 1,2,3 by Geoffrey Weg, 1L at New York Law School
4. Wikipedia contains graphic material, which has recently been discussed in the right-wing media. For instance, if one goes to Pornographic film one sees a photograph of the making of a pornographic film. As an encyclopedia that is open to anyone, should this be regulated? If a person goes to pornographic film (as opposed to, say, the article on "Love") should it be a surprise to find such a photograph? What constitutes graphic - exposed genitalia, or a photo such as that at the top of pornographic film, where clearly two people are engaged in a sexual act, with no private parts exposed? This issue continues to be a firestorm on Wikipedia. Full disclosure: I am the photographer (I illustrate over 4,000 articles on Wikipedia), and even I don't know how I feel about the issue - I am nuanced. --David Shankbone 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Audio Clips to Use

Are there any audio clips out there that we should include? Or particular music we should include? Be specific.

here is a youtube of obama on net neutrality http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k

here is ted kennedy on same http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UlCXXZTTh8

A humorous explanation of net neutrality: http://www.askaninja.com/node/585

Save the Internet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE

Links to Research Materials

Do you have any readings, videos or any other relevant material to recommend?

1. J.H. Snider, The Art of Spectrum Lobbying: America's $480 Billion Spectrum Giveaway, How it Happened, and How to Prevent it from Recurring http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/art_spectrum_lobbying

2. Orin Kerr, The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law

3. Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Digital Borders, Legal Affairs

4. Cory Doctorow, Scroogled, Radar Magazine (Sept. 2007)

5. Ed Felten, The Nuts and Bolts of Network Neutrality

6. Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo, Keeping the Network Neutral?

7. Jonathan Zittrain, Without a Net, Legal Affairs (Jan. 2006)

8. Jason Devitt testifies before Congress (July 11, 2007) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzIqhOI5J2w

9. Briefing on Broadband Access to the Internet in New York City distributed March 3 2008 at the NYC Broadband Advisory Committee Queens hearing

10. Video of NYC Broadband briefing given by the mayor's office July 30 2008

11. What is Net Neutrality, and Why is It Important to Musicians? (Future of Music Coalition podcast): http://www.archive.org/details/FMCnewyork08.podcastnetneutrality

12. Kronos Quartet's Sidney Chen on Net Neutrality (Future of Music Coalition Podcast): http://www.futureofmusic.org/audio/SidneyChenInterview.mp3

13. Future of Music Coalition's Ann Chaitovitz on Net Neutrality in Billboard, May, 2008: http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/05/fmc-executive-director-ann-chaitovitz.html

14. Tim Wu discusses Net Neutrality at Future of Music Coalition's 2007 Policy Summit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vD0g9Z0egQ

15. Ok Go head to Congress to talk about the importance of Net Neutrality for artists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzA_zExN8h8

16. Google Co-founder claims that the FCC white space tests were rigged: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2008/09/google_guy_white_spaces_test_r.html

What Else?

Use this space to offer any other suggestions or ideas that may not fit into the above categories.

Stories from Americans who support NN: http://www.savetheinternet.com/yourstory/gallery

What is the Mayor's position on Internet Neutrality?

Mention the wiki less, discuss the issues more :)

How do we resolve on one hand the "policing" of broadband network by blocking child porn sites, illegal activity such as distributing illegal files, etc. by using Deep Packet Inpsection (DPI) technologies if providers are not allowed to deploy such technologies to "manage" broadband networks, i.e. limiting spam, ensure throughput for all?