Tim Wu
Yochai Benkler
Terry Fisher

—

YB

1st half of 1990s: telecom networks: demanding economies of scale; if wanted competition from incumbents, needed to allow competitors to share facilities; most controversial: bundling: allow competitors to use physical infrastructure; competition: building facilities ever closer to the home; redundant networks

what would happen w/ cable?

trend 2000: toward open access; a few cable enfranchising authorities; needed to think of it as direct communications;

initial reports: what we want: shift from idea that each pipe is competitive and we need multiple competitors; AOL merger: had to offer access to at least 3 other competitors; during period: shift from competition on each wire, to competition between two wires: moving away from open access

many policies passed between 2001-2008 that need to be revised
1) why can’t we have actual competition in physical infrastructure as the main model?
2) do we need an alternative workaround infrastructure that is public?
3) should we be focused on user-owned infrastructure? (buy device, create own local thing; buy own fiber to connect to public main?)

—

TW

snapshot of where net neutrality is right now:

4 issues of network regulation:

1) payments: whether or not service providers can demand payments for delivering access to their customers
(see picture)
access fee: charge people to reach your customers (Ebay using Verizon to reach AT&T customers)
legislation: says fee can’t be charged

2) what is reasonable network management?
when can carrier delay or block or mess with connection between two parties on Internet for purposes of managing bandwidth?
unilateral approaches: not accepted

3) floating net neutrality norm that is sometimes enforced by FCC; what is form/scheme going to take?
ad hoc –if FCC sees something they’ll do something about it– system
right now: moving toward that
net neutrality: not supposed to transgress, when you do you get fined
common law development of what are acceptable/nonacceptable practices

4) Hollywood; what does Hollywood think of network neutrality? what side are the content industries on?
Hollywood: same situation that Ebay is in: studio: also has to pay?
hesitant about getting engaged with provider

this year: struggle in policy community to get allegiance of content providing community

—

TF

types of network neutrality:
content neutrality
application neutrality: bits are bits idea
sender neutrality: no discrimination between senders
toll free (tim’s #2 point): ISPs charge recipients

if we should allow discrimination:
1. discrimination is efficient
2. market should be making decisions
3. ISPs have freedom of speech rights
4. Internet: never been neutral: historical argument
5. moral argument: layer separation, truth in advertising

if curb discrimination:
1. ISPs: monopolies
2. preserve opportunities for innovation
3. major content providers will cut deals with ISPs
4. preservations of opportunities

[powerpoint graph]
content discrimination: clear
strong: sender neutrality, toll free
most strongly opposed: application neutrality

—

ETC.

options available to most consumers have diminished sharply:
- roughly 50% of consumers in the US have a choice among two broadband providers
- roughly 25% have access to only one provider
- roughly 25% don’t yet have access to any broadband providers
next few years: looking at monopoly/duopoly

• private networks should create virtual private networks, not use public Internet

• possibility of corporations paying piece of consumer fee to bring price down, and Internet companies can make up for it by advertising more, etc.

• if there is no competition, that’s fine; supposedly having a market but regulating it into a duopoly that is the problem; market or no market, choose!
• ultimately: only resource we have owned by nobody is feasible, we just haven’t built it