[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Price discrimination: Will ISPs price discriminate without Network Neutrality?
|
[  ] Yes
|
[ ] No
- ISPs do not price discriminate out of competitive interests - While advocates of Net Neutrality express fears that Internet Service Providers will set up price barriers for premium services and price discriminate, this is a very theoretical claim that does not exist in the reality of competition between ISPs. An ISP that price discriminates is likely to lose customers to an ISP that does not adopt such an egregious policy. ISPs, therefore, have a competitive interest in maintaining a "neutral" policy even without Net Neutrality. This is demonstrated by the fact that without Network Neutrality currently, things are still doing just fine with no price discrimination.
- Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem Currently, without Net Neutrality, there is no problem with ISPs price discriminating. This is mainly due to the above factor that competition constrains ISPs from doing so. Therefore, what is the problem that Net Neutrality is trying to solve? There is no problem, and, therefore, Net Neutrality is unnecessary.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Competition: Does Net Neutrality help business competition/innovation?
|
[ ] Yes
- The internet is currently a "level playing" field that rewards the best ideas (not the best funded ideas), and net neutrality would protect this: Savetheinternet.com has argued that the internet currently serves as a "level playing-field," in that end users and content providers are charged a flat fee for access to the entire highspeed infrastructure. They claim that regulations maintaining this dynamic would reward the best ideas rather than the most well-funded ideas. Amounts and type of bandwidth usage need not be specifically charged for, beyond the basic and minimally discriminatory fees for access to ISP servers.
|
[ ] No
- Network neutrality would damage competition and niche market suppliers - There are advantages and disadvantages to charging for bandwidth usage both to ISPs and to consumers. Some consumers want to pay more to secure certain premium services, and so some ISPs can exist to supply this market. But, they will lose market share of consumers that would prefer a "neutral" service provider. And then, there are also very niche internet services such as cell phone use specifically for sports scores that would be prohibited by Net Neutrality. In general, Net Neutrality would limit the diversity of services that consumers demand in the marketplace.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Return on investment: Do ISPs NOT have the right to charge bandwidth hogs more?
|
[ ] Yes
|
[ ] No
- ISPs have a right to recover costs from heavy bandwidth users - Internet Service Providers are businesses that make huge investments in building internet pipelines with high bandwidth capacities. This bandwidth is not public infrastructure. Other parties that take up a significant amount of the provided bandwidth are costing ISPs a significant amount of money in expanding their infrastructure. These parties are often reaping huge profits off of this for-profit bandwidth without paying anything in return to the ISPs. The ISPs have a right to seek return on their investment and demand that such bandwidth users pay a price for their heavy use.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Consumers: Would consumers of internet content be better off with Net Neutrality?
|
[ ] Yes
- Without net neutrality internet speeds will be inconsistent. In a non-neutral, tiered system (the alternative to Net Neutrality), users would experience inconsistent speeds from different content providers based on the "tier" that these users fall under. An end user might purchase broadband access from a carrier, only to experience differing response times in interacting with various content providers, some of whom paid the carrier a "premium" and some of whom did not.
- ISPs have a profit interest in price discriminating. Companies seek to impose the tiered service model for the purpose of profiting from their control of the pipeline rather than for any demand for their content or services. Service providers are not looking out for the best interests of the consumer in a tiered system.
|
[ ] No
- Net neutrality will harm broadband infrastructure and internet speeds: Network Service Providers need money to expand the critical broadband infrastructure that enables streaming data over the Internet. Many argue that the need for this expansion will rise exponentially as the demand for multimedia and streaming video grows dramatically (such media involves more bits of data, and thus takes up more broadband space). Network Service Providers envision a tier system for charging different content-providers for varying levels of broadband use. It is claimed that the revenue from this would be used to help expand the broadband infrastructure. Without such funding, network providers argue that the infrastructure will be insufficient and that consumers will suffer from slower Internet speeds.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Legal precedent: Is there a legal precedent supporting Net Neutrality?
|
[ ] Yes
- Advocates argue that the concept of net neutrality has a precedent in history: In 1860, a US federal law subsidizing a coast-to-coast telegraph line stated that “...messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority."[1]
|
[ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Government: Would government involvement be minimal and/or reasonable?
|
[ ] Yes
|
[ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Internet freedoms: Should the internet be "free" and is Net Neutrality the way?
|
[ ] Yes
|
[ ] No
- Internet service providers have the right to free speech, which includes the right to exclude or limit access to services: The Bell companies and some major cable companies view non-discrimination as compelled speech prohibited by the First Amendment because they think that cases like Chesapeake and Potomac and even Turner Broadcasting v. FCC stands for the rule that Telcos and Cablecos are First Amendment speakers, and as such cannot be compelled to promote speech they disagree with.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pro/con resources
|
[ ] Yes
|
[ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pro/con organizations: What are the various interest groups?
|
[ ] Yes
|
[ ] No
- Hands Off The Internet
- The Communications Workers of America - the largest union representing installers and maintainers of telecommunications infrastructure.
- National Black Chamber of Commerce and LULAC.
- Cato Institute
- FreedomWorks Foundation
- National Black Chamber of Commerce
- Progress and Freedom Foundation
- the Ludwig von Mises Institute
- National Association of Manufacturers.
- Cisco and 3M believe neutrality regulations are premature and/or counter-productive
- Leading Internet experts opposing net neutrality:
- Robert Pepper -- Robert Pepper is senior managing director, global advanced technology policy, at Cisco Systems, and is the former FCC chief of policy development.
- Bob Kahn.
- Dave Farber, Michael Katz, Chris Yoo, and Gerald Faulhaber.
|
See also
External links and resources
|
]
]
]
]
