Network Neutrality: The Origins, Politics and Implications of New Rules for an Open Internet

582 views

Published on

Presentation for participants in MSU’s Institute of Public Utilities (IPU) Annual Regulatory Studies Program Camp NARUC, East Lansing, Michigan, 18 August 2015.

Published in: Internet
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
582
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
115
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Computer Inquiries: telecommunications services regulated as common carrier

    Cable was not

    2005 order, created equivalncy between DSL and Cable Modem (belief in Market)

    2015 NN: Title II regulation
  • Computer Inquiries: telecommunications services regulated as common carrier

    Cable was not

    2005 order, created equivalncy between DSL and Cable Modem (belief in Market)

    2015 NN: Title II regulation
  • Issue of Obama driving the decision – independence of the FCC
  • Google Trends© (https://www.google.com/trends/) analyzes a percentage of Google web searches to determine how many search queries for a term(s) are entered compared to the total number of Google searches during a given period of time.

    The Trends data are normalized to enable comparison of search queries. In this sense, normalized means that sets of search data are divided by the total number of search queries to partial or cancel out the effect of the variable in the data. Thus, numeric values reflect the number of search queries conducted for a given time period relative to the total number of Google search queries over time.

    The numeric values do not represent the absolute search volume and are presented on a scale from 0-100. Each point on a graph is divided by the highest point and multiplied by 100. A value of zero (0) indicates that there are no search queries.

  • Notice that the search trend for Open Internet is approximately 25 – 30% of all Google search terms in early 2004. However, the search trend line declines in 2005 and then remains relatively flat from 2011 to May 2015.
  • Examining the normalized search frequency for the phrase “net neutrality” via Google in the United States over the period of 2004 to March 2015.

    The highest normalized search frequency occurs in Washington DC with a value of 100.
  • However, the normalized search frequency for the phrase “digital divide” via Google in the United States over the same period is slightly different. The two states with the highest search frequency are Maryland (value of 100) and the Washington DC (value of 86). Rounding out the top 5 states includes Kansas with a value of 76, North Carolina at 73, and Ohio at 73.
  • The normalized search frequency for the phrase “open internet” via Google over the period of 2004 to March 2015 appears to occur very frequently across the United States.

    The search frequency in Wyoming is 1 and in Vermont the normalized search frequency is 50. However…… ((next slide))
  • When you search for a term in Trends, you’ll see searches related to your term in the "Related searches" section at the bottom of the page.

    Top searches are terms that are most frequently searched with the term you entered in the same search session, within the chosen category, country, or region. If you didn't enter a search term, top searches overall are shown.
  • Network Neutrality: The Origins, Politics and Implications of New Rules for an Open Internet

    1. 1. Network Neutrality: Origins, Politics and Implications of New Rules for an Open Internet William H. Dutton with R.V. Rikard Quello Professor of Media and Information Policy Quello Center, Michigan State University Follow @QuelloCenter Presentation for participants in MSU’s Institute of Public Utilities (IPU) Annual Regulatory Studies Program Camp NARUC, East Lansing, Michigan, 18 August 2015.
    2. 2. The James and Mary Quello Center • Established in 1998 in honor of FCC Commissioner James H. Quello • Seeks to seeks to stimulate and inform debate on media, communication and information policy for our digital age • Follow the Quello Center online at: • http://quello.msu.edu • Twitter @QuelloCenter
    3. 3. Outline of Session: • Network Neutrality • The Origins and Context of New Rules • Selected Issues and Conflicts • The Politics of Net Neutrality • Implications of Net Neutrality • Broader Implications of a Shift toward National Policy and Regulation
    4. 4. Defining Net Neutrality: SNL’s Panel
    5. 5. Network Neutrality is: “Boring” John Oliver, but truly complex Open Internet? Battle for the ‘Last Mile’? Public Utility, available to all? Internet’s First Amendment?
    6. 6. John Oliver: ‘All data must be treated equal.’ 1 Jun 2014
    7. 7. John Oliver: proposing a better label for Net Neutrality, 1 Jun 2014
    8. 8. FCC’s Rules for Open Internet, Net Neutrality: No blocking (of lawful content) No throttling No paid prioritization, access tiering, ‘fast lanes’ No unreasonable interference Transparency
    9. 9. Multiple Relations to be Governed Content Providers •Back-end •Interconnections •Peering Broadband Providers •Throttling •Blocking •Managing Consumers
    10. 10. Origins and Context of Neutrality
    11. 11. The Rise of the Internet Over the Past Decade Many Economic, Social & Democratic Potentials of the Internet and Social Media, such as for a Fifth Estate Apparently Unstoppable Progress of the Internet and related ICTs, such as Social Media - Internet (85% in North America; 26% in Africa)* - Social Media (52% Facebook in North America; 10% in Africa)* - The New Internet World (East Asia & Global South) - Continuing Innovations: Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr, WhatsApp, WeChat, Pinterest, Instagram, Google+, Snapchat, Periscope, Beme, … - More innovations: Mobile Internet, iWatch, the first Selfie Election in US, Mobile Payments, … *Source: http://www.internetworldstats.com/america.htm [24 July 2015]
    12. 12. Cord-Cutting Shift to Internet and Mobile
    13. 13. Vision of Open Internet with all Services Sharing the Same Lane to the HH http://www.theopeninter.net
    14. 14. Vision of Services on Fast and Slow Lanes to the HH http://www.theope ninter.net
    15. 15. Fears Around the Last Mile: Few Large Players • A Key Bottleneck • Concentrated Industry • Lack of Competition • 82% US HHs one provider Incentives to Favor • Bundled Cable Services • Ownership of Content • On Demand, Pay TV Business Model Light Regulatory Regime • Reliance on Market • Referee Lacks Authority
    16. 16. Is Oliver’s Logic Problematic? All ‘data’ must be treated equally? or Unit of data would be the byte, so should all ‘bits’ be treated equally? A return to historical inequalities across services?
    17. 17. Inequalities of the Analog Era Consumers have paid the most for narrowband telecommunications services, a telephone call Consumers have paid the least for broadband, high-bandwidth services, such as TV, as in free, advertiser supported TV If all bits treated equally, consumers should pay more for video, i.e., higher bitrates?
    18. 18. Historical Uses of Differential Services Toll Roads: finance construction Tiered Services of Rail, Airlines Diamond Lanes on Freeways
    19. 19. European Network Neutrality US No Fast Lane EU Two Tiers
    20. 20. Shifting FCC on Access to Last Mile 1980: Computer II Inquiries • Telecom Regulated – basic transmission • Cable Unregulated 2005: Wireline Broadband Order • DSL Telecom Access Requirements Unregulated • Cable Modems Remain Unregulated 2015: Network Neutrality • DSL access regulated • Cable Modem access regulated
    21. 21. FCC on Access to Last-Mile Market Regulation
    22. 22. FCC on Access to Last-Mile ‘Inappropriate Utility-Style Regulation’ ‘Bold Action to Protect Open Internet’ Waters, R. ‘Internet Groups in Tricky Position over US Net Neutrality’, Financial Times, 12 February.
    23. 23. Alternative Paths to Competition* • ISPs and Cable/Telco • Content and Cable/Telco Structural Regulation (vertical integration) • mandatory standardization of TCP/IP • mandatory interconnection • competition focused on price and scale Network Neutrality: • proprietary protocols • exclusivity agreements with providers Network Diversity: *Yoo (2005): 9.
    24. 24. The Politics of Network Neutrality The Redneck Review Blog
    25. 25. Legal-Institutional Politics of Net Neutrality Independence of FCC (Non)Partisan Communication and Internet Policy Industry and Lobbyist Access Separation of Powers
    26. 26. Telecom Industry Cable Industry Big Network Operators Internet Industry Content Providers Advocacy Groups Digital Activists Proponents and Opponents of Network Neutrality
    27. 27. Republicans Democrats Proponents and Opponents of Network Neutrality
    28. 28. Politics of Net Neutrality Neutral, Rational-Legal Analysis? Power of Grassroots (Internet Users)? Partisan Politics (“power grab”)? Rising Power of Internet Industry, Silicon Valley? Tech Populism?
    29. 29. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SearchFrequency Google Search Queries for “Net Neutrality” (2004 – May 2015)
    30. 30. 1/18/2014 5/17/2014 9/13/2014 11/15/2014 2/28/2015 4/18/2015 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SearchFrequency Google Search Queries for “Net Neutrality” (June 2013 – May 2015)
    31. 31. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SearchFrequency Net Neutrality Digitial DivideGoogle Search Queries for “Net Neutrality” “Digital Divide” & “Open Internet” (2004 – May 2015)
    32. 32. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SearchFrequency Net Neutrality Digitial Divide Google Search Queries for “Net Neutrality” “Digital Divide” & “Open Internet” (June 2013 - May 2015)
    33. 33. Normalized Google Search Frequency for Net Neutrality in the United States (2004 – March 2015)
    34. 34. Normalized Google Search Frequency for Net Neutrality by U.S. City (2004 – March 2015) Washington DC 100 San Jose, CA 63 Portland, OR 55 New York, NY 54 Austin, TX 53 Philadelphia, PA 53 Pittsburgh, PA 52 San Diego, CA 47 San Francisco, CA 47 Alexandria, VA 46 Seattle, WA 45 Boston, MA 42 Los Angeles, CA 41 Louisville, KY 41
    35. 35. Normalized Google Search Frequency for Digital Divide in the United States (2004 – March 2015)
    36. 36. Normalized Google Search Frequency for Open Internet in the United States (2004 – March 2015)
    37. 37. Top Google Search Terms Related to “Open Internet” (2004 – March 2015) open internet explorer 100 internet explorer 100 open the internet 40 windows internet explorer 20 internet wont open 10 internet explorer 7 10 open ports 5 microsoft internet explorer 5 open dns 5 internet explorer 11 0 open range internet 0 wide open west 0 open vpn 0 internet explorer problems 0
    38. 38. Implications: Careful What you Wish For? • Incentives to invest in alternative networks • Value of media stocks • Advertising revenue for cable and TV Market Concentration? Increase/Decrease: • Consumer Choice • Quality and Speed of Services • Competition Last Mile Services? More or Less: • Take-up by other nations • Clash with Britain’s focus on blocking pornography, child protection Other Implications:
    39. 39. Unintended Impacts (J.J. Nadler 2015): Regulation of Prices, Terms and Conditions Universal Service Interconnection State Regulation International
    40. 40. Moral Panics: Social Media & the Internet
    41. 41. Global Trends Driving Regulation Internet & Social Media Regulation Significance of the Net Digital Divides Trust Bubble + Snowden Moral Panics? (Social Media) ‘Left Out’ of Policy National Policy & Regulation
    42. 42. Broader Implications? Clarion Call for Politicians to ‘Do Something’ Blind Regulators and the Internet (Indian Parable) Lack of an Appropriate Regulatory Model Image from: http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25i1.gif
    43. 43. Appropriate Regulatory Models? (Proportionate to Offense) Speech? Press? Post? Data Custodian? Telephony, Common Carrier? Cable? Broadcasting?
    44. 44. Governing a Global Ecology of Choices National Governmental Policy & Regulation Industry, ISP, SNS Policy & Regulation User Self- Regulation (Learning & Education) Bilateral & Multilateral Treaties, Inst. Tech Populism Multistakeholder, Multilateral Global Internet Governance
    45. 45. The Coming Decade Last Decade’s Narrative: Technical Innovations The Next Decade’s Narrative: Policy, Regulation & Governance Risk: Undermining the Vitality of the Internet and Social Media, and their Democratic and Societal Potential
    46. 46. What Can be Done? Analytical, Empirical, Policy Research Develop More Appropriate Regulatory Model(s) Education of Users & Regulators
    47. 47. Summary & Conclusion • Great Complexity and Uncertainty • Historical Shifts of Positions • Host of Issues • Underplayed Role of Tech Populism • Uncertain Outcomes • Need for Research, Challenge Conventional Assumptions
    48. 48. Network Neutrality: Origins, Politics and Implications of New Rules for an Open Internet William H. Dutton with R.V. Rikard Quello Professor of Media and Information Policy Quello Center, Michigan State University Follow @QuelloCenter Presentation for participants in MSU’s Institute of Public Utilities (IPU) Annual Regulatory Studies Program Camp NARUC, East Lansing, Michigan, 18 August 2015.

    ×