Your case analysis corresponds to Chapter 2 and is found on page 58 of your textbook. “The Battle for Net Neutrality” is an interesting topic and has gone through significant change since the textbook’s publishing (e.g. the FCC’s vote to repeal net neutrality in 2017, Save the Internet Bill that passed in the House, the recent DC Court of Appeals decision). Please do take into account current events. This topic is especially timely with the recent federal appeals court decision backing the FCC but allowing states to create their own open Internet rules. Mozilla and others then appealed the decision; however, in February 2020 the court refused to hear the appeal. And just recently it was discovered that US broadband companies “spent $4.2 million to generate and submit more than 8.5 million fake comments to the FCC ‘to create the appearance of widespread grassroots opposition to existing net neutrality rules.'” I highly recommend that (at a minimum) you read the articles I have linked to get a better understanding on where the issue of net neutrality stands today, and thereby more thoroughly conduct your case analysis. In order to gain full marks, please include current events in your case discussion and do not be limited to simply answering the case questions from the textbook description of net neutrality.
You are required to read the assigned case from the textbook and research further. Find at least 2 articles relevant to the case that would support your analysis/arguments. Meet with your team online and/or in person to discuss the case and finalize your answers to the questions.
Team structures the answers and supports arguments based on:
Facts from the case
Facts from the chapter
Facts from credible external sources (e.g. Doherty Library sources, credible professional sources)
Team writes the answers. The writing is required to be clear and professional without grammatical errors/typos. Usually for each question about 1 medium/long paragraph (single-spaced) plus bullet points -where appropriate- should be sufficient. Sources used to support arguments need to be cited in the writing, providing appropriate references.
The points highlighted in each answer should be clear and concrete. Please avoid providing general comments.
The case from chapter 2 page 58 below:
Case Study #2
The Battle for Net Neutrality
Debates over how government should regulate the Internet’s evolution heat up whenever anyone mentions “net neutrality.” Here are the two sides of the debate:
The Case for Net Neutrality
This side argues that carriers selling Internet access—Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast, for instance—should not discriminate for or against different content providers or applications. All traffic should be routed neutrally, and the carriers should not make special deals to favor some content by giving it more bandwidth so movies will play more smoothly and web pages load faster. Companies that provide content over the Internet, such as Amazon, eBay, Google, Lending Tree, Skype, PayPal, and Netflix, typically support net neutrality, along with nonprofits that advocate for openness, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, American Library Association, and Educause.
The Case Against Net Neutrality
On the other side of the debate are the carriers—AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others. They argue that incentives are needed to encourage their investment in the network infrastructure and that their networks have to be managed to provide the best service at reasonable costs. Video downloads, in particular, hog bandwidth to the detriment of other users who just want to read the news or send email. In fact, this issue gained considerable steam when Comcast began throttling download speeds for subscribers who used BitTorrent, software widely used to download movies. Comcast’s move, while helpful to most customers, was a violation of net neutrality.
Even though adherence to the net neutrality principle was voluntary, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reprimanded Comcast for what it considered an outrageous violation. Comcast sued, and the courts decided the FCC didn’t actually have jurisdiction to reprimand anyone because the commission has no authority over broadband communications.
The FCC went on to establish rules supporting net neutrality anyway. In 2015, the FCC reclassified broadband services from a lightly regulated information service to a more heavily regulated telecom service. To no one’s surprise, the carriers objected to the FCC’s rules, and lawsuits are under way, arguing that the FCC went way beyond its authority. Verizon also claimed that the rules violated the company’s freedom of speech by taking away its control over its own property—its networks. Whether network traffic is “speech” is an interesting question, of course.
Another wrinkle in this debate involves Facebook’s “Free Basics” service, which the company launched in India to provide mobile access to Facebook and a few other websites that wouldn’t count toward the customer’s data plan. Critics argued that the service is a kind of “walled garden” that violates net neutrality by giving unfair advantage to the sites Facebook includes. India’s regulators agreed with the critics and blocked the service.
All businesses that have an online presence have a lot at stake in this debate, and so do consumers. If the carriers can make deals with some companies so that their pages load faster, big, cash-rich companies might have another edge over small businesses. Or if your carrier favors traffic coming from Amazon Instant Video over Netflix, you might drop your Netflix subscription. On the other hand, your own web browsing would be slower if neighbors who share your cable connection are downloading movies 24 hours a day and the cable company can’t throttle them down.
The outcome of the many lawsuits will affect the Internet’s future and the way governments treat the net’s development.
Discussion Questions
.
2-25.What are the strategic interests of carriers? What are the strategic interests of websites?
.
.
2-26.How do the interests of carriers differ from the interests of websites? What are the implications for websites from a value chain perspective?
.
.
2-27.What is the basis for Verizon’s lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission? Why did it claim a violation of free speech?
.
.
2-28.What are relevant considerations on the role government could play to resolve differences between carriers and websites?
.
Sources: Downes, L. (January 24, 2013). The strange resurrection of net neutrality. C|Net, http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57565561-38/the-strange-resurrection-of-net-neutrality/, accessed May 30, 2016.
Greenstein, S., Peitz, M., & Valletti, T. (2016). Net neutrality: A fast lane to understanding the trade-offs. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(2), 127–150. http://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.2.127
Hempel, J. (February 8, 2016). India bans Facebook’s basics app to support net neutrality. Wired, http://www.wired.com/2016/02/facebooks-free-basics-app-is-now-banned-in-india/, accessed February 9, 2016.
LaFrance, A. (2016). Not another net-neutrality story. The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/net-neutrality-is-interesting-no-really/461943/, accessed August 9, 2016.
Pil Choi, J., & Byung-Cheol, K. (2010). Net neutrality and investment incentives. RAND Journal of Economics, 41(3), 446–471.
