Rafael Moreira Engl 398E: Professional Writing: Writing about Economics Prof: Susan Keleher University of Maryland – College

Park

THE CASE FOR IMPOSING A NETWORK NEUTRALITY LAW

By Rafael Moreira November 2007 1

INTRODUCTION
Network neutrality (or net neutrality) is a principle that all content, websites, and platforms should be treated equally independent of users’ internet service provider (ISP) plans. For example, users should have access to a news website at the same speed as they have to a movie online without their ISP determining which one is more important and which one should be prioritized. There is currently no national law in the United States enforcing net neutrality, although it is fairly accepted that the Internet has been neutral since its conception,1 despite threats in the last years, such as Comcast blocking or slowing down certain applications,2 and AT&T threatening to terminate the contract of users who criticize the company.3

The network neutrality debate has happened before with other kinds of networks, such as telegraph and telephone, and it seems that neutrality has always been the best way.4 Because the broadband provider market is not so competitive, companies might have the incentive to favor some applications over others, like some of them have already started doing. ISPs claim that they need to discriminate so they have incentive to increase bandwidth, but studies have shown that they would actually have less incentive to do that in a non-neutral internet.5 One of the reasons net neutrality should be enforced is that its implementation could encourage competition in the internet applications and websites market, which ultimate leads to growth of the overall economy. 6 The debate has been heating up in the past couple years, and, although no national law has been passed on the subject yet, Congress has been discussing it, and some presidential candidates have given support to the cause.7 8

More importantly, network neutrality should be enforced because it represents important American values such as free market, consumer choice, and technological innovation. 9

2

BACKGROUND
quality for the person listening. The case then The debate on network neutrality is older than it appears to be. A similar discussion happened, for example, in the 1860s. At that time, Western Union, the national telegraph monopolist, signed a deal with the Associated Press (AP) that did not block other wire networks, but discriminated against them. Since Western Union had exclusive contracts with railroads, and the AP with newspapers, the deal ended up being a threat to American democracy. With such an influence in the American news, the AP had the power to manipulate politics, and, according to The Carterfone decision is still highly important in today’s network neutrality went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that AT&T’s prohibition was not fair, thus
11

exonerating Hush-a-Phone.

In the following

decade, the Supreme Court ruled that the Carterfone, a radio system that used AT&T’s telephone network without harming it, could operate and continue using the monopolist’s network. These two rulings set the ground for what is fair in networks, and led to innovations such as fax machines, answering machines, and modems -- which would later lead to dial-up internet.12

historian Menahem Blondheim, the Associated Press censored, in the 19th century, messages from politicians they did not favor, in behalf of the State.10

debate. Earlier this year, Skype, a VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) program, filed a petition with the FCC to ensure consumers’

In the 1950s, AT&T, when it was the country’s telephony monopolist, tried to prohibit Husha-Phone from selling a product that, when attached to AT&T telephones, reduced the risk of being overheard and increased sound

right to run the software, or any other applications or non-harmful devices on their mobile phones. The company argues that its case is similar to Carterfone’s, and that if confirmed by the FCC, the petition would lead

3

to price competition and innovation.13 And the same way telephone companies cannot

ranging from $50 to $100, one can conclude that it is very difficult to start a new ISP business.14

determine whom the users can and cannot call or what they can do, electricity companies cannot and do not discriminate against brand or appliance, nor determine what a user can or cannot do with electricity. A Sony and an LG TV set should work equally fine when a user plugs it to an electrical outlet.

According to the FCC, only about 53 percent of Americans can choose between cable and DSL service. And, of the 47 percent left, 28 percent have only one choice and 19 percent no choice at all.15 To make things worse, as of 2004, cable and telephone companies had 98.7

COMPETITIVENESS OF BROADBAND MARKET

THE

percent of the broadband market, leaving a little more than 1 percent left for alternative broadband networks, such as wireless, and satellite.16 If this scenario is not shocking enough, it should be noted that the share of alternative networks has been shrinking: in 1999, they accounted for 2.9 percent of the broadband market.17 These numbers show that the average American will face either a monopoly or a duopoly when trying to choose her or his ISP.

One of the reasons why the network neutrality debate has surfaced is that there is little to almost no competition in the ISP market in the United States, so the companies might have an incentive to discriminate. One of the reasons for this weak competition is the entry barriers to the market. The greatest one of those barriers is probably the heavy sunk costs involved in starting a new network. For instance, Verizon has costs of around $2,500 per customer for its new fiber optic internet service, FIOS; considering that each

In a perfectly competitive market, customers would be able to easily switch their broadband provider if they had the desire to, and ISPs

subscriber will probably pay some value

4

would probably not discriminate or favor any application or website, since if they did, their subscribers would have an incentive to migrate to a competitor that gave them a more open internet experience. A good example of how competition is better for society is the case of Japan, where the broadband market is extremely competitive. As a result of

providers would be able to charge customers according to their individual bandwidth use. But their argument is flawed.

First, users who use more bandwidth (e.g., online gamers) are probably already paying more than consumers who do not use much (e.g., people who use the web just for e-mail, news websites, etc.), since they probably pay for different overall access speeds that suit best for they needs. This kind of price discrimination is neutral, considering that it is not based on content – i.e., two users paying for the same speed, even if one is an online gamer and the other a casual online news reader, will face the same speed doing their usual activities, even though one activity is “heavier” than another. Second, investing in local networks in a neutral environment is rewarding: for example, providers that own

competition, besides having a neutral web, Japanese consumers have had the option of downloads at the astonishing speed of 100 Mbps since 2004 at prices significantly lower than the ones for much slower connections in the United States.18 To illustrate the difference between the two countries, in Prince George’s County, Md, Comcast’s maximum offered download speed is 8 Mbps,19 less than 10% of what Japanese customers could have 3 years ago.

NETWORK NEUTRALITY BANDWIDTH EXPANSION

AND

the “pipes” can offer services such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), which lets someone access a private network from outside of it. Companies that did not invest in the infrastructure cannot offer that, and this kind

ISPs and anti-net neutrality groups argue that a non-neutral web is needed to achieve muchneeded rapid bandwidth expansion, since

5

of advantage gives an incentive to expand bandwidth and does not hurt neutrality principles.20 Finally, a study conducted by Cheng, Bandyopadhyay, and Guo (CBG) that applied game theory into the network

Whitacre, at the time CEO of internet service provider SBC (which later bought AT&T), said in 2005 that letting content providers such as Google and Yahoo! use the company’s pipes for free was “nuts”.22 In the same year, William L. Smith, the chief technology officer for DSL ISP BellSouth (later acquired by AT&T) said that a search engine like Yahoo!, for example, should be allowed to pay an ISP to have its website loaded faster than Google’s.23 Verizon’s chief executive Ivan Seidenberg also declared that the company had intention to reach for priority deals with content providers, stating that the company has “to make sure [content providers] don’t sit on [Verizon’s] network and chew up [its] capacity.”24

neutrality issue showed that ISPs have actually more incentive to expand bandwidth under a neutral internet. Their argument is that sunk costs involved with expanding

bandwidth are the same in a neutral and in a non-neutral web, but long-run net cash flow is higher under a neutral environment. They claim that there is greater marginal revenue involved in expanding bandwidth in a neutral internet than in a non-neutral one; thus, ISPs have more incentive to increase bandwidth in the first situation than in the latter.21

THREATS TO NEUTRALITY

NETWORK

But the threats are not limited to words; ISPs have been taking action to make the internet less neutral. Tim Wu conducted a survey in 2002 that showed that broadband providers, in general, restrict consumer usage of the internet. He concluded that ISPs were usually giving priority to applications of the late

The network neutrality debate is extremely urgent, considering that network neutrality has been threatened by the ISPs in the last years. Showing how ISPs might behave in a world without net neutrality enforced, Edward

6

1990s and discriminating against newer ones. Wu found that 100% of the surveyed cable and 33% of the DSL ISPs restricted operating as a server and/or providing content to the public, for instance. 25

2007, the Associated Press ran nationwide tests that proved that Comcast has been slowing down and sometimes even blocking Peer-to-Peer (P2P) services such as

Bittorrent,28 which, according to a German survey, account for between 50 to 90 percent

Furthermore, ISPs have also been blocking or restricting online applications that might compete with their (the ISPs’) own services. In 2004, Madison River Communications, a North Carolina DSL provider, blocked

of overall internet traffic, even though it is used by a small number of users.29 Because of this data discrimination, Comcast is being sued by Vuze, a company that legally sells videos through Bittorrent,30 and consumer groups have asked the FCC to intervene and fine Comcast $195,000 per customer affected by the company’s P2P policy.31

consumers’ access to other companies’ VoIP services. After FCC intervened, service was restored, and Madison River had to pay a fine of $15,000.26 In a similar case, Canadian cable internet provider Shaw Communications Inc., which also provides telephone services, started in 2006 charging costumers a monthly 10dollar fee to “improve the quality and reliability of [other companies’] internet telephony services,” such as Vonage or Skype.27

Broadband providers have also been engaging in actions that go against freedom of speech. In 2005, Telus, Canada’s second largest telecommunication company, blocked its

subscribers’ access to a website that supported the country’s Telecommunications Workers Union, which was in a labor dispute with the company.32 In another case, AOL was accused

Another kind of threat to network neutrality is related to bandwidth usage. In October of

in 2006 of blocking emails going to or from @aol.com addresses that contained the URL

7

“dearaol.com” in them.33 The website was an advocacy campaign against the company’s scheme to make people pay to send emails to more than a certain number of people. An AOL spokesman said, at the time, that the blocking was only a “software glitch” that “affected dozens of Web links in messages.” 34 In a more recent case, AT&T put in its Terms of Service that it could suspend a user’s account “for conduct that AT&T believes … to damage the name or reputation of AT&T.”35 After some protest, the company apologized and removed the clause from its Terms and Services, saying that they would not suspend anyone for criticizing the company.36

electrical company, Larry Page and Sergey Brin did not have to pay ISPs for priority when they invented Google. And Google is not the only example; the internet boom occurred in a neutral environment. In a neutral web, the most creative and appealing

businesses win, not necessarily the ones that started with the most capital. It is almost an ideal competitive market, considered that there is little to no entry barriers – one just needs an internet connection to start a website or create an application. Success is mostly determined is the basis of merit.37 In a neutral

environment, the customers (i.e., the market), not the broadband providers, decide what is best for them and which services will survive.

COMPETITIVENESS BETWEEN INTERNET APPLICATIONS
Net neutrality is important to incentive competitiveness between applications and websites. Since the beginning, the internet has been neutral, which has given the opportunity for people to start businesses with minimal sunk costs. Just like the inventors of television did not have to pay for priority with the

ISPs will “suffer from cognitive biases (such as predisposition to continue with current ways of doing business) that make it unlikely to come to the right decisions,” even if they are well-intentioned.38

Customers Have the Right to Choose

8

on the internet and to know what they are Besides the market innovation issue, there is the question of if it is fair to limit internet usage. Customers, not the ISPs, should be able to choose what they want to do with their internet. When they pay for internet, they are paying for the whole internet experience; if at one time they want to just read the news online and at another time buy movies online, they should have the freedom to do so without having to ask their ISP for permission. Like Siva Vaidhyanathan, respected media scholar, said, “we [the customers] want to be able to know that we are getting decent service for what we're paying. If my broadband company next week starts dialing down my Skype speed so Skype doesn't work as well for me, I might not even know it or notice it for a long time, until Skype starts frustrating me, and out of frustration, I'm just going to pick up my old phone and dial India the old-fashioned way and just pay for it because I know the call's going to go through.”39 Network neutrality should be implemented in order to guarantee the customers the right to do what they want Since 2006, the Congress has promoted hearings on the subject, and seven proposed paying for.

NETWORK NEUTRALITY AND THE LAW
In the past two years, there has been a huge debate on how the government should deal (or not deal) with network neutrality. In 2005, the FCC announced four principles that should be followed by broadband providers, stating that “(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network

providers, application and service providers, and content providers.”40 These principles, although not laws, imply that the web should be neutral.

9

bills addressed the issue, but none of them has been approved41. The most significant of them were the Communications Opportunity,

presidential candidate frontrunners Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Republican candidate Mike Huckabee support network neutrality.45
46

Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006, which was killed by the end of the 109th Congress, and which, according to some net neutrality advocates, could result in a nonneutral internet42; the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006, which was also killed by the end of the 109th Congress, and which network neutrality supporters approved43; and the Internet Freedom

Furthermore, Maine

passed a bill this November enforcing network neutrality in the State.47 Although the net neutrality debate is still relatively unknown by the majority of the American public,48 awareness seems to be growing, which is crucial, since the enforcement or the nonenforcement of network neutrality can deeply change the internet, and even the world outside it, considering the impact that the internet has in today’s world.

Preservation Act, which has not been voted yet, but is also intended to enforce network neutrality.44 Besides these bills, Democratic

CONCLUSION

10

Network neutrality is when every piece of information is treated in the same way, no matter the content. The same way every telephone call will be treated by the telephone company equally, on a neutral web, every application or website is treated equally. There is still no national law enforcing network neutrality, but the internet has been more neutral than not, since its conception, despite some recent threats to this nature.

The net neutrality debate is similar to the one that occurred in the 19 th and in the 20th century about the telegram and telephone networks. When there is little network competition, like what is happening in the American ISP market, providers might want to discriminate against certain applications. Broadband providers claim that they would not have an incentive to expand bandwidth in a neutral environment, but some studies actually show the opposite. Moreover, net neutrality sprouts competition and innovation between internet applications, which can lead to economic growth. However, even though there are various threats to net neutrality, there are also many reasons to be hopeful. For instance, some presidential candidates want to enforce a neutral web; also, the topic has been discussed frequently in the last years by the Congress, as it should be. We cannot let some important American values such as free market, consumer choice, and technological innovation, disappear in such a fertile ground as the Internet, if we do not want it to lose its creativity and fertility.

ENDNOTES

11

1

Cerf, Vinton. “Prepared Statement of Vinton G. Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google Inc.” U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing on “Network Neutrality.” 7 Feb. 2006 1. 19 Nov 2007. <http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf>. 2 Svensson, Peter. "Vonage protests special fees on VoIP telephones." The Associated Press 19 Oct 2007. 19 Nov 2007 <http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HFnn3zt52SgJ:ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxRiQSVfgK4sLbVRE_X4MOlM9 q0AD8SCASPG0+http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxRiQSVfgK4sLbVRE_X4MOlM9q0AD8SCASPG0&hl=en&ct= clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a> (URL cached by Google from the AP website, since the original URL seems to be offline). 3 CowboyNeal, " AT&T Silences Criticism in New Terms of Service." Slashdot 29 Sep 2007 18 Nov 2007 <http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/29/104252&tid=153>. 4 Wu, Tim. "Hearing on 'Network Neutrality: Competition, Innovation, and Nondiscriminatory Access." House Committee on the Judiciary Telecom & Antitrust Task Force 24 April 2006 3. 19 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=903118>. 5 Cheng, Hsing K., Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay & Hong Guo. "The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective." 20 May 2007 29-31. 18 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=959944>. 6 Cerf, Vinton. “Prepared Statement of Vinton G. Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google Inc.” U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing on “Network Neutrality.” 7 Feb. 2006. 19 Nov 2007. <http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf>. 7 "Edwards, Huckabee Support an Open Internet, McCain Waffles." Save the Internet Blog 30 May 2007 19 Nov 2007 <http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/05/30/edwards-huckabee-support-an-open-internet-mccain-waffles/>. 8 Mark, Roy. "Obama Promises Net Neutrality." eWeek 30 Oct 2007 19 Nov 2007 <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2209630,00.asp>. 9 Cerf, Vinton. “Prepared Statement of Vinton G. Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google Inc.” U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing on “Network Neutrality.” 7 Feb. 2006 1. 19 Nov 2007. <http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf>. 10 Wu, Tim. "Hearing on 'Network Neutrality: Competition, Innovation, and Nondiscriminatory Access." House Committee on the Judiciary Telecom & Antitrust Task Force 24 April 2006 2-3. 19 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=903118>. 11 "Hush-a-Phone v. FCC." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 17 Nov 2007, 20:52 UTC. 19 Nov 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hush-a-Phone_v._FCC&oldid=172146608>. 12 "Carterfone." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2 Nov 2007, 20:26 UTC. 19 Nov 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carterfone&oldid=168801099>. 13 Wolff, Phil. "Official statements by eBay and Skype." Skype Journal. 31 July 2007. Skype. 17 Nov 2007 <http://skypejournal.com/blog/2007/07/official_statements_by_ebay_an.html>. 14 Wu, Tim, Christopher S. Yoo. "Keeping the Internet Neutral?: Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo Debate." Federal Communications Law Journal Vol. 59, No. 32007 11-12. 19 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=953989>. 15 Cerf, Vinton. “Prepared Statement of Vinton G. Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google Inc.” U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing on “Network Neutrality.” 7 Feb. 2006. 19 Nov 2007. <http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf>. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Cheng, Hsing K., Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay & Hong Guo. "The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective." 20 May 2007 30. 18 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=959944>. 19 "See Prices & Choose Packages." Comcast. Comcast. 18 Nov 2007 <http://www.comcast.com/Shop/Buyflow/Default.ashx>. 20 Wu, Tim. "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination." 24 April 2005 174. 18 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=903118>. 21 Cheng, Hsing K., Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay & Hong Guo. "The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective." 20 May 2007 29-31. 18 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=959944>. 22 O’Connell, Patricia. "At SBC, It's All About ‘Scale and Scope’ ." Business Week 07 Nov 2005 18 Nov 2007 <http://www.businessweek.com/@@n34h*IUQu7KtOwgA/magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm>. 23 Krim, Jonathan. "Executive Wants to Charge for Web Speed." Washington Post 01 Dec 2005 18 Nov 2007 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002109_pf.html>. 24 Searcy, Dionne & Amy Schatz. "Phone Companies Set Off a Battle over Internet Fees." Wall Street Journal 06 Jan 2006 18 Nov 2007 <http://www.freepress.net/news/13218>. 25 Wu, Tim. "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination." 24 April 2005 158-161. 19 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=903118>. 26 Federal Communications Commission. “In the Matter of Madison River Communications, LLC and affiliated companies.” Federal Communications Commission 2005 18 Nov 2007 <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-543A2.pdf>.

27

Granelli, James S.. "Phone, Cable May Charge to Race Along the Internet." Los Angeles Times 09 Apr 2006 18 Nov 2007 <http://www.freepress.net/news/14860>. 28 Svensson, Peter. "Vonage protests special fees on VoIP telephones." The Associated Press 19 Oct 2007 18 Nov 2007 <http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HFnn3zt52SgJ:ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxRiQSVfgK4sLbVRE_X4MOlM9 q0AD8SCASPG0+http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxRiQSVfgK4sLbVRE_X4MOlM9q0AD8SCASPG0&hl=en&ct= clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a>. 29 Ibid. 30 Gross, Grant. "Video distributor wants FCC to stop ISP traffic 'throttling'." Washington Post 17 Nov 2007 18 Nov 2007 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111700801.html>. 31 Ammori, Marvin, Parul Desdai, Harold Feld, Andy Schwartzman & Ben Scott. "Formal Complaint of Free Press and Public Knowledge Against Comcast Corporation For Secretly Degrading Peer-to-Peer Applications." Free Press 01 Nov 2007 18 Nov 2007 <http://www.freepress.net/docs/fp_pk_comcast_complaint.pdf>. 32 Geist, Michael. "Telecommunications Policy Review." Telecommunications Policy Review Panel Aug 2005 5. 18 Nov 2007 <http://www.telecomreview.ca/epic/internet/intprp-gecrt.nsf/vwapj/Geist_Michael.pdf/$FILE/Geist_Michael.pdf>. 33 Olsen, Stefanie. "AOL charged with blocking opponents' e-mail." CNet News.com 13 Apr 2006 18 Nov 2007 <http://www.news.com/AOL-charged-with-blocking-opponents-e-mail/2100-1030_3-6061089.html>. 34 Ibid. 35 CowboyNeal, " AT&T Silences Criticism in New Terms of Service." Slashdot 29 Sep 2007 18 Nov 2007 <http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/29/104252&tid=153>. 36 McNamara , Paul. "AT&T issues 'censorship' mea culpa." Network World 10 Oct 2007 18 Nov 2007 <http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/20460>. 37 Wu, Tim. "Hearing on 'Network Neutrality: Competition, Innovation, and Nondiscriminatory Access." House Committee on the Judiciary Telecom & Antitrust Task Force 24 April 2006 4. 19 Nov 2007 38 Lessig, Lawrence & Tim Wu. "Re: Ex Parte Submission in CS Docket No. 02-52." TimWu.org 22 Aug 2003 5. 19 Nov 2007 <http://www.timwu.org/wu_lessig_fcc.pdf>. 39 Vaidhyanathan, Siva. "Siva on NPR's 'On The Media' on Net Neutrality." Sivacracy.net 12 May 2006 19 Nov 2007 <http://www.sivacracy.net/archives/003114.html>. 40 "FCC Adopts Policy Statement." FCC News 05 Aug 2005 19 Nov 2007 <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf>. 41 "Network neutrality in the United States." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 1 Oct 2007, 21:15 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 19 Nov 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_the_US#Attempted_legislation>. 42 “Huge Victory for Real People as Telco Bill Dies.” Save the Internet Blog. 8 Dec. 2006. 19 Nov 2007. <http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/08/congress-closes-telco-bill-dies-on-the-vine>. 43 “Bipartisan Victory in the House.” Save the Internet Blog. 25 May 2006. 19 Nov 2007. <http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/05/25/bipartisan-victory-in-the-housebipartisan-majority-supports-internetfreedom-in-the-house/>. 44 The Library of Congress – Thomas. 19 Nov 2007. <http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00215:>. 45 "Edwards, Huckabee Support an Open Internet, McCain Waffles." Save the Internet Blog 30 May 2007 19 Nov 2007 <http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/05/30/edwards-huckabee-support-an-open-internet-mccain-waffles/>. 46 Mark, Roy. "Obama Promises Net Neutrality." eWeek 30 Oct 2007 19 Nov 2007 <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2209630,00.asp>. 47 "Summary of LD 1675." State of Maine Legislature Nov 2007 19 Nov 2007 <http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280024544>. 48 Fisher, Ken. "Poll: Americans don't want net neutrality (or maybe they don't know what it is)." ars technica 18 Sep 2006 19 Nov 2007 <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060918-7772.html>.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times