Net neutrality

Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on
the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application,
type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.
The term was coined by Columbia University media law
professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.[1][2][3][4]

treatment of data and open web standards allow those on

the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business
without interference from a third party.[11] A closed Internet refers to the opposite situation, in which established
persons, corporations or governments favor certain uses.
A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary
web standards, articially degrade some services, or explicitly lter out content.

A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality

principles was the Internet service provider Comcast surreptitiously slowing uploads from peer-to-peer le sharing applications using forged packets.[5] Research suggests that a combination of policy instruments will help
realize the range of valued political and economic objectives central to the network neutrality debate.[6]

1.3 Dumb pipe

1
1.1

Main article: Dumb pipe

The concept of a dumb network made up of dumb pipes
has been around since at least the early 1990s. The idea
of a dumb network is that the endpoints of a network
are generally where the intelligence lies, and that the network itself generally leaves the management and operation of communication to the end users. In 2013 the
software company MetroTech Net, Inc. (MTN) coined
the term Dumb Wave which is the modern application of
the Dumb Pipe concept to the ubiquitous wireless network. If wireless carriers do not provide unique and
value-added services, they will be relegated to the dumb
pipe category where they can't charge a premium or retain
customers.

Denition and related principles

Net neutrality

Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet trafc should be treated equally.[7] According to Columbia
Law School professor Tim Wu, the best way to explain
network neutrality is as when designing a network: that a
public information network will end up being most useful
if all content, sites, and platforms are treated equally.[8]
A more detailed proposed denition of technical and service network neutrality suggests that service network neutrality is the adherence to the paradigm that operation of
a service at a certain layer is not inuenced by any data
other than the data interpreted at that layer, and in accordance with the protocol specication for that layer.[9]

1.2

1.4 End-to-end principle

Main article: End-to-end principle
The end-to-end principle is a principle of network design,
rst laid out explicitly in the 1981 conference paper Endto-end arguments in system design by Jerome H. Saltzer,
David P. Reed, and David D. Clark. The principle states
that, whenever possible, communications protocol operations should be dened to occur at the end-points of a
communications system, or as close as possible to the
resource being controlled. According to the end-to-end
principle, protocol features are only justied in the lower
layers of a system if they are a performance optimization; hence, TCP retransmission for reliability is still justied, but eorts to improve TCP reliability should stop
after peak performance has been reached. They argued
that reliable systems tend to require end-to-end processing to operate correctly, in addition to any processing in
the intermediate system. They pointed out that most features in the lowest level of a communications system have

Open Internet

The idea of an open Internet is the idea that the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it are
easily accessible to all individuals and companies. This
often includes ideas such as net neutrality, open standards, transparency, lack of Internet censorship, and low
barriers to entry. The concept of the open Internet is
sometimes expressed as an expectation of decentralized
technological power, and is seen by some as closely related to open-source software.[10]
Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open Internet, where policies such as equal
1

costs for all higher-layer clients, even if those clients do

not need the features, and are redundant if the clients have
to re-implement the features on an end-to-end basis. This
leads to the model of a minimal dumb network with smart
terminals, a completely dierent model from the previous paradigm of the smart network with dumb terminals.
Because the end-to-end principle is one of the central design principles of the Internet, and because the practical
means for implementing data discrimination violate the
end-to-end principle, the principle often enters discussions about net neutrality. The end-to-end principle is
closely related, and sometimes seen as a direct precursor
to the principle of net neutrality.[12]

1.5

BY ISSUE

Comcast admitted no wrongdoing[18] in its proposed settlement of up to US$16 dollars per share in December
2009.[19] However, a U.S. appeals court ruled in April
2010 that the FCC exceeded its authority when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008 for deliberately preventing some
subscribers from using peer-to-peer le-sharing services
to download large les. However, the FCC spokeswoman
Jen Howard responded, the court in no way disagreed
with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet, nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.[20] In spite of the ruling in favor of Comcast, a study by Measurement Lab in October
2011 veried that Comcast had virtually stopped its BitTorrent throttling practices.[21][22]

Trac shaping

Main article: Trac shaping

2.2 Discrimination by IP address

See also: IP address blocking and Deep packet inspection

Trac shaping is the control of computer network trafc in order to optimize or guarantee performance, improve latency, and/or increase usable bandwidth by delaying packets that meet certain criteria.[13] More specifically, trac shaping is any action on a set of packets (often called a stream or a ow) which imposes additional
delay on those packets such that they conform to some
predetermined constraint (a contract or trac prole).[14]
Trac shaping provides a means to control the volume
of trac being sent into a network in a specied period
(bandwidth throttling), or the maximum rate at which the
trac is sent (rate limiting), or more complex criteria
such as generic cell rate algorithm.

1.6

Over-provisioning

During the early decades of the Internet, creating a nonneutral Internet was technically infeasible.[23] Originally
developed to lter malware, the Internet security company NetScreen Technologies released network rewalls
in 2003 with so called deep packet inspection. Deep
packet inspection helped make real-time discrimination
between dierent kinds of data possible,[24] and is often
used for Internet censorship.
In a practice called zero-rating, companies will reimburse
data use from certain addresses, favoring use of those services. Examples include Facebook Zero[25] and Google
Free Zone, and are especially common in the developing
world.[26]
Sometimes ISPs will charge some companies, but not others, for the trac they cause on the ISPs network. French
telecoms operator Orange, complaining that trac from
YouTube and other Google sites consists of roughly 50%
of total trac on the Orange network, reached a deal with
Google, in which they charge Google for the trac incurred on the Orange network.[27] Some also thought that
Oranges rival ISP Free throttled YouTube trac. However, an investigation done by the French telecommunications regulatory body revealed that the network was simply congested during peak hours.[28]

If the core of a network has more bandwidth than is permitted to enter at the edges, then good QoS can be obtained without policing. For example the telephone network employs admission control to limit user demand
on the network core by refusing to create a circuit for
the requested connection. Over-provisioning is a form
of statistical multiplexing that makes liberal estimates of
peak user demand. Over-provisioning is used in private
networks such as WebEx and the Internet 2 Abilene Network, an American university network. David Isenberg
believes that continued over-provisioning will always provide more capacity for less expense than QoS and deep 2.3 Favoring private networks
packet inspection technologies.[15][16]
Proponents of net neutrality argue that without new regulations, internet service providers would be able to fa2 By issue
vor their own private protocols over others. ISPs are able
to encourage the use of specic services by utilizing private networks to discriminate what data is counted against
2.1 Discrimination by protocol
bandwidth caps.
Discrimination by protocol is the favoring or blocking in- For example, Comcast struck a deal with Microsoft that
formation based on aspects of the communications pro- allowed users to stream television through the Xnity app
tocol that the computers are using to communicate.[17] on their Xbox 360s without it aecting their bandwidth

3
limit. However, utilizing other television streaming apps, 4 By country
such as Netix, HBO Go, and Hulu, counted towards the
limit. Comcast denied that this infringed on net neutrality
Further information: Net neutrality law By geographic
principles since it runs its Xnity for Xbox service on its
regions
[29]
own, private Internet protocol network.

2.4

Peering discrimination

See also: Peering

4.1 Brazil
Main article: Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the
Internet

There is some disagreement about whether peering is a

net neutrality issue.[30]
The Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet
In the rst quarter of 2014, streaming website Netix (in Portuguese: Marco Civil da Internet, ocially Law
reached an arrangement with ISP Comcast to improve the No 12.965) became law on April 23, 2014 at the Global
quality of its service to Netix clients.[31] This arrange- Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Govment was made in response to increasingly slow connec- ernance. It governs the use of the Internet in Brazil,
tion speeds through Comcast over the course of 2013, through forecasting principles, guarantees, rights and duwhere average speeds dropped by over 25% of their val- ties to those who use the network as well as the determiues a year before to an all time low. After the deal was nation of guidelines for state action.[35][36]
struck in January 2014, the Netix speed index recorded
a 66% increase in connection.
Netix agreed to a similar deal with Verizon in 2014 after
Verizon DSL customers connection speed dropped to less
than 1 Mbit/s early in the year. Netix spoke out against
this deal with a controversial statement delivered to all
Verizon customers experiencing low connection speeds
using the Netix client.[32] This sparked an internal debate between the two companies that led to Verizon obtaining a cease and desist order on 5 June 2014 that forced
Netix to stop displaying this message.

Legal aspects

Main article: Net neutrality law

Legal enforcement of net neutrality principles takes
a variety of forms, from provisions that outlaw anticompetitive blocking and throttling of Internet services,
all the way to legal enforcement that prevents companies
from subsidizing Internet use on particular sites.[33] Contrary to popular rhetoric and various individuals involved
in the ongoing academic debate, research suggests that
a single policy instrument (such as a no-blocking policy
or a quality of service tiering policy) cannot achieve the
range of valued political and economic objectives central
to the debate.[6] As Bauer and Obar suggest, safeguarding multiple goals requires a combination of instruments
that will likely involve government and nongovernment
measures. Furthermore, promoting goals such as the freedom of speech, political participation, investment, and
innovation calls for complementary policies.[34]

4.2 Canada
Main article: Net neutrality in Canada
In a January 25, 2011 decision, the Canadian RadioTelevision and Telecommunications Commission
(CRTC) ruled that usage-based billing could be
introduced.[37] Prime Minister Harper signaled that the
government may be looking into the ruling: We're very
concerned about CRTCs decision on usage-based billing
and its impact on consumers. I've asked for a review of
the decision.[38] Some have suggested that the ruling
adversely aects net neutrality, since it discriminates
against media that is larger in size, such as audio and
video.[39]

4.3 Chile
On 13 June 2010, the National Congress of Chile,
amended its telecommunications law in order to preserve network neutrality, becoming the rst country in
the world to do so.[40][41][42] The law, published on 26
August 2010, added three articles to the General Law
of Telecommunications, forbidding ISPs from arbitrarily
blocking, interfering with, discriminating, hindering or
restricting an Internet users right to use, send, receive or
oer any legal content, application, service or any other
type of legal activity or use through the Internet. ISPs
must oer Internet access in which content is not arbitrarily treated dierently based on its source or ownership.[43]

4.4

5 ARGUMENTS FOR NET NEUTRALITY

India

will not allow such a surcharge. Consumer also argue that they already pay for their service.

Main article: Net neutrality in India

As of 2015, India had no laws governing net neutrality
and there have been violations of net neutrality principles
by some service providers. While the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) guidelines for the Unied Access Service license promote net neutrality, they
are not enforced. The Information Technology Act, 2000
does not prohibit companies from throttling their service
in accordance with their business interests.[44]

4.7 United States

Main article: Net neutrality in the United States
There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law in the United States.
Advocates of net neutrality have raised concerns about
the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile
infrastructure to block Internet applications and content
(e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block
out competitors.[56] Opponents claim net neutrality regulations would deter investment into improving broadband infrastructure and try to x something that isn't
broken.[57][58]

In March 2015, the TRAI released a formal consultation

paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTT)
services, seeking comments from the public. The consultation paper was criticised for being one sided and having confusing statements. It was condemned by various
politicians and internet users.[45][46][47] By 24 April 2015,
over a million emails had been sent to TRAI demanding On 26 February 2015, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled in favor of net neutralnet neutrality.[47][48][49][50]
ity by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommuniRecently, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission
cations service and thus applying Title II (common car(FCC) approved net neutrality rules that prevent Interrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to Internet sernet providers such as Comcast and Verizon from slowvice providers.[59][60][61][62][63][64] On 12 March 2015, the
ing or blocking Web trac or from creating Internet fast
FCC released the specic details of its new net neutrality
lanes that content providers such as Netix could pay to
rule.[65][66][67] And on 13 April 2015, the FCC published
use. However, the FCC is facing several lawsuits that
the nal rule on its new regulations.[68][69]
challenge its open Internet order. TRAI believes that this
is due to the lack of specic law governing rules. To
ensure that India doesnt face such issues in the future,
4.8 United Kingdom
TRAI and the government are looking to clearly dene
the dos and donts.[51]
In 2007, Plusnet was using deep packet inspection to implement limits and dierential charges for peer-to-peer,
le transfer protocol, and online game trac.[70] How4.5 Netherlands
ever, their network management philosophy was made
clear for each package they sold, was consistent between
Main article: Net neutrality in the Netherlands
dierent websites.[71]
On June 4, 2012, the Netherlands became the rst country in Europe and the second in the world, after Chile, to
enact a network neutrality law.[52][53][54] The main provision of the law requires that Providers of public electronic communication networks used to provide Internet
access services as well as providers of Internet access services will not hinder or slow down services or applications
on the Internet.[55]

5 Arguments for net neutrality

Proponents of net neutrality include consumer advocates,

human rights organizations such as Article 19,[72] online
companies and some technology companies.[73] Many
major Internet application companies are advocates
of neutrality. Yahoo!, Vonage,[74] eBay, Amazon,[75]
IAC/InterActiveCorp. Microsoft, Twitter, Tumblr, Etsy,
Daily Kos, Greenpeace, along with many other compa4.6 Singapore
nies and organizations, have also taken a stance in support of net neutrality.[76][77] Cogent Communications, an
Main article: Net neutrality in Singapore
international Internet service provider, has made an announcement in favor of certain net neutrality policies.[78]
in 2014/2015 repeatedly wants to charge OTT In 2008, Google published a statement speaking out
against letting broadband providers abuse their market
Providers.
power to aect access to competing applications or con Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) in refer- tent. They further equated the situation to that of the
ence to their Policy Framework for Net Neutrality telephony market, where telephone companies are not

5.3

User intolerance for slow-loading sites

allowed to control who their customers call or what

those customers are allowed to say.[4] However, Googles
support of net neutrality was called into question in
2014.[79] Several civil rights groups, such as the ACLU,
the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Press, and Fight
for the Future support net neutrality.[80]

ternet Service Providers will use their position of power

to stie peoples rights. He calls net neutrality the First
Amendment issue of our time.[101] By ensuring that all
people and websites have equal access to each other, regardless of their ability to pay, proponents of net neutrality wish to prevent the need to pay for speech and the
Individuals who support net neutrality include Tim further centralization of media power.
Berners-Lee,[81] Vinton Cerf,[82][83] Lawrence Lessig,[84] Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that
Robert W. McChesney, Steve Wozniak, Susan P. Craw- net neutrality ensures that the Internet remains a free and
ford, Marvin Ammori, Ben Scott, David Reed,[85] and open technology, fostering democratic communication.
U.S. President Barack Obama.[86][87] On 10 Novem- Lessig and McChesney go on to argue that the monopber 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama recommended olization of the Internet would stie the diversity of inthat the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as dependent news sources and the generation of innovative
a telecommunications service in order to preserve net and novel web content.[84]
neutrality.[88][89][90] On 12 November 2014, AT&T
stopped build-out of their ber network until it has solid
net neutrality rules to follow.[91] On 31 January 2015, 5.3 User intolerance for slow-loading sites
AP News reported that the FCC will present the notion
of applying (with some caveats) Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to the Internet
in a vote expected on 26 February 2015.[92][93][94][95][96]

5.1

Control of data

Supporters of net neutrality want to designate cable companies as common carriers, which would require them to
allow Internet service providers (ISPs) free access to cable lines, the model used for dial-up Internet. They want
to ensure that cable companies cannot screen, interrupt or
lter Internet content without court order.[97] Common
carrier status would give the FCC the power to enforce
net neutrality rules.[98]
SaveTheInternet.com accuses cable and telecommunications companies of wanting the role of gatekeepers, being
able to control which websites load quickly, load slowly,
or don't load at all. According to SaveTheInternet.com
these companies want to charge content providers who
require guaranteed speedy data delivery... to create advantages for their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video services and slowing access
or blocking access to those of competitors.[99] Vinton
Cerf, a co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and current
vice president of Google argues that the Internet was designed without any authorities controlling access to new
content or new services.[100] He concludes that the principles responsible for making the Internet such a success would be fundamentally undermined were broadband carriers given the ability to aect what people see
and do online.[82]

5.2

Digital rights and freedoms

Proponents of net neutrality argue that a neutral net will

foster free speech and lead to further democratic participation on the internet. Senator Al Franken from Minnesota fears that without new regulations, the major In-

Users with faster Internet connectivity (e.g., ber) abandon a

slow-loading video at a faster rate than users with slower Internet connectivity (e.g., cable or mobile).[102] A fast lane in
the Internet can irrevocably decrease the users tolerance to the
relative slowness of the slow lane.

Proponents of net neutrality invoke the human psychological process of adaptation where when people get used to
something better, they would not ever want to go back
to something worse. In the context of the Internet, the
proponents argue that a user who gets used to the fast
lane on the Internet would nd the slow lane intolerable in comparison, greatly disadvantaging any provider
who is unable to pay for the fast lane. Video providers
Netix[103] and Vimeo[104] in their comments to FCC
in favor of net neutrality use the research[102] of S.S.
Krishnan and Ramesh Sitaraman that provides the rst
quantitative evidence of adaptation to speed among online video users. Their research studied the patience
level of millions of Internet video users who waited for
a slow-loading video to start playing. Users who had a

5 ARGUMENTS FOR NET NEUTRALITY

faster Internet connectivity, such as ber-to-the-home,

demonstrated less patience and abandoned their videos
sooner than similar users with slower Internet connectivity. The results demonstrate how users can get used
to faster Internet connectivity, leading to higher expectation of Internet speed, and lower tolerance for any delay
that occurs. Author Nicholas Carr[105] and other social
commentators[106][107] have written about the habituation
phenomenon by stating that a faster ow of information
on the Internet can make people less patient.

5.5 Preserving Internet standards

Net neutrality advocates have sponsored legislation
claiming that authorizing incumbent network providers to
override transport and application layer separation on the
Internet would signal the decline of fundamental Internet standards and international consensus authority. Further, the legislation asserts that bit-shaping the transport
of application data will undermine the transport layers
designed exibility.[110]

5.6 Preventing pseudo-services

5.4

Competition and innovation

Alok Bhardwaj, founder of Epic Privacy Browser, argues that any violations to network neutrality, realistically speaking, will not involve genuine investment but
rather payos for unnecessary and dubious services. He
believes that it is unlikely that new investment will be
made to lay special networks for particular websites to
reach end-users faster. Rather, he believes that non-net
neutrality will involve leveraging quality of service to extract remuneration from websites that want to avoid being
slowed down.[111][112]

Net neutrality advocates argue that allowing cable companies the right to demand a toll to guarantee quality or
premium delivery would create an exploitative business
model based on the ISPs position as gatekeepers.[108] Advocates warn that by charging websites for access, network owners may be able to block competitor Web sites
and services, as well as refuse access to those unable to
pay.[84] According to Tim Wu, cable companies plan to 5.7 End-to-end principle
reserve bandwidth for their own television services, and
Main article: End-to-end principle
charge companies a toll for priority service.[109]
Proponents of net neutrality argue that allowing for preferential treatment of Internet trac, or tiered service,
would put newer online companies at a disadvantage and
slow innovation in online services.[73] Tim Wu argues
that, without network neutrality, the Internet will undergo
a transformation from a market ruled by innovation to
one ruled by deal-making.[109] SaveTheInternet.com argues that net neutrality puts everyone on equal terms,
which helps drive innovation. They claim it is a preservation of the way the internet has always operated, where
the quality of websites and services determined whether
they succeeded or failed, rather than deals with ISPs.[99]
Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that
eliminating net neutrality would lead to the Internet resembling the world of cable TV, so that access to and
distribution of content would be managed by a handful of
massive companies. These companies would then control
what is seen as well as how much it costs to see it. Speedy
and secure Internet use for such industries as health care,
nance, retailing, and gambling could be subject to large
fees charged by these companies. They further explain
that a majority of the great innovators in the history of
the Internet started with little capital in their garages, inspired by great ideas. This was possible because the protections of net neutrality ensured limited control by owners of the networks, maximal competition in this space,
and permitted innovators from outside access to the network. Internet content was guaranteed a free and highly
competitive space by the existence of net neutrality.[84]

Some advocates say network neutrality is needed in order to maintain the end-to-end principle. According to
Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney, all content
must be treated the same and must move at the same
speed in order for net neutrality to be true. They say that
it is this simple but brilliant end-to-end aspect that has allowed the Internet to act as a powerful force for economic
and social good.[84] Under this principle, a neutral network is a dumb network, merely passing packets regardless of the applications they support. This point of view
was expressed by David S. Isenberg in his paper, The
Rise of the Stupid Network. He states that the vision of
an intelligent network is being replaced by a new network
philosophy and architecture in which the network is designed for always-on use, not intermittence and scarcity.
Rather than intelligence being designed into the network
itself, the intelligence would be pushed out to the endusers device; and the network would be designed simply to deliver bits without fancy network routing or smart
number translation. The data would be in control, telling
the network where it should be sent. End-user devices
would then be allowed to behave exibly, as bits would
essentially be free and there would be no assumption that
the data is of a single data rate or data type.[113]
Contrary to this idea, the research paper titled End-toend arguments in system design by Saltzer, Reed, and
Clark[114] argues that network intelligence doesn't relieve
end systems of the requirement to check inbound data for

6.1

Reduction in innovation and investments

errors and to rate-limit the sender, nor for a wholesale re- to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue
moval of intelligence from the network core.
to oer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer.[139]
Computer scientist Bob Kahn [124] has said net neutrality
6 Arguments against net neutrality is a slogan[117]that would freeze innovation in the core of the
Internet.
Opponents of net neutrality regulations include AT&T,
Verizon, IBM, Intel, Cisco, Nokia, Qualcomm,
Broadcom, Juniper, dLink, Wintel, Alcatel-Lucent,
Corning, Panasonic, Ericsson, and others.[57][115][116]
Notable technologists who oppose net neutrality
include Marc Andreessen, Scott McNealy, Peter
Thiel, David Farber, Nicholas Negroponte, Rajeev
Suri, Je Pulver, John Perry Barlow, and Bob
Kahn.[117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126]
Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker's paper titled, Net Neutrality and Consumer Welfare, published
by the Journal of Competition Law & Economics, alleges
that claims by net neutrality proponents do not provide a
compelling rationale for regulation because there is signicant and growing competition among broadband access providers.[118][127]

Farber has written and spoken strongly in favor of continued research and development on core Internet protocols. He joined academic colleagues Michael Katz,
Christopher Yoo, and Gerald Faulhaber in an op-ed for
the Washington Post strongly critical of network neutrality, essentially stating that while the Internet is in need
of remodeling, congressional action aimed at protecting
the best parts of the current Internet could interfere with
eorts to build a replacement.[140]

6.1 Reduction in innovation and investments

According to a letter to key Congressional and FCC leaders sent by 60 major ISP technology suppliers including
IBM, Intel, Qualcomm, and Cisco, Title II regulation of
the internet means that instead of billions of broadband
investment driving other sectors of the economy forward,
any reduction in this spending will stie growth across the
entire economy. This is not idle speculation or fear mongering...Title II is going to lead to a slowdown, if not a
hold, in broadband build out, because if you dont know
that you can recover on your investment, you wont make
it.[57][141][142][142][143]

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt states that, while Google

views that similar data types should not be discriminated
against, it is okay to discriminate across dierent data
typesa position that both Google and Verizon generally agree on, according to Schmidt.[128][129] According
to the Journal, when President Barack Obama announced
his support for strong net neutrality rules late in 2014,
Schmidt told a top White House ocial the president was
making a mistake.[129]
According to the Wall Street Journal, in one of Googles
Several civil rights groups, such as the National Urban few lobbying sessions with FCC ocials, the company
League, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH, and League of urged the agency to craft rules that encourage investment
United Latin American Citizens, also oppose Title II net in broadband Internet networksa position that mirrors
neutrality regulations,[130] who said that the call to regu- the argument made by opponents of strong net neutrality
late broadband Internet service as a utility would harm rules, such as AT&T and Comcast.[129]
minority communities by stiing investment in under- Opponents of net neutrality argue that prioritization
served areas.[131][132]
of bandwidth is necessary for future innovation on
A number of other opponents created Hands O The In- the Internet.[116] Telecommunications providers such as
ternet,[133] a website created in 2006 to promote argu- telephone and cable companies, and some technology
ments against internet regulation. Principal nancial sup- companies that supply networking gear, argue telecom
port for the website came from AT&T, and members in- providers should have the ability to provide preferential
cluded BellSouth, Alcatel, Cingular, and Citizens Against treatment in the form of tiered services, for example by
Government Waste.[134][135][136][137][138]
giving online companies willing to pay the ability to trans[144]
Robert Pepper, a senior managing director, global ad- fer their data packets faster than other Internet trac.
vanced technology policy, at Cisco Systems, and former The added revenue from such services could be used to
of increased broadband access to
FCC chief of policy development, says: The support- pay for the building
[73]
more
consumers.
ers of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are
necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services,
creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy
rst-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with
slow connections and degraded content. That scenario,
however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing
world doesn't exist today, nor will it exist in the future.
Without additional regulation, service providers are likely

Opponents say that net neutrality would make it more

dicult for Internet service providers (ISPs) and other
network operators to recoup their investments in broadband networks.[145] John Thorne, senior vice president
and deputy general counsel of Verizon, a broadband and
telecommunications company, has argued that they will
have no incentive to make large investments to develop
advanced bre-optic networks if they are prohibited from

charging higher preferred access fees to companies that

wish to take advantage of the expanded capabilities of
such networks. Thorne and other ISPs have accused
Google and Skype of freeloading or free riding for using
a network of lines and cables the phone company spent
billions of dollars to build.[116][146][147]

ARGUMENTS AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY

The White House reported in June 2013 that U.S. connection speeds are the fastest compared to other countries with either a similar population or land mass.[153]

Akamais report on The State of the Internet in the 2nd

quarter of 2014 says a total of 39 states saw 4K readiness rate more than double over the past year. In other
Marc Andreessen states that a pure net neutrality view words, as ZDNet reports, those states saw a major inis dicult to sustain if you also want to have continued crease in the availability of the 15Mbit/s speed needed
investment in broadband networks. If youre a large telco for 4K video.[154]
right now, you spend on the order of $20 billion a year According to the Progressive Policy Institute and ITU
on capex. You need to know how youre going to get data, the United States has the most aordable entry-level
a return on that investment. If you have these pure net prices for xed broadband in the OECD.[152][155]
neutrality rules where you can never charge a company
like Netix anything, youre not ever going to get a return In Indonesia, there is a very high number of Internet conon continued network investment which means youll nections that are subjected to exclusive deals between the
stop investing in the network. And I would not want to ISP and the building owner, and changing this dynamic
be sitting here 10 or 20 years from now with the same could unlock much more consumer choice and higher
speeds.[156]
broadband speeds were getting today.[148]

6.2

Counterweight to server-side nonneutrality

Those in favor of forms of non-neutral tiered Internet access argue that the Internet is already not a level playing eld: large companies achieve a performance advantage over smaller competitors by replicating servers and
buying high-bandwidth services. Should prices drop for
lower levels of access, or access to only certain protocols,
for instance, a change of this type would make Internet
usage more neutral, with respect to the needs of those individuals and corporations specically seeking dierentiated tiers of service. Network expert[149] Richard Bennett has written, A richly funded Web site, which delivers data faster than its competitors to the front porches of
the Internet service providers, wants it delivered the rest
of the way on an equal basis. This system, which Google
calls broadband neutrality, actually preserves a more fundamental inequality.[150]

6.3

Broadband infrastructure

Proponents of net neutrality regulations say network operators have continued to under-invest in
infrastructure.[151] However, according to Copenhagen
Economics, US investment in telecom infrastructure is
50 percent higher that of the European Union. As a share
of GDP, The USs broadband investment rate per GDP
trails only the UK and South Korea slightly, but exceeds
Japan, Canada, Italy, Germany, and France sizably.[152]

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai and Federal Election Commissions Lee Goldman wrote in a Politico piece in February 2015, Compare Europe, which has long had utilitystyle regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds
in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadbands reach is much wider in the United
States, despite its much lower population density. [157]

6.4 Signicant and growing competition

A 2010 paper on net neutrality by Nobel Prize economist
Gary Becker and his colleagues stated that there is
signicant and growing competition among broadband
access providers and that few signicant competitive
problems have been observed to date, suggesting that
there is no compelling competitive rationale for such
regulation.[127]

Becker and fellow economists Dennis Carlton and Hal

Sidler found that Between mid-2002 and mid-2008,
the number of high-speed broadband access lines in the
United States grew from 16 million to nearly 133 million, and the number of residential broadband lines grew
from 14 million to nearly 80 million. Internet trac
roughly tripled between 2007 and 2009. At the same
time, prices for broadband Internet access services have
[127]
On broadband speed, Akamai reported that the US trails fallen sharply.
only South Korea and Japan among its major trading part- The PPI reports that the prot margins of U.S. broadners, and trails only Japan in the G-7 in both average peak band providers are generally one-sixth to one-eighth of
connection speed and percentage of the population con- companies that use broadband (such as Apple or Google),
nection at 10 Mbit/s or higher, but are substantially ahead contradicting the idea of monopolistic price-gouging by
of most of its other major trading partners.[152]
providers.[152]

6.7

Potentially increased taxes

6.5

Broadband choice

ger consequences beyond the Commissions control and

risk serious harm to our ability to fund and deploy broadA report by the Progressive Policy Institute in June 2014 band without bringing any concrete benet for consumers
argues that nearly every American can choose from at or edge providers that the market is not already proving
least 5-6 broadband internet service providers, despite today without the aid of any additional regulation.[115]
claims that there are only a 'small number' of broadband providers.[152] Citing research from the FCC, the
Institute wrote that 90 percent of American households 6.7 Potentially increased taxes
have access to at least one wired and one wireless broadband provider at speeds of at least 4 Mbit/s (500 kbyte/s) FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, who opposed the net neudownstream and 1 Mbit/s (125 kbyte/s) upstream and trality ruling, claims that the ruling issued by the FCC
that nearly 88 percent of Americans can choose from to impose Title II regulations explicitly opens the door
at least two wired providers of broadband disregarding to billions of dollars in new fees and taxes on broadband
speed (typically choosing between a cable and telco of- by subjecting them to the telephone-style taxes under the
fering). Further, three of the four national wireless com- Universal Service Fund.
panies report that they oer 4G LTE to between 250-300 Net neutrality proponent Free Press argues that, the avmillion Americans, with the fourth (T-Mobile) sitting at erage potential increase in taxes and fees per household
209 million and counting.[152]
would be far less than the estimate given by net neutrality
Similarly, the FCC reported in June 2008 that 99.8 opponents, and that if there were to be additional taxes,
percent of zip codes in the United States had two or the tax gure may be around $4 billion. Under favorable
[161]
more providers of high speed Internet lines available, and circumstances, the increase would be exactly zero.
94.6 percent of zip codes had four or more providers, Meanwhile, the Progressive Policy Institute claims that
as reported by University of Chicago economists Gary Title II could trigger taxes and fees up to $11 billion a
[162]
Financial website Nerd Wallet did their own asBecker, Dennis Carlton, and Hal Sider in a 2010 year.
[127]
sessment and settled on a possible $6.25 billion tax impaper.
pact, estimating that the average American household
When FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler redened broadband may see their tax bill increase $67 annually.[162]
from 4 Mbit/s to 25 Mbit/s (3.125 MB/s) or greater in
January 2015, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike FCC spokesperson Kim Hart said that the ruling does
[162]
However, the opposO'Reilly believed the redenition was to set up the not raise taxes or fees. Period.
agencys intent to settle the net neutrality ght with new ing commissioner, Ajit Pai, claims that the plan explicregulations. The commissioners argued that the stricter itly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on
speed guidelines painted the broadband industry as less broadband...These new taxes will mean higher prices for
competitive, justifying the FCCs moves with Title II net consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.
[163]
Pai explained that, One avenue for higher bills is
neutrality regulations.[158]
the new taxes and fees that will be applied to broadband.
Heres the background. If you look at your phone bill,
youll see a 'Universal Service Fee,' or something like it.
6.6 Deterring competition
These fees - what most Americans would call taxes -are paid by Americans on their telephone service. They
FCC commissioner Ajit Pai states that the FCC comfunnel about $9 billion each year through the FCC. Conpletely brushes away the concerns of smaller competitors
sumers havent had to pay these taxes on their broadband
who are going to be subject to various taxes, such as state
bills because broadband has never before been a Title II
[159]
property taxes and general receipts taxes.
As a result,
service. But now it is. And so the Order explicitly opens
according to Pai, that does nothing to create more comthe door to billions of dollars in new taxes.[115]
[159]
petition within the market.
According to Pai, the FCCs ruling to impose Title II regulations is opposed by the countrys smallest private competitors and many municipal broadband providers.[160] In
his dissent, Pai noted that 142 wireless ISPs (WISPs)
said that FCCs new regulatory intrusion into our businesses...would likely force us to raise prices, delay deployment expansion, or both. He also noted that 24 of the
countrys smallest ISPs, each with fewer than 1,000 residential broadband customers, wrote to the FCC stating
that Title II will badly strain our limited resources because they have no in-house attorneys and no budget line
items for outside counsel. Further, another 43 municipal
broadband providers told the FCC that Title II will trig-

6.8 Prevent overuse of bandwidth

Since the early 1990s, Internet trac has increased
steadily. The arrival of picture-rich websites and MP3s
led to a sharp increase in the mid-1990s followed
by a subsequent sharp increase since 2003 as video
streaming and Peer-to-peer le sharing became more
common.[164][165] In reaction to companies including
YouTube, as well as smaller companies starting to offer free video content, using substantial amounts of
bandwidth, at least one Internet service provider (ISP),
SBC Communications (now AT&T Inc.), has suggested

10

7 RELATED ISSUES

that it should have the right to charge these companies Opponents of new federal net neutrality policies point to
for making their content available over the providers the success of the internet as a sign that new regulations
network.[166]
are not necessary. They argue that the freedom which
Bret Swanson of the Wall Street Journal wrote in websites, ISPs and consumers have had to settle their own
2007 that the popular websites of that time, including disputes and compete through innovation is the reason
YouTube, MySpace, and blogs, were put at risk by net why the internet has been such a rapid success. One of
neutrality. He noted that, at the time, YouTube streamed Congresss most outspoken critics of net neutrality regulaas much data in three months as the worlds radio, ca- tions is Senator Ted Cruz from Texas, who points out that
innovation [on the internet] is happening without having
ble and broadcast television channels did in one year,
75 petabytes. He argued that networks were not re- to go to government and say Mother, may I? What happens when the government starts regulating a service as
motely prepared to handle the amount of data required
utility is it calcies everything and freezes it in
to run these sites. He also argued that net neutral- a public[170]
place.
In regulating how the internet is provided, opity would prevent broadband networks from being built,
ponents
argue
that the government will hinder innovation
which would limit available bandwidth and thus endanger
on the web.
[167]
innovation.
One example of these concerns was the series of tubes FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who was one of the two
analogy, which was presented by US senator Ted Stevens commissioners who opposed the net neutrality proposal,
criticized the FCCs ruling on internet neutrality, statduring a committee hearing in the US senate in 2006.
ing that the perceived threats from ISPs to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they
dont like are non-existent: The evidence of these con6.9 High costs to entry for cable broad- tinuing threats? There is none; its all anecdote, hypothband
esis, and hysteria. A small ISP in North Carolina allegedly blocked VoIP calls a decade ago. Comcast capped
According to a Wired magazine article by TechFreedoms BitTorrent trac to ease upload congestion eight years
Berin Szoka, Matthew Starr, and Jon Henke, local gov- ago. Apple introduced Facetime over Wi-Fi rst, celluernments and public utilities impose the most signicant lar networks later. Examples this picayune and stale arent
barriers to entry for more cable broadband competition: enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. The
While popular arguments focus on supposed 'monopo- bogeyman never had it so easy.[115]
lists such as big cable companies, its government thats
FCC Commissioner Mike O'Reilly, the other opposing
really to blame. The authors state that local governments
commissioner, also claims that the ruling is a solution to
and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than they
a hypothetical problem, Even after enduring three weeks
actually cost and have the nal say on whether an ISP
of spin, it is hard for me to believe that the Commission
can build a network. The public ocials determine what
is establishing an entire Title II/net neutrality regime to
hoops an ISP must jump through to get approval for acprotect against hypothetical harms. There is not a shred
cess to publicly owned rights of way (which lets them
of evidence that any aspect of this structure is necessary.
place their wires), thus reducing the number of potential
The D.C. Circuit called the prior, scaled-down version a
competitors who can protably deploy internet service
prophylactic approach. I call it guilt by imagination.[171]
such as AT&Ts U-Verse, Google Fiber, and Verizon
FiOS. Kickbacks may include municipal requirements In a Chicago Tribune article, FCC Commissioner Pai and
for ISPs such as building out service where it isnt de- Joshua Wright of the Federal Trade Commission argue
manded, donating equipment, and delivering free broad- that the Internet isn't broken, and we don't need the presidents plan to 'x' it. Quite the opposite. The Internet is
band to government buildings.[168]
an unparalleled success story. It is a free, open and thriving platform.[58]

6.10 Unnecessary regulations

According to PayPal founder and Facebook investor Peter
Thiel, Net neutrality has not been necessary to date. I
dont see any reason why its suddenly become important,
when the Internet has functioned quite well for the past
15 years without it.... Government attempts to regulate
technology have been extraordinarily counterproductive
in the past.[118] Max Levchin, the other co-founder of
PayPal, echoed similar statements, telling CNBC, The
Internet is not broken, and it got here without government regulation and probably in part because of lack of
government regulation.[169]

7 Related issues
7.1 Data discrimination
Main article: Data discrimination
Tim Wu, though a proponent of network neutrality,
claims that the current Internet is not neutral as its implementation of best eort generally favors le transfer and other non-time-sensitive trac over real-time

7.2

Quality of service

communications.[172] Generally, a network which blocks

some nodes or services for the customers of the network would normally be expected to be less useful to the
customers than one that did not. Therefore, for a network to remain signicantly non-neutral requires either
that the customers not be concerned about the particular
non-neutralities or the customers not have any meaningful choice of providers, otherwise they would presumably
switch to another provider with fewer restrictions.

11

7.2 Quality of service

Main article: Quality of service

Internet routers forward packets according to the diverse

peering and transport agreements that exist between network operators. Many networks using Internet protocols
now employ quality of service (QoS), and Network Service Providers frequently enter into Service Level AgreeWhile the network neutrality debate continues, network ments with each other embracing some sort of QoS.
providers often enter into peering arrangements among
There is no single, uniform method of interconnecting
themselves. These agreements often stipulate how certain
networks using IP, and not all networks that use IP are
information ows should be treated. In addition, network
part of the Internet. IPTV networks are isolated from the
providers often implement various policies such as blockInternet, and are therefore not covered by network neuing of port 25 to prevent insecure systems from serving
trality agreements.
as spam relays, or other ports commonly used by decentralized music search applications implementing peer-to- The IP datagram includes a 3-bit wide Precedence eld
peer networking models. They also present terms of ser- and a larger DiServ Code Point (DSCP) that are used
vice that often include rules about the use of certain ap- to request a level of service, consistent with the notion
that protocols in a layered architecture oer services
plications as part of their contracts with users.
through Service Access Points. This eld is sometimes
Most consumer Internet providers implement policies
ignored, especially if it requests a level of service outlike these. The MIT Mantid Port Blocking Measurement
side the originating networks contract with the receiving
Project is a measurement eort to characterize Internet
network. It is commonly used in private networks, esport blocking and potentially discriminatory practices.
pecially those including Wi-Fi networks where priority
However, the eect of peering arrangements among netis enforced. While there are several ways of communiwork providers are only local to the peers that enter into
cating service levels across Internet connections, such as
the arrangements, and cannot aect trac ow outside
SIP, RSVP, IEEE 802.11e, and MPLS, the most comtheir scope.
mon scheme combines SIP and DSCP. Router manuJon Peha from Carnegie Mellon University believes it is facturers now sell routers that have logic enabling them
important to create policies that protect users from harm- to route trac for various Classes of Service at wireful trac discrimination, while allowing benecial dis- speed.
crimination. Peha discusses the technologies that enable
With the emergence of multimedia, VoIP, IPTV, and
trac discrimination, examples of dierent types of disother applications that benet from low latency, various
[173]
crimination, and potential impacts of regulation.
attempts to address the inability of some private networks
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt aligns Googles views on to limit latency have arisen, including the proposition of
data discrimination with Verizons: I want to be clear oering tiered service levels that would shape Internet
what we mean by Net neutrality: What we mean is if transmissions at the network layer based on application
you have one data type like video, you don't discrimi- type. These eorts are ongoing, and are starting to yield
nate against one persons video in favor of another. But results as wholesale Internet transport providers begin to
its okay to discriminate across dierent types. So you amend service agreements to include service levels.[176]
could prioritize voice over video. And there is general
Advocates of net neutrality have proposed several methagreement with Verizon and Google on that issue.[174]
ods to implement a net neutral Internet that includes a
Echoing similar comments by Schmidt, Googles Chief notion of quality-of-service:
Internet Evangelist and father of the internet, Vint Cerf,
says that its entirely possible that some applications
An approach oered by Tim Berners-Lee allows
needs far more latency, like games. Other applications
discrimination between dierent tiers, while enforcneed broadband streaming capability in order to deliver
ing strict neutrality of data sent at each tier: If I pay
real-time video. Others dont really care as long as they
to connect to the Net with a given quality of service,
can get the bits there, like e-mail or le transfers and
and you pay to connect to the net with the same or
things like that. But it should not be the case that the
higher quality of service, then you and I can commusupplier of the access to the network mediates this on a
nicate across the net, with that quality and quantity
competitive basis, but you may still have dierent kinds
of service.[3] "[We] each pay to connect to the Net,
of service depending on what the requirements are for the
but no one can pay for exclusive access to me.[177]
dierent applications.[175]
United States lawmakers have introduced bills that
would now allow quality of service discrimination

12

9
for certain services as long as no special fee is
charged for higher-quality service.[178]

Founder of Epic Privacy Browser, Alok Bhardwaj, has

argued that net neutrality preservation through legislation
is consistent with implementing quality of service protocols. He argues legislation should ban the charging of
fees for any quality of service, which would both allow
networks to implement quality of service as well as remove any incentive to abuse net neutrality ideas. He argues that since implementing quality of service doesn't
require any additional costs versus a non-QoS network,
theres no reason implementing quality of service should
entail any additional fees.[111] However, the core network
hardware needed (with large number of queues, etc.) and
the cost of designing and maintaining a QoS network are
both much higher than for a non-QoS network.

7.3

Pricing models

REFERENCES

9 References
[1] Tim Wu (2003). Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination (PDF). Journal on telecom and high tech law.
Retrieved 23 Apr 2014.
[2] Krmer, J; Wiewiorra, L. & Weinhardt,C. (2013): Net
Neutrality: A progress report. Telecommunications Policy 37(9), 794813.
[3] Berners-Lee, Tim (21 June 2006). Net Neutrality: This
is serious. timbls blog. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
[4] Sta. A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users.
Google. Archived from the original on 1 September 2008.
Retrieved 7 December 2008.
[5] Peter Svensson (19 October 2007). Comcast Blocks
some Subscriber Internet Trac, AP Testing shows. Associated Press. Retrieved 25 October 2009.
[6] Bauer, Johannes; Obar, Jonathan A. (2014). Reconciling
political and economic goals in the net neutrality debate.
Information Policy 30 (1): 119.

Broadband Internet access has most often been sold to

[7]
users based on Excess Information Rate or maximum
available bandwidth. If Internet service providers (ISPs)
can provide varying levels of service to websites at various prices, this may be a way to manage the costs of [8]
unused capacity by selling surplus bandwidth (or leverage price discrimination to recoup costs of 'consumer sur- [9]
plus'"). However, purchasers of connectivity on the basis
of Committed Information Rate or guaranteed bandwidth
capacity must expect the capacity they purchase in order
[10]
to meet their communications requirements.

Honan, Matthew (12 February 2008). Inside Net Neutrality: Is your ISP ltering content?". MacWorld. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
Wu, Tim. Network Neutrality FAQ. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
Hagai Bar-El (19 Aug 2014). Protecting Network Neutrality: Both Important and Hard. Retrieved 19 Aug
2014.
Mathew Ingram (23 Mar 2012). Open vs. closed: What
kind of internet do we want?". GigaOm. Retrieved 8 Jun
2014.

Various studies have sought to provide network providers

the necessary formulas for adequately pricing such a
tiered service for their customer base. But while network [11] About the Open Internet. European Commission. Retrieved 23 Apr 2014.
neutrality is primarily focused on protocol based provisioning, most of the pricing models are based on band- [12] Alexis C. Madrigal and Adrienne LaFrance (25 Apr
width restrictions.[179]
2014). Net Neutrality: A Guide to (and History of) a

See also
Concentration of media ownership
Digital rights
Economic rent
Industrial information economy
Killswitch (lm)
Municipal broadband
Search neutrality
Switzerland (software)
Wikipedia Zero

Contested Idea. The Atlantic. Retrieved 5 Jun 2014.

This idea of net neutrality...[Lawrence Lessig] used to call
the principle e2e, for end to end
[13] IETF RFC 2475 An Architecture for Dierentiated Services section 2.3.3.3 denition of Shaper
[14] tsbmail. ITU-T I.371 : Trac control and congestion
control in B-ISDN. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
[15] Isenberg, David (2 July 2007). Research on Costs of Net
Neutrality. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
[16] Anderson, Nate (25 July 2007). Deep packet inspection
meets 'Net neutrality, CALEA. Ars Technica. Retrieved
26 December 2008.
[17] Hansell, Saul (2 August 2008). F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage. The New York Times.
[18] Duncan, Geo (23 December 2009). Comcast to Pay
$16 Million for Blocking P2P Applications. Digital
Trends. Retrieved 23 December 2009.

13

[19] Cheng, Jacqui (22 December 2009). Comcast settles

P2P throttling class-action for $16 million. Ars Technica
(Cond Nast). Retrieved 23 December 2009.
[20] Amy Schatz (7 April 2010). Court Backs Comcast Over
FCC - WSJ. WSJ.
[21] Comcast No Longer Choking File Sharers Connections,
Study Says - WIRED. WIRED.
[22] BitTorrent Throttling Internet Providers Exposed. TorrentFreak.
[23] M. Chris Riley and Ben Scott, Free Press (Mar 2009).
Deep Packet Inspection: The end of the Internet as we
know it?" (PDF). Center for Internet and Society. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
[24] Paul Roberts, IDG News Service (20 Oct 2003).
NetScreen announces deep inspection rewall. Network World. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
[25] Ben Gilbert (23 Dec 2013). T-Mobile prepaid oering
free data... but only to access Facebook. Engadget. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
[26] Lily Hay Newman (21 Jan 2014). Net Neutrality Is Already in Trouble in the Developing World. Slate. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
[27] Robertson, Adi (2013-01-19). French ISP Orange says
its making Google pay to send trac over its network.
The Verge. Retrieved 14 January 2014.
[28] ARCEP closes the administrative inquiry involving several companies, including Free and Google, on the technical and nancial terms governing IP trac routing.. 19
July 2013. Retrieved 18 January 2014.
[29] , Mitchell, Dan, Is Comcast violating net-neutrality rules?,
Fortune Magazine, May 12
[30] Joshua Brustein (24 Feb 2014). Netixs Deal With
Comcast Isnt About Net NeutralityExcept That It Is.
Bloomberg. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
[31] Waniata, Ryan. Comcast Jumps up in Netix Speed
Rankings after Payola-style Agreement. Digital Trends.
N.p., 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 15 Aug. 2014.
[32] Waniata, Ryan. Netix Calls Verizon out on the Big
Red Screen [Update: Netix Backs O]. Digital Trends.
N.p., 9 June 2014. Web. 15 Aug. 2014.
[33] The Editorial Board (10 April 2015). Editorial - Global
Threats to Net Neutrality. New York Times. Retrieved
10 April 2015.
[34] Bauer, Johannes; Obar, Jonathan A. (2014). Reconciling
political and economic goals in the net neutrality debate.
Information Policy 30 (1): 1.
[35] Brazil passes groundbreaking Internet governance Bill,
Angelica Mari, ZDNet, 26 March 2014.
[36] The Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet,
Fundao Getulio Vargas (FGV), 9 May 2014.

[37] Telecom Decision CRTC 2011-44, Canadian RadioTelevision and Telecommunications Commission
(CRTC), File number: 8661-C12-201015975, 25
January 2011.
[38] Chase, Steven; Marlow, Iain (2011-02-01). Harper steps
into Web dispute - The Globe and Mail. The Globe and
Mail (Toronto).
[39] Pinto, Lindsey. What does Usage-Based Billing mean
for Net Neutrality?". Retrieved 4 July 2011.
[40] Net neutrality enshrined in Dutch law. The Guardian
(London). Associated Press. 23 June 2011. Retrieved 23
June 2011.
[41] Chile publica su ley que garantiza la neutralidad de la Red
| Navegante. El Mundo. Spain. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
[42] "Quin quiere acabar con la neutralidad en la Red?". EL
PAS. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
[43] Law 20,453. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
[44] Net Neutrality: Here is everything you need to know
about it. The Indian Express. 10 February 2014. Retrieved 29 September 2014.
[45] Singh, Saurabh (8 April 2015). Politicos slam TRAIs
stance on net neutrality. India Today. Retrieved 12 April
2015.
[46] Gandhi, Rajat (8 April 2015). Net neutrality: Why Internet is in danger of being shackled. The Economic Times.
Retrieved 12 April 2015.
[47] Indians rally for Internet freedom, send over 1 lakh
emails to TRAI for net neutrality. IBNLive. 13 April
2015. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
[48] India ghts for #NetNeutrality. Cyber World Mirror.
Retrieved 25 April 2015.
[49] Roy, Prasanto (18 April 2015). Indias ght for net neutrality. India: BBC. Retrieved 18 April 2015.
[50] Over 3 lakh emails sent to Trai in support of Net Neutrality, so far. FirstPort. 14 April 2015. Retrieved 14
April 2015.
[51] Govt and Trai looking to clearly outline rules for Net
Neutrality law in India: report, Tech2 News, 28 April
2015.
[52] Wet van 10 mei 2012 tot wijziging van de Telecommunicatiewet ter implementatie van de herziene telecommunicatierichtlijnen [Act of 10 May 2012 for the amendment of the Telecomminications Act for the implementation of the revised telecommunications directives]. Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (in Dutch) 2012
(235). 4 June 2012. Retrieved 10 February 2014.
[53] Net neutrality enshrined in Dutch law. The Guardian
(London). Associated Press. 23 June 2011. Retrieved 3
April 2014.
[54] The Netherlands Passes Net Neutrality Legislation.
Electronic Frontier Foundation. 21 May 2012. Retrieved
10 February 2014.

14

[55] wetten.nl - Wet- en regelgeving - Telecommunicatiewet

- BWBR0009950 [wetten.nl - Laws and policies Telecommunications Act - BWBR0009950] (in Dutch).
Article 7.4a. Retrieved 10 February 2014.
[56] Lessig, L. 1999. Cyberspaces Architectural Constitution,
draft 1.1, Text of lecture given at www9, Amsterdam,
Netherlands
[57] Letter expressing strong opposition to proposals to classify broadband as a 'Title II' service, to U.S. congressional leaders and members of the FCC, from representatives of a wide range of technology companies, 10 December 2014.

REFERENCES

[70] Anderson, Nate (25 July 2007). Deep packet inspection

meets 'Net neutrality, CALEA. Ars Technica. Retrieved
23 June 2011.
[71] http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/speed_guide/
traffic_management.shtml PlusNet: Broadband All
about trac management
[72] Four tenors: Call for Internet Speech Rights. ARTICLE
19. Retrieved 31 August 2012.
[73] Meza, Philip E. (20 March 2007). Coming Attractions?. Stanford University Press. p. 158. ISBN
9780804756600.

[58] Chicago Tribune (18 February 2015). The Internet isn't

broken. Obama doesn't need to 'x' it.. chicagotribune.com.

[74] Plunkett, Jack W. (2008). Plunketts Telecommunications

Industry Almanac 2009. Plunkett Research. p. 208.
ISBN 9781593921415.

[59] Sta (26 February 2015). FCC Adopts Strong, Sustainable Rules To Protect The Open Internet (PDF). Federal
Communications Commission. Retrieved 26 February
2015.

[75] Defeat for net neutrality backers. BBC News. 9 June

2006. Retrieved 26 December 2008.

[60] Ruiz, Rebecca R.; Lohr, Steve (26 February 2015). In

Net Neutrality Victory, F.C.C. Classies Broadband Internet Service as a Public Utility. New York Times. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
[61] Flaherty, Anne (25 February 2015). FACT CHECK:
Talking heads skew 'net neutrality' debate. AP News. Retrieved 26 February 2015.

[76] Open letter to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(PDF). 1 March 2006. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
[77] Fight for the Future. Join the Battle for Net Neutrality.
Battle For The Net.
[78] Cogent Communications, Inc. Net Neutrality Policy
Statement. Retrieved 21 April 2009.
[79] Googles Sordid History of Net Neutrality Hypocrisy.
Gizmodo. Retrieved 14 September 2014.

[62] Fung, Brian (26 February 2015). The FCC approves

strong net neutrality rules. The Washington Post. Retrieved 26 February 2015.

[80] Team Internet. Fight for the Future. Retrieved 28

February 2015.

[63] Yu, Roger and Snider, Mike (26 February 2015). FCC
approves new net neutrality rules. USA Today. Retrieved
26 February 2015.

[81] Tim Berners-Lee (18 November 2006). Humanity

Lobotomy what will the Internet look like in 10 years?.
Retrieved 26 December 2008.

[64] Liebelson, Dana (26 February 2015). Net Neutrality

Prevails In Historic FCC Vote. The Hungton Post. Retrieved 27 February 2015.

[82] Cerf, Vinton (7 February 2006). The Testimony of Mr.

Vinton Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google (PDF). p. 1. Retrieved 5 November 2012.

[65] Ruiz, Rebecca R. (12 March 2015). F.C.C. Sets Net

Neutrality Rules. New York Times. Retrieved 13 March
2015.

[83] Cerf, Vinton (July 2009). The Open Network. What it

is, and why it matters. Telecommunications Journal of
Australia 59 (2). doi:10.2104/tja09018/issn.1835-4270.

[66] Sommer, Je (12 March 2015). What the Net Neutrality

Rules Say. New York Times. Retrieved 13 March 2015.

[84] Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney (8 June

2006). No Tolls on The Internet. Columns.

[67] FCC Sta (12 March 2015). Federal Communications

Commission - FCC 15-24 - In the Matter of Protecting
and Promoting the Open Internet - GN Docket No. 1428 - Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling,
and Order (PDF). Federal Communications Commission.
Retrieved 13 March 2015.

[85] Dynamic Platform Standards Project. Preserve the Internet Standards for Net Neutrality. Retrieved 26 December 2008.

[68] Reisinger, Don (13 April 2015). Net neutrality rules get
published -- let the lawsuits begin. CNET. Retrieved 13
April 2015.
[69] Federal Communications Commission (13 April 2015).
Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet - A
Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on
04/13/2015. Federal Register. Retrieved 13 April 2015.

[86] Albanesius, Chloe (22 September 2009). Obama Supports Net Neutrality Plan. PC Magazine. Retrieved 25
January 2013.
[87] Broache, Anne (29 October 2007). Obama pledges Net
neutrality laws if elected president. CNET. Retrieved 25
January 2013.
[88] Wyatt, Edward (10 November 2014). Obama Asks
F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules. New York
Times. Retrieved 15 November 2014.

15

[89] NYT Editorial Board (14 November 2014). Why the [109] Wu, Timothy (1 May 2006). Why You Should Care
F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet RegAbout Network Neutrality. Slate.
ulation. New York Times. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
[110] Dynamic Platform Standards Project. Internet Platform
[90] Sepulveda, Ambassador Daniel A. (21 January 2015).
for Innovation Act. Sec. 2.11. Retrieved 26 December
The World Is Watching Our Net Neutrality Debate, So
2008.
Lets Get It Right. Wired (website). Retrieved 20 January
[111] Against Fee-Based and other Pernicious Net Prejudice:
2015.
An Explanation and Examination of the Net Neutrality
[91] Hardawar, Devindra (12 November 2014). AT&T halts
Debate. Scribd.com. 27 November 2007. Retrieved 23
ber build-out until net neutrality rules are sorted. www.
June 2011.
engadget.com (Reuters). Retrieved 12 November 2014.
[112] About Us. epicbrowser.com.
[92] Lohr, Steve (2 February 2015). In Net Neutrality Push,
F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service [113] Isenberg, David (1 August 1996). The Rise of the Stupid
Network. Retrieved 19 August 2006.
as a Utility. New York Times. Retrieved 2 February 2015.
[93] Lohr, Steve (2 February 2015). F.C.C. Chief Wants to [114] J. H. Saltzer; D. P. Reed; D. D. Clark (November
Override State Laws Curbing Community Net Services.
1984). End-to-end arguments in system design. ACM
New York Times. Retrieved 2 February 2015.
Transactions on Computer Systems 2 (4): 277288.
doi:10.1145/357401.357402.
[94] Flaherty, Anne (31 January 2015). Just whose Internet
is it? New federal rules may answer that. AP News. Re- [115] Pai, Ajit (26 February 2015). Oral Dissenting Statement
trieved 31 January 2015.
of Commissioner Ajit Pai, Re: Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28. DOC[95] Fung, Brian (2 January 2015). Get ready: The FCC says
332260A5. fcc.gov. Retrieved 28 April 2015.
it will vote on net neutrality in February. Washington
Post. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
[116] Hart, Jonathan D. (2007). Internet Law. BNA Books. p.
750. ISBN 9781570186837.
[96] Sta (2 January 2015). FCC to vote next month on net
neutrality rules. AP News. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
[117] Robert Kahn and Ed Feigenbaum (9 January 2007). An
Evening with Robert Kahn (WMV). Computer History
[97] Phillips, Peter (2006). Censored 2007. Seven Stories
Museum. Retrieved 26 December 2008. Partial tranPress. p. 34. ISBN 9781583227381.
script: Hu-Berlin.de
[98] Robertson, Adi. Federal court strikes down FCC net neu[118] Back to the Future with Peter Thiel. National Review
trality rules. The Verge. Retrieved 14 January 2014.
Online.
[99] Frequently Asked Questions. SaveTheInternet.com.
[119] Marc Andreessen on net neutrality. marginalrevoluArchived from the original on 11 December 2008. Retion.com.
trieved 7 December 2008.
[100] Davidson, Alan (8 November 2005). Vint Cerf speaks
out on net neutrality. The Ocial Google Blog. Google.

[120] Nicholas Negroponte. Nicholas Negroponte: Net Neutrality Doesn't Make Sense - Big Think. Big Think.

[101] , Hattem, Julian, Franken: Net neutrality is First Amend- [121] Internet Pioneers Decry Title II Rules. Light Reading.
ment issue of our time , The Hill, Jul 14
[122] McNealy Discusses. washingtonpost.com.
[102] Video Stream Quality Impacts Viewer Behavior, by Kr[123] Farber, David (2 June 2006). Common sense about netishnan and Sitaraman, ACM Internet Measurement Conwork neutrality. Interesting-People (Mailing list). Reference, Nov 2012. (PDF).
trieved 26 December 2008.
[103] NetFlix comments to FCC, page 17, Sept 16th 2014.

[124] Robert Kahn, Forbes. Retrieved 11 November 2011.

[104] Vimeo Open Letter to FCC, page 11, July 15th 2014
[125] Nokia knocks Net neutrality: Self-driving cars 'won't get
(PDF).
the service you need'". CNET. CBS Interactive.
[105] Patience is a Network Eect, by Nicholas Carr, Nov
[126] Net neutrality critics are at-out wrong, says FCC chief.
2012.
CNET. CBS Interactive.
[106] NPR Morning Edition: In Video-Streaming Rat Race,
Fast is Never Fast Enough, October 2012. Retrieved [127] Net Neutrality and Consumer Welfare, Gary S. Becker,
Dennis W. Carlton and Hal S. Sider, Journal of Com2014-07-03.
petition Law & Economics, 6(3), 497519, doi:10.1093/
joclec/nhq016
[107] Boston Globe: Instant gratication is making us perpetually impatient, Feb 2013. Retrieved 2014-07-03.
[128] Why Google and Verizons Net neutrality deal aects
[108] What Is Net Neutrality? 10 Aug 2010.
you. cnn.com.

16

REFERENCES

[129] Brody Mullins and Gautham Nagesh (24 February 2015). [150] Googles political Head-fake. SFGate. 9 July 2008. ReJostling Begins as FCCs Net Neutrality Vote Nears.
trieved 14 September 2014.
WSJ.
[151] Net Neutrality, Monopoly, and the Death of the Democratic Internet. Motherboard.
[130] Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. (27 February 2015). Holman
Jenkins: The Net Neutrality Crack-Up - WSJ. WSJ.
[152] The State of U.S. Broadband: Is it Competitive? Are
We Falling Behind, Everett Ehrlich, Progressive Policy
[131] http://www.cnbc.com/id/102248770
Institute, June 2014.
[132] Civil Rights Groups Divided On Net Neutrality, Hugh
[153] Four Years of Broadband Growth, The White House
Pickens, Slashdot, 9 December 2014.
Oce of Science and Technology Policy and The National
[133] Hands o the Internet. Archived from the original on 5
Economic Council, June 2013.
January 2009. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
[154] Akamai shows global and US internet speeds increasing.
[134] Jerey H. Birnbaum, No Neutral Ground in This Internet
ZDNet.
Battle, The Washington Post, 26 July 2006.
[155] Measuring the Information Society, International
[135] Hands O the Internet, Member Organizations,"".
Telecommunications Union (ITU), 2013, ISBN 978-92Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved
61-14401-2.
4 August 2006.
[156] Ryan, Patrick S; Zwart, Breanna; Whitt, Richard S; Gold[136] Anne Veigle, Groups Spent $42 Million on Net Neuburg, Marc; Cerf, Vinton G (2015-08-04). The Probtrality Ads, Study Finds, Communications Daily, 20 July
lem of Exclusive Arrangements in Multiple Dwelling
2006.
Units: Unlocking Broadband Growth in Indonesia and the
Global South. The 7th Indonesia International Confer[137] SaveTheInternet.com, One Million Americans Urge Senence on Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Small Business
ate to Save the Internet, at Savetheinternet.com (last vis(IICIES 2015). pp. 116.
ited 4 August 2006).
[157] Ajit Pai and Lee Goodman. Internet Freedom Works.
[138] Hands O the Internet. sourcewatch.org.
POLITICO Magazine.
[139] Pepper, Robert (14 March 2007). Network Neutrality: [158] Sorry, your broadband Internet technically isn't broadAvoiding a Net Loss. TechNewsWorld. Retrieved 26 Deband anymore. CNET. CBS Interactive.
cember 2008.
[159] Why FCC ruling will hurt US consumers: FCC com[140] David Farber; Michael Katz (19 January 2007). Hold
mish, Fred Imbert, CNBC, 27 February 2015.
O On Net Neutrality. The Washington Post. Retrieved
[160] Summary of Commissioner Pais Oral Dissent on Inter26 December 2008.
net Regulation. fcc.gov.
[141] Tech and Manufacturing Companies Warn Against Title
[161] Wood, Matt (2 December 2014). Claims That Real Net
II. platform.
Neutrality Would Result in New Internet Tax Skew the
[142] IBM, Intel, and Cisco come out against net neutrality.
Math and Confuse the Law. Free Press. Retrieved 28
Cult of Mac.
February 2015.
[143] Mario Aguilar. A Ton of Tech Companies Just Came [162] Eect of net neutrality rules on taxes is uncertain.
Out Against Net Neutrality. Gizmodo. Gawker Media.
@politifact.
[144] J. Gregory Sidak, What is the Network Neutrality Debate [163] Republican FCC Commissioner Slams 'Obamas 332Really About?, 1 INTL J. COMM. 377, 384 (2007).
Page Plan To Regulate The Internet'", Giuseppe Macri,
The Daily Caller, 6 February 2015.
[145] FTC to Host Workshop on Broadband Connectivity
Competition Policy. Federal trade Commission. De- [164] Google and cable rms warn of risks from Web TV.
cember 2006.
USA Today. 2 July 2007. Retrieved 20 May 2010.
[146] Mohammed, Arshad (February 2007). Verizon Execu- [165] Kelly, Spencer (15 June 2007). Warning of 'Internet
tive Calls for End to Googles 'Free Lunch'". The Washoverload'". BBC Click.
ington Post.
[166] Banks, Theodore L. (24 May 2002). Corporate Legal
[147] Crowcroft, Jon (2007). Net Neutrality: The Technical Side
Compliance Handbook. Aspen Publishers Online. p. 70.
of the Debate: A White Paper (PDF). University of CamISBN 9780735533424.
bridge. p. 5. Retrieved 23 June 2009.
[167] Swanson, Bret (20 January 2007). The Coming Ex[148] Marc Andreessen on net neutrality. marginalrevoluaood. The Wall Street Journal.
tion.com.
[168] Don't Blame Big Cable. Its Local Governments That
[149] Former ITIF Sta. ITIF. Retrieved 6 March 2015.
Choke Broadband Competition - WIRED. WIRED.

17

[169] Father of net neutrality: Rules won't kill spending, Tom

DiChristopher, CNBC, 26 February 2015.
[170] , Street, Jon, It Only Takes Two Minutes for Ted Cruz to
Explain Why Hes Against Net Neutrality, The Blaze, Nov
14
[171] FCC adopts net neutrality rules endorsed by open internet
advocates. rt.com.
[172] Wu, Tim (2003). Network Neutrality, Broadband
Discrimination. Journal of Telecommunications and
High Technology Law 2: 141. doi:10.2139/ssrn.388863.
SSRN 388863.
[173] Jon Peha. The Benets and Risks of Mandating Network Neutrality, and the Quest for a Balanced Policy.
Retrieved 1 January 2007.
[174] Goldman, David (5 August 2010). Why Google and
Verizons Net neutrality deal aects you. CNNMoney
(CNN). Retrieved 6 August 2010.
[175] 5 insights from Vint Cerf on bitcoin, net neutrality and
more. Washington Post.
[176] Sullivan, Mark (14 August 2006). Carriers Seek IP QOS
Peers. Light Reading. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
[177] Berners-Lee, Tim (2 May 2006). Neutrality of the Net.
timbls blog. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
[178] A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure
net neutrality, S. 215
[179] NCSU.edu (PDF). Retrieved 23 June 2011.

10

External links

Technological Neutrality and Conceptual Singularity

Why Consumers Should Be Worried About Net
Neutrality
The FCC on Net Neutrality: Be Careful What You
Wish For
Internet Policy: Whos Pulling the Strings
Financial backers of pro neutrality groups
- Film advocating in favor of Net Neutrality
Battle for the Net - Website advocating net neutrality
by Fight for the Future
Don't Break The Net - Website advocating against
net neutrality by TechFreedom with monetary support from telcos.[1]
La Quadrature du Net Complex dossier and links
about net neutrality
[1] See answer to corresponding question on websites About
TechFreedom section.

18

11

11
11.1

TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

Text

Net neutrality Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality?oldid=674832445 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, DavidLevinson,

Stevertigo, Kchishol1970, Booyabazooka, Wwwwolf, Ixfd64, Delirium, Mcarling, Goatasaur, Ronz, TUF-KAT, Ciphergoth, Mike
Linksvayer, Alex756, Timwi, Rainer Wasserfuhr~enwiki, Furrykef, Topbanana, Raul654, Tech77jp, The lorax, Chuunen Baka, Kizor,
Mountain, ZimZalaBim, Netizen, Cholling, Rasmus Faber, Tranquileye, Snader, Mushroom, Seth Ilys, Xanzzibar, Jleedev, Dbenbenn,
ShaneCavanaugh, Wolfkeeper, Lethe, Leonard G., Ofus, Macrakis, MSTCrow, Stevietheman, Chowbok, Utcursch, Sonjaaa, Quadell,
Fabfablew, Beland, Ricky~enwiki, Piotrus, Kuchiguchi, Tdent, GreedyCapitalist, Avatar, Moxfyre, Gazpacho, Mike Rosoft, Ta bu shi
da yu, Astronouth7303, AliveFreeHappy, Imroy, RedWordSmith, Arensb, Diagonalsh, Rich Farmbrough, Gronky, Bender235, ESkog,
Reckless~enwiki, CanisRufus, Shanes, RoyBoy, AJP, Peter M Gerdes, Bobo192, Mike Schwartz, Sjynn, Christian Kreibich, John Vandenberg, Cohesion, Mkapor, Shnout, Giraedata, Nk, Rajah, Microtony, Aardmark, Wrs1864, Pearle, Hackle577, Alansohn, Interiot,
CyberSkull, Jeltz, Babajobu, Ricky81682, Mc6809e, D prime, Calton, RoySmith, InShaneee, Spangineer, Hu, SeanDuggan, Schaefer,
Wtmitchell, Isaac, Yogi de, *Kat*, Omphaloscope, Gpvos, Randy Johnston, Mikeo, PullUpYourSocks, Hackajar, Yurivict, Skrewler,
Reinoutr, Woohookitty, Mindmatrix, LOL, Blah99, Ztrawhcs, Alexwebb2, Kgrr, Tabletop, Aintaer, Btyner, Liface, Garrick, Driftwoodzebulin, Timtom27, Riadlem, Cuchullain, BD2412, Elvey, Dweinberger, Ketiltrout, Sj, Drbogdan, Rjwilmsi, TitaniumDreads, Davidp,
TheDrizzle, XP1, MZMcBride, Tawker, Ligulem, Nandesuka, Fred Bradstadt, Kamoranakrre T. Eyaelitenan, Directorblue, Ground Zero,
Andymadigan, CR85747, Dan Guan, Harmil, Fragglet, Spudlyo, Alexjohnc3, Jrtayloriv, Magbatz, Sstrader, Tedder, Abackstrom, Lamrock, Psantora, Chobot, Mordant21, ScottAlanHill, Benlisquare, Manscher, YurikBot, Wavelength, Freerick, Hairy Dude, StuOfInterest, Adam1213, RussBot, Crazytales, Red Slash, Allister MacLeod, Dantheox, DaveR, Gaius Cornelius, Rsrikanth05, Big Brother 1984,
Msikma, Robertvan1, Arichnad, BobKeim, ZacBowling, Korny O'Near, Thiseye, Saper, Mikeblas, Hoborocks, Semperf, JPMcGrath,
TimBurleson, Walterk29, As286, Demonburrito, Zzuuzz, Ninly, Smilindog2000, Mateo LeFou, Theda, Vicarious, Pdraic MacUidhir, Killerandy, Jonathan.s.kt, Snaxe920, Jade Knight, Jer ome, SmackBot, Semiautomata, EvilCouch, F, Krychek, Estoy Aqu, Reedy,
K-UNIT, Dusher, Ultramandk, Eskimbot, Frymaster, Kintetsubualo, Mauls, The Rhymesmith, Gilliam, Betacommand, Smeggysmeg,
David.Throop, Bluebot, Juneappal, LinguistAtLarge, JordeeBec, Pudduh, LaggedOnUser, MarineCorps, Kungming2, Kobayen, Colonies
Chris, Fluggo~enwiki, A. B., Gracenotes, Emurphy42, Medleysoul, Frap, Gnp, Avb, JonHarder, Atomist, TheKMan, Stebles, Mitar,
Nakon, Savidan, Gakhandal, John wesley, MondoManDevout, Ryouko, Skyscraper~enwiki, Peteforsyth, Kalathalan, Spaceman3750, A5b,
Risssa, Ohconfucius, Byelf2007, ArglebargleIV, Heather, Harryboyles, Buteo lineatus, Kuru, Euchiasmus, Treyt021, Disavian, Mgunn, InsaneZeroG, Wickethewok, Shadowoftime, Jaywubba1887, Peterhoneyman, Camilo Sanchez, Angrycentrist, Davidedler, Derickrethans,
Skishoo2, Dicklyon, Larrymcp, Hjfreyer, Optakeover, Ryulong, TPIRFanSteve, Siruguri, Coaxial, Rcannon100, Xionbox, Dl2000, Hu12,
Stephen B Streater, Gevron, OnBeyondZebrax, Killer ninjas, JoeBot, Kernow, JHP, Fultonwilcox, RekishiEJ, Jive Dadson, Tawkerbot2,
Lightbluebear, Jrmski, SkyWalker, CmdrObot, Mattbr, Amalas, PuerExMachina, Choosername, Edward Vielmetti, Keithh, JettaMann,
Chantessy, ObiterDicta, Kribbeh, Phatom87, NormHardy, Cydebot, Stebbins, ChrisKennedy, Jehobu, Floopik, Mwhitlock, Gogo Dodo,
JFreeman, Corpx, A Softer Answer, MysticMetal, Dancter, Tawkerbot4, The Lake Eect, NickLento, Kozuch, Ivko, NorthernThunder, Septagram, Omicronpersei8, Maziotis, Mtijn, Caholman, Nrabinowitz, FrancoGG, Thijs!bot, Arcking, Signify, Ultimus, RichardBennett, PureLogic, GentlemanGhost, Drywall, KTucker, Ehrichweiss, Fordm2003, Hugh G. Rection, Gamerzlimited, Willemvdsteen,
Hcobb, NocNokNeo, AndrewKemendo, Rmf5, Binarybits, Central2, SusanLesch, Utopiah, AntiVandalBot, SixStrings117, Seaphoto,
Google Inc., Jared Hunt, Emeraldcityserendipity, Joelscorp, Ste4k, Nhunt, Petenice666, Wesmorgan1, Mahasp, Alphachimpbot, Spartaz, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, Afrech, Bona Fides, Drabiej, Ranieldule, Gjeremy, Barek, Ncsupimaster, Epeeeche, M.Neko,
Hello32020, Jthomp4338, Desertsky85451, Musheno, .anacondabot, Repku, SteveSims, Ruthfulbarbarity, Karlhahn, Lyzek, VoABot II,
Yuristan, ZakMcKracken, Dnate76, Erisa Goss, Ling.Nut, , Atlas1j, Balloonguy, HGHSTROJAN, Avicennasis, Bubba hotep, JLMadrigal, Alberge204, Chivista~enwiki, Edurant, GeoFan49, Philg88, C.Logan, Shalunov~enwiki, Rbeverly, Calltech, DGG, Oren0, Gcnovus,
Berylll, Inspector Baynes, MartinBot, P00r, Orangysb, Jim.henderson, Yaron K., TechnoFaye, CommonsDelinker, Jonathanpq, Greg G,
Senderspace, Sgschow, Andrewmigliore, Todd-77, Marcanthony7, Jesant13, LTerheyden, Skittlemon, SpigotMap, Oceanynn, Jgsidak,
JayJasper, AntiSpamBot, Wisepiglet, Plasticup, Qingtian, InspectorTiger, Antony-22, Sub ubi, LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs, Tanaats, Octavabasso, Jesterpm, Fooghter20x, Ajfweb, RVJ, Scott Illini, Useight, Tkgd2007, Funandtrvl, PC destroyer, ChrisPerardi, John Darrow, Notmiya, Kurosa~enwiki, Csosa09, Curious john, Philip Trueman, Amh library, PGSONIC, TruthOutThere, TXiKiBoT, Rollo44,
Parker.l.smith, Ask123, Qxz, Getonyourfeet, Smbil58, Peoplerulegg, Steven J. Anderson, Lambyte, PDFbot, N3tt1ng, Loudon clear,
Swasden, Haseo9999, Pammalamma, Jabrthel, Vchimpanzee, RaseaC, Rrrachel, AlleborgoBot, Kbrose, AdRock, Ponyo, SieBot, Calliopejen1, Work permit, Berendt~enwiki, Matthew Yeager, Whimsley, Lokitoth, Spectre9, Bentogoa, Flyer22, BunnyColvin, Imthefrizzlefry, Solidus667, Leedryburgh, Twuster, Ngrieth, Svick, Calatayudboy, Fuddle, Tannline, Huggi, Chimbaltone, Escape Orbit, Dailyvoid, Arkixml, Ratemonth, Martarius, Neslon, ClueBot, NickCT, Kai-Hendrik, The Thing That Should Not Be, Drmies, Pacicus, Mild
Bill Hiccup, Veritas99, Cirt, Gordon Ecker, Kitsunegami, Keysanger, The Founders Intent, Rhododendrites, Redthoreau, Aggrodude,
Newsroom hierarchies, Cornman7001, 1ForTheMoney, Delldot on a public computer, Vieland, DumZiBoT, Zenwhat, Forbes72, Boyd
Reimer, Rror, Dan Aquinas, Dthomsen8, Alexius08, Addbot, Labboy, Melab-1, Johnedillon, Shakescene, TutterMouse, Scientus, Chinaexports, MrOllie, Mbaer3000, Debresser, Mrmariokartguy, SasiSasi, Jarble, Blablablob, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Fraggle81, Kb03ua, Jimjilin,
KamikazeBot, Uhohlookwhoshere, Jtaekema, AnomieBOT, DemocraticLuntz, 1exec1, AdjustShift, Ulric1313, Materialscientist, Citation
bot, Xxp~enwiki, Quebec99, Snorlax Monster, LilHelpa, Xqbot, Engineering Guy, Drilnoth, AH-64 Longbow, Anna Frodesiak, Br77rino,
Villefort1790, Fightin' Phillie, Dodehoekspiegel, Ruy Pugliesi, SassoBot, Amaury, Andreaberkeley, Dabearz237, GliderMaven, FrescoBot,
Macman89usa, Haeinous, Ethan Annis, Sparrowhawk64, Citation bot 1, ExcessPhase, Duotrigesimal, Jonesey95, Comm12wikigroup, Isofox, EdoDodo, GoneIn60, Full-date unlinking bot, Pristino, Odawg77, Lotje, JackGavin, MrX, MAsutakusu, Gegecaspier, Asdfmike,
Saurael, RjwilmsiBot, Sroyon, Lopifalko, Ragnaroktog, EmausBot, Dewritech, Gkorodi, Mpap, RyanHuling, Scgtrp, K6ka, AsceticRose,
Lucas Thoms, Indigobjames, JDDJS, Sorzech, H3llBot, Neojunior, SporkBot, Scoopczar, W163, GeorgeBarnick, Sross (Public Policy),
Parusaro, SCC10, Targaryen, Wheresdinner, Alrs, Teapeat, Planetscared, Rememberway, ClueBot NG, Arif31, Jack Greenmaven, Herald
uk, Snotbot, Jaobar, Frietjes, Mesoderm, Dabenson, Ea0308, Singh.aloki, Chiquilaird, Dreedkelly, SprocketGizmo, Gaius46, Brooktrout86, Marceau42, Helpful Pixie Bot, Strike Eagle, Rainer.schoenen, BG19bot, Island Monkey, Mattozanne, Ireneo.heraldo, Yeron2006,
Cbiship, MusikAnimal, Matthew (WMF), Iskatli, Jeroen Linthout, Tony Tan, Ollieinc, MeanMotherJr, Eduardofeld, Brandonbrooks1,
Shinsky2, Lau liz van, Nanda738, SD5bot, Rinkle gorge, Mogism, CasperLuns, Tanja Nikolic, Jemappelleungarcon, Corn cheese, CsDix,
Jamesmcmahon0, Carlf123, Jodosma, Jrgauthier, XFEM Skier, Quenhitran, Dudewhereismybike, Suraya ritu, GavinWikia, Jaaron95,
Wh-237, JaconaFrere, Brad Dyer, Monkbot, Jethrogb, SantiLak, Factchecker12345, Akuradani, Ashton Bryant, Monopoly31121993,
InnityRise1, TeamLFB, BurketheGreat, Djmystery, Csousbois, Sy9045, Reddishmariposa, Psychedgrad, Smkelley99, Spiderjerky, Stalehoneybun, Fimatic, Leconquistador, Ninjahamster611, Rose22422, Asishbm6, Kanyelephanttusk, LBourdier, KasparBot, Hunk311, Lo-

11.2

Images

19

tus2015, Akhil406, Adityageeky, SanClementeCA, Manzilensis, AshutoshBarot, Taratoid, Psu Fabulo Vita, Tarte, Brown, Hartman and
Anonymous: 901

11.2

Images

File:Abandonment_rate_of_online_video_users_for_different_Internet_connectivities.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/

wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Abandonment_rate_of_online_video_users_for_different_Internet_connectivities.jpg License: CC BY 4.0
Contributors: http://people.cs.umass.edu/~{}ramesh/Site/PUBLICATIONS.html Original artist: Ramesh Sitaraman
File:Crystal_Clear_app_browser.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Crystal_Clear_app_browser.png
License: LGPL Contributors: All Crystal icons were posted by the author as LGPL on kde-look Original artist: Everaldo Coelho and
YellowIcon
File:Free-speech-flag.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Free-speech-flag.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Badmouth Original artist: John Marcotte
File:Internet_map_1024_-_transparent,_inverted.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Internet_map_
1024_-_transparent%2C_inverted.png License: CC BY 2.5 Contributors: Originally from the English Wikipedia; description page is/was
here. Original artist: The Opte Project
File:Symbol_book_class2.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Symbol_book_class2.svg License: CC
BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: Mad by Lokal_Prol by combining: Original artist: Lokal_Prol
File:Symbol_list_class.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/Symbol_list_class.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?

11.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0