doctor jones
08-13-2010, 12:46 AM
Here was my 2008 Senior Communication Law Research Paper which was about The First Amendment, Net Neutrality and the Internet. I got an 89 on the paper (perhaps deducted 10 points for quoting Ron Paul not once but twice). I started out in favor of Net Neutrality and legislation for it, after the research I changed my position:
THE NEUTRAL FIRST AMENDMENT:
NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION STUCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND
TECHNOLOGICAL HARDWARE
Neutrality, by definition, is, “not helping or supporting either of two opposing sides.” The United States legislators would ultimately be overstepping a neutral boundary by enacting any type of mandate on the economic functionality of the Internet. Just as any law or regulation impedes the rights of one party over the other, Congress must realize that regardless if the resolution is titled in the spirit of ‘Network Neutrality’ or ‘The Promulgated U.S. Approved Internet Act,’ the sides are clear and First Amendment rights will be superceded by other interests. The argument government has made for most telecommunication regulations of the past have been on the common carrier end of the spectrum – maintaining economic affordability and a free flow of information serve the greatest public interest. It’s a concern, however, that the further regulators creep into this relatively new technology that has had a resounding similitude to that of telecommunication, we’ll come to realize the rabbit hole for un-intended consequences goes just as far. Other countries have already taken it upon themselves to regulate the Internet as they’ve seen fit. Most of the regulations wouldn’t align properly under the U.S. Constitution and the little precedent our judicial branch has set forth on this infant topic have echoed that sentiment. There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue, but the real question ultimately remains, what regulation, if any, is constitutional and how do we best preserve the fundamental free speech rights of our First Amendment with regard to the Internet? A converged definition offered up by Wikipedia of Network Neutrality is one of:
"… a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams."
The dispute over Net Neutrality, as it is commonly referred to now, was brought up initially through ICPs (Internet Content Providers), such as Google Inc. It has since been picked up by grassroots movements through websites such as ‘Save The Internet,’ as well as legislative headlines for various members of Congress. Though politicians and Internet activists involved in the debate have seemed to take a circumstantial and reactionary position to Google’s claims it was Columbia Law Professor, Tim Wu, who popularized the term ‘Net Neutrality’ to be associated as a defense to anti-discrimination rules against ISPs (Internet Service Providers) in a 2003 proposal titled, "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination." His main argument has been that the basic neutrality of the net has a direct connection with economic growth of the United States, and that the FCC needs to be a proponent of network neutrality by setting regulations. He asserts that it has long been U.S. federal policy, regarding the Internet, favoring a free press and an open society. What this debate is fueled by, is centered around two fears; one, that ISPs will discriminate against ICPs by reducing bandwidth to particular sites in favor of others who pay for a higher speed, and two, that ISPs will only offer up web programming like that of cable television programming today and different Internet applications will not be treated equally. The true question of how much discretion should ISPs have in managing the flow of Web traffic over their networks is what Congress is juggling. Perhaps one question they should ask themselves is, do ISPs have First Amendment Rights? This can be further explained by defining Net Neutrality in yet another way.
Click Here (http://www.mediafire.com/file/88fibdryajq1tyy/NetNeutrality_CommLaw2008.pdf) to download the full paper complete with citations as a PDF.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/88fibdryajq1tyy/NetNeutrality_CommLaw2008.pdf
THE NEUTRAL FIRST AMENDMENT:
NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION STUCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND
TECHNOLOGICAL HARDWARE
Neutrality, by definition, is, “not helping or supporting either of two opposing sides.” The United States legislators would ultimately be overstepping a neutral boundary by enacting any type of mandate on the economic functionality of the Internet. Just as any law or regulation impedes the rights of one party over the other, Congress must realize that regardless if the resolution is titled in the spirit of ‘Network Neutrality’ or ‘The Promulgated U.S. Approved Internet Act,’ the sides are clear and First Amendment rights will be superceded by other interests. The argument government has made for most telecommunication regulations of the past have been on the common carrier end of the spectrum – maintaining economic affordability and a free flow of information serve the greatest public interest. It’s a concern, however, that the further regulators creep into this relatively new technology that has had a resounding similitude to that of telecommunication, we’ll come to realize the rabbit hole for un-intended consequences goes just as far. Other countries have already taken it upon themselves to regulate the Internet as they’ve seen fit. Most of the regulations wouldn’t align properly under the U.S. Constitution and the little precedent our judicial branch has set forth on this infant topic have echoed that sentiment. There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue, but the real question ultimately remains, what regulation, if any, is constitutional and how do we best preserve the fundamental free speech rights of our First Amendment with regard to the Internet? A converged definition offered up by Wikipedia of Network Neutrality is one of:
"… a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams."
The dispute over Net Neutrality, as it is commonly referred to now, was brought up initially through ICPs (Internet Content Providers), such as Google Inc. It has since been picked up by grassroots movements through websites such as ‘Save The Internet,’ as well as legislative headlines for various members of Congress. Though politicians and Internet activists involved in the debate have seemed to take a circumstantial and reactionary position to Google’s claims it was Columbia Law Professor, Tim Wu, who popularized the term ‘Net Neutrality’ to be associated as a defense to anti-discrimination rules against ISPs (Internet Service Providers) in a 2003 proposal titled, "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination." His main argument has been that the basic neutrality of the net has a direct connection with economic growth of the United States, and that the FCC needs to be a proponent of network neutrality by setting regulations. He asserts that it has long been U.S. federal policy, regarding the Internet, favoring a free press and an open society. What this debate is fueled by, is centered around two fears; one, that ISPs will discriminate against ICPs by reducing bandwidth to particular sites in favor of others who pay for a higher speed, and two, that ISPs will only offer up web programming like that of cable television programming today and different Internet applications will not be treated equally. The true question of how much discretion should ISPs have in managing the flow of Web traffic over their networks is what Congress is juggling. Perhaps one question they should ask themselves is, do ISPs have First Amendment Rights? This can be further explained by defining Net Neutrality in yet another way.
Click Here (http://www.mediafire.com/file/88fibdryajq1tyy/NetNeutrality_CommLaw2008.pdf) to download the full paper complete with citations as a PDF.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/88fibdryajq1tyy/NetNeutrality_CommLaw2008.pdf