Network Neutrality: Beyond the Slogans

From CFPWiki

Revision as of 16:45, 20 May 2008 Katz (Talk | contribs) â† Previous diff		Current revision Ammori (Talk | contribs) (â†’Panel Description)
Line 4:		Line 4:
	In Washington, DC, debates over network neutrality are often not only contentious, but also unhelpful, if not dishonest. This panel is structured to move beyond particular incidents and the slogans, and to honestly introduce and address some of the potentially hard questions of network neutrality. Some of these questions include:		In Washington, DC, debates over network neutrality are often not only contentious, but also unhelpful, if not dishonest. This panel is structured to move beyond particular incidents and the slogans, and to honestly introduce and address some of the potentially hard questions of network neutrality. Some of these questions include:
-	(1) comparative international analysis: an analysis of regulatory structures across a range of nations, and the structuresâ€™ apparent impact on investment, network performance, consumer welfare, and Internet openness;	+
-	(2) investment analysis: an economic analysis of investment in networks and applications with and without network neutrality rules;	+	(1) deep packet inspection and advertising;
		+
		+	(2) the effect of network neutrality on for-profit and non-profit online video providers;
		+
	(3) freedom of speech and the application of the First Amendment in network neutrality debates;		(3) freedom of speech and the application of the First Amendment in network neutrality debates;
-	(4) national security: security implications of neutral and non-neutral networks.
-	To some extent, these four topics interact and overlapâ€”each informs the other topics. Free speech implicates national security; national security and other social goals inform the investment we seek to encourage; the international analysis helps illuminate answers to each other question.	+	(4) the economics of network neutrality.
		+
		+	To some extent, these four topics interact and overlapâ€”each informs the other topics.
		+
		+
		+	The panel included:
		+
		+
		+	David D. Clark, Senior Research Scientist, MIT
		+
		+
		+	David Reed, Adj. Professor, MIT Media Lab
		+
		+
		+	Barry Steinhardt, Director, Technology & Liberty Program, ACLU
		+
		+
		+	Dean Jansen, Outreach Director, Miro Internet TV
		+
		+
		+	W. Scott McCollough, Counsel, Data Foundry, Inc.
		+
		+
		+	Moderator: Marvin Ammori, General Counsel, Free Press

---

Current revision

Panel Description

Debates over network neutrality have been among the most important in telecom policy for the last several, taking place before the public, the Congress, the Courts, the FTC, and (at the moment primarily) the FCC. Recently, we have seen major violations of network neutrality and a major FCC proceeding on network neutrality and network â€œmanagement.â€

In Washington, DC, debates over network neutrality are often not only contentious, but also unhelpful, if not dishonest. This panel is structured to move beyond particular incidents and the slogans, and to honestly introduce and address some of the potentially hard questions of network neutrality. Some of these questions include:

(1) deep packet inspection and advertising;

(2) the effect of network neutrality on for-profit and non-profit online video providers;

(3) freedom of speech and the application of the First Amendment in network neutrality debates;

(4) the economics of network neutrality.

To some extent, these four topics interact and overlapâ€”each informs the other topics.

The panel included:

David D. Clark, Senior Research Scientist, MIT

David Reed, Adj. Professor, MIT Media Lab

Barry Steinhardt, Director, Technology & Liberty Program, ACLU

Dean Jansen, Outreach Director, Miro Internet TV

W. Scott McCollough, Counsel, Data Foundry, Inc.

Moderator: Marvin Ammori, General Counsel, Free Press