1.+History



Net neutrality is a principle in which public information networks aspire to have no restrictions on Internet content, sites and platforms (Wu, 2003). Put simply, the principle states that the medium should have a free flow of information; all internet traffic should be treated equally and broadband service providers should not be allowed to block content or manipulate network performance.

The debate of considering freedom as part of the identity of the internet began in the 1990s, as concerns grew about possible threats to the end-to-end principle of the internet. A suggested solution was to allow consumers their choice of ISPs, usually called “open access remedy” (Wu, 2003). The term itself broke into the mainstream in 2003, when a Columbia Law School professor, Tim Wu, published a paper with a proposal for a net neutrality rule and proposed some legislation in order to deal with the issue. The backlash from the opposition was a misinformation campaign that claimed net neutrality never actually existed; that, in fact, it was all a fabrication (Berners-Lee, 2006). This of course was false.

In 2002 the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) recognized the cable industry’s media monopoly over its own networks, which ignited public interest in net neutrality as it represented a significant blow to the prior open-access practices. In 2005 the Supreme Courts upheld this decision, and, in an effort to level the playing field, the FCC decided to allow DSL providers the ability to deny network access to third-party Internet service providers (Greenfield, 2006). By the end of 2002 the Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators (CBUI), which included Amazon.com, Microsoft and Yahoo! was created to lobby against the FCC (Greenfield, 2006).

While prior to 2004, most of the debates on net neutrality occurred within FCC proceedings and related court actions; the increased public positioning and lobbying from both sides of the debate sparked several academic papers. Even the chairman of the FCC gives a speech in which he articulates his ideas on four “Internet Freedoms”: //freedom to access content, freedom to use applications, freedom to attach personal devices, freedom to obtain service plan information//. As they were published and as more people became aware of the issue, the debate broadened; and in 2005, newspapers and trade journal articles on net neutrality began to appear monthly (Greenfield, 2006). The FCC now officially takes a stance on the situation by adopting a new policy which “ensure[s] that broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable and accessible to all consumers.” (Dortch, 2005).

In April of 2006 SaveTheInternet.com is launched as an information platform, for the lobbying efforts, of a coalition consisting of hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum. Their main concern is maintain a free and open internet. The coalition believes that the Internet is a crucial source for economic growth, civic engagement and free speech. The mission of the SaveTheInternet.com is to ensure free, equitable use of the Internet and devotes its resources to educating the public and to lobbying (Save The Internet).

In 2007 the 'Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2007' is introduced by Senator Byron Dorgan as a bill to amend the Communications Acts 1934, and to ensure net neutrality. Dorgan called the bill “the ultimate Internet democracy.” The bill does not pass, but is re-introduced in 2008 as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008. Due to this new awareness in net neutrality issues, the FCC accuses Comcast of interfering with customers’’ use of peer-to-peer applications. Official responses from Comcast deny these claims. Later in 2008 Comcast admits to have temporarily blocked certain P2P traffic but says it was done as “reasonable network management.” FCC concludes that Comcast had violated federal internet guidelines and orders it to disclose discriminatory network management practices. Comcast responds with a lawsuit at the end of 2008.