Network Neutrality Background Information
It was in the late 1990s that broadband technology changed when cable, optical fiber, satellite, and wireless methods began being used to transmit data at high speeds. The previous method was through traditional dial-up modems that used telephone lines with transmission rates of 56 kilobytes per second. This new method of broadband distribution had two different rates at much higher speeds with one of them having to be at least 200 kilobytes per second as defined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the other having to be at least 256 kilobytes per second as defined by the International Telecommunications Union. These higher speeds allowed users to not only send and receive text but also high-speed video and voice messages, along with distance learning, telecommuting, and online gaming (Anderson, 2007). It did not take long for the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to be considered outdated and ill-equipped to handle the expanses of the Internet’s growth. Telecoms, which are the telecommunications industry, particularly telephone and cable companies, began to argue that if they are building the network, why can they not have control over it? With the demand for high speed service increasing, the network broadband operators wanted to begin charging content providers for the broadband being used and then they also wanted to prioritize content by creating a two-tiered Internet which would include a fast lane and a slow lane (Anderson, 2007).
In 2002, the FCC took a large step by ruling that broadband operators do not have to share their lines with competing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) (Anderson, 2007). It was at this point that the FCC settled a debate over the classification of cable modem service and then launched a proceeding to look into the proper regulatory treatment of this service. In this declaratory ruling, the FCC made the decision that cable modem service is classified as an interstate information service and therefore subject to FCC jurisdiction instead of being a cable service as it was previously defined in the Communications Act. Also, the FCC was to begin looking into the scope of their jurisdiction, including what the limits of this jurisdiction may be, and what the role of state and local franchising authorities would be in regulating cable modem service. The ultimate resolution of this ruling was to promote broadband deployment which was to result in better quality, lower prices, and more choices for consumers. The FCC was guided by principles and policy goals that include the encouragement and complete availability of broadband access to the Internet to all Americans, ensuring that broadband services exist in a minimal regulatory environment that promotes not only investment, but also innovation, and to develop an analytical framework that is to be as consistent as it can be across multiple platforms. The FCC even made a comment on franchise fees, which are the fees paid by the cable system for the right to offer cable service, saying that the law would now limit these fees to five percent of the gross revenues from cable services (Federal Communications Commission, 2002).
Tim Wu first coined the term network neutrality in a law review article in 2003 in which he looks at network neutrality and open access. Open access can be used in many different ways but it generally refers to the structural requirement that would prevent broadband operators from bundling broadband service with Internet access from in house Internet service providers. It was to be argued that if cable operators are allowed to bundle ISP services with cable services, cable operators would be in a position to destroy the neutrality of the network by getting rid of competition of Internet applications (Wu, 2003).
In 2002, the FCC took a large step by ruling that broadband operators do not have to share their lines with competing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) (Anderson, 2007). It was at this point that the FCC settled a debate over the classification of cable modem service and then launched a proceeding to look into the proper regulatory treatment of this service. In this declaratory ruling, the FCC made the decision that cable modem service is classified as an interstate information service and therefore subject to FCC jurisdiction instead of being a cable service as it was previously defined in the Communications Act. Also, the FCC was to begin looking into the scope of their jurisdiction, including what the limits of this jurisdiction may be, and what the role of state and local franchising authorities would be in regulating cable modem service. The ultimate resolution of this ruling was to promote broadband deployment which was to result in better quality, lower prices, and more choices for consumers. The FCC was guided by principles and policy goals that include the encouragement and complete availability of broadband access to the Internet to all Americans, ensuring that broadband services exist in a minimal regulatory environment that promotes not only investment, but also innovation, and to develop an analytical framework that is to be as consistent as it can be across multiple platforms. The FCC even made a comment on franchise fees, which are the fees paid by the cable system for the right to offer cable service, saying that the law would now limit these fees to five percent of the gross revenues from cable services (Federal Communications Commission, 2002).
Tim Wu first coined the term network neutrality in a law review article in 2003 in which he looks at network neutrality and open access. Open access can be used in many different ways but it generally refers to the structural requirement that would prevent broadband operators from bundling broadband service with Internet access from in house Internet service providers. It was to be argued that if cable operators are allowed to bundle ISP services with cable services, cable operators would be in a position to destroy the neutrality of the network by getting rid of competition of Internet applications (Wu, 2003).