skip to main content
research-article

Implications of Internet architecture on net neutrality

Published:11 May 2009Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Net neutrality represents the idea that Internet users are entitled to service that does not discriminate on the basis of source, destination, or ownership of Internet traffic. The United States Congress is considering legislation on net neutrality, and debate over the issue has generated intense lobbying. Congressional action will substantially affect the evolution of the Internet and of future Internet research. In this article, we argue that neither the pro nor anti net neutrality positions are consistent with the philosophy of Internet architecture. We develop a net neutrality policy founded on a segmentation of Internet services into infrastructure services and application services, based on the Internet's layered architecture. Our net neutrality policy restricts an Internet service Provider's ability to engage in anticompetitive behavior while simultaneously ensuring that it can use desirable forms of network management. We illustrate the effect of this policy by discussing acceptable and unacceptable uses of network management.

References

  1. Bar, F., Cohen, S. S., Cowhey, P., DeLong, B. J., Kleeman, M., and Zysman, J. 2000. Access and innovation policy for the third-generation Internet. Telecommun. Policy 24, 489--518. http://repositories.cdlib.org/brie/BRIEWP137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bar, F. and Sandvig, C. 2000. Rules from truth: Communication policy after convergence. In Proceedings of the 28th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloomberg News. 2006. AT&T, Comcast Rout Google in ‘‘Net Neutrality’ Battle. Bloomberg News, July 20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumenthal, M. S. and Clark, D. D. 2001. Rethinking the design of the Internet: The end-to-end arguments vs. the brave new world. ACM Trans. Inter. Tech. 1, 1, 70--109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Braden, R., Clark, D., and Shenker, S. 1994. Integrated services in the Internet architecture: An overview. Tech. rep., IETF. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Cannon, R. 2003. The legacy of the federal communications commission's computer inquiries. Federal Commun. Law J. http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/index.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K., and Braden, R. 2005. Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow's Internet. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 13, 462--475. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Farrell, J. and Weiser, P. 2003. Modularity, vertical integration, and open access policies: Towards a convergence of antitrust and regulation in the Internet age. Harvard J. Law Technol. 17, 85--134. http://ssrn.com/abstract=452220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. FCC. 1971. First computer inquiry, final decision, 28 fcc2d 267.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. FCC. 1980. Second computer inquiry, final decision, 77 fcc2d 384.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. FCC. 2002. FCC 02-77 cable modem service order. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-77A1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. FCC. 2005a. FCC 05-150 Internet over wireline facility order. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. FCC. 2005b. FCC 05-151 Internet policy statement. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Herman, B. D. 2007. Opening bottlenecks: On behalf of mandated network neutrality. Federal Commun. Law J. 59. http://ssrn.com/abstract=902071.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jordan, S. 2007. A layered network approach to net neutrality. Int. J. Commun. (to appear).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Lehr, W. H., Gillett, S. E., Sirbu, M. A., and Peha, J. M. 2006. Scenarios for the network neutrality arms race. In Proceedings of the 34th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Lemley, M. A. and Lessig, L. 2001. The end of end-to-end: Preserving the architecture of the Internet in the broadband era. UCLA Law Rev. 48, 925--972. http://ssrn.com/abstract=259491.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Lessig, L. 2001. The Internet under siege. Foreign Policy 127, 56--65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. McTaggart, C. 2006. Was the Internet ever neutral? In Proceedings of the 34th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Owen, B. M. and Rosston, G. L. 2003. Local broadband access: Primum non nocere or primum processi?: A property rights approach. Stanford law and economics olin working paper no. 263. http://ssrn.com/abstract=431620.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Peha, J. M. 2006. The benefits and risks of mandating network neutrality, and the quest for a balanced policy. In Proceedings of the 34th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Saltzer, J. H., Reed, D. P., and Clark, D. D. 1984. End-to-end arguments in system design. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 2, 4, 277--288. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Solum, L. B. and Chung, M. 2003. The layers principle: Internet architecture and the law. U. San Diego public law research paper No. 55. http://ssrn.com/abstract=416263.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Speta, J. B. 2000. Handicapping the race for the last mile?: A critique of open access rules for broadband platforms. Yale J. Regulation 17, 39--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. U.S. Congress. 1984. S.66.PP, Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 98th Congress, Public Law 98-549. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:s.00066:.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. U.S. Congress. 1992. S.12.PP Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992, 102nd Congress, Public Law 102-385. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:s.00012:.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. U.S. Congress. 1996. S.652.PP Telecomunications Act of 1996, 104th Congress, Public Law 104-104. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:s.00652:.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. U.S. Congress. 2006a. H.R.5252.EH Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act, 109th Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05252:.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. U.S. Congress. 2006b. H.R.5252.RS, Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, 109th Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05252:.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. U.S. Congress. 2006c. H.R.5417.RH Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006, 109th Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.05417:.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. U.S. Congress. 2006d. Net Neutrality Act of 2006, 109th Congress, Proposed Amendment to H.R.5252. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HZ00987:.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. U.S. Congress. 2006e. S.2360.IS Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, 109th Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02360:.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. U.S. Congress. 2006f. S.2917.IS Internet Freedom Preservation Act, 109th Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02917:.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. van Schewick, B. 2007. Towards an economic framework for network neutrality regulation. J. Telecommun. High Technol. Law 5. http://ssrn.com/abstract=812991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Werbach, K. D. 2002. A layered model for Internet policy. J. Telecommun. High-Tech Law 1. http://ssrn.com/abstract=648581.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Whitt, R. S. 2004. A horizontal leap forward: Formulating a new Ccommunications public policy framework based on the network layers model. Federal Commun. Law J. 56, 587--672.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Wu, D. and Negi, R. 2003. Effective capacity: A wireless link model for support of quality of service. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. 2, 4, 630--643. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Wu, T. 2004. The broadband debate: A user's guide. J. Telecommun. High Technol. Law 3, 69--95. http://ssrn.com/abstract=557330.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Yoo, C. S. 2005. Beyond network neutrality. Harvard J. Law Technol. 19, 1--77. http://ssrn.com/abstract=742404.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Yoo, C. S. 2006. Network neutrality and the economics of congestion. Georgetown Law J. 94. http://ssrn.com/abstract=825669.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Implications of Internet architecture on net neutrality

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
        ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 9, Issue 2
        May 2009
        116 pages
        ISSN:1533-5399
        EISSN:1557-6051
        DOI:10.1145/1516539
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2009 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 11 May 2009
        • Accepted: 1 June 2007
        • Received: 1 February 2007
        Published in toit Volume 9, Issue 2

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!