Fill the details/instructions form and checkout for your essay - pro writers; top college graduates only in less than 5 mins, NO AI—Plagiarism-free!.
Posted: October 26th, 2022
THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NET NEUTRALITY” PRINCIPLE AMONG INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY AND ITS INFLUENCE ON INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
BASED ON THE COMPARISON OF CASE VERIZON V. FCC AND CASE UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION V. FCC
ABSTRACT
This dissertation provided an overall introduction of net neutrality and its development around the world especially the first country that adopted the net neutrality in its legislation and countries develop net neutrality very well. The net neutrality principle becomes more and more important in this information age. It starts from the late 1990s and is the shorthand for a proposed regime of economic regulation for the Internet. This principle emphasize that treats all network users equally, no discrimination and no priority should exist when people connect the Internet.
Besides, net neutrality is good for an open Internet environment. It encourages the competition and innovation of the Internet as well. To help readers understand the net neutrality, this dissertation makes a comparison between two influential cases. These two cases are important not only in United States history, but also affect the development of the net neutrality all over the world.
After the introduction of net neutrality in Europe and North America, this dissertation will focus on the situation of net neutrality in China. After that, it will make a conclusion of this relatively new topic net neutrality.
Chapter I: The overview of “net neutrality” principle
1.1 The concept of “net neutrality”……………………….
1.1.1 No discrimination and no priority
1.1.2 Good for an open Internet environment
1.1.3 Encourage the competition and innovation of the Internet…….
1.2 Types of “net neutrality”…………………………..
1.2.1 Data packets neutrality………………………..
1.2.2 Blocking and rerouting………………………..
1.2.3 Access tiering/preferential treatment over the last mile………
1.3 The application of net neutrality
Chapter II: The history and development of the Net Neutrality principle around the world
2.1 The historical background of the Net Neutrality principle
2.1.1 An “end-to-end” network design
2.1.2 Start from telephone network
2.2 The development of the Net Neutrality principle around the world
2.2.1 The Net Neutrality in Chile
2.2.2 The Net Neutrality in United States
2.2.3 The Net Neutrality in European Union
2.2.4 The Net Neutrality in Canada
Chapter III: Two typical Cases: Verizon V. FCC and Case United States Telecom Association V. FCC
3.1.1 The introduction of the case
3.1.2 The influence of this case
3.2 United States Telecom Association V. FCC
3.2.1 The introduction of the case
3.2.2 The influence of the case
3.3 The reasons for writing these two cases
3.3.1 The same cause of action and background, different judgments…
3.3.2 Meaningful to the progress of “net neutrality” principle in US as well as the whole world
Chapter IV: The net neutrality principle in China and its possible future
4.1 The current situation of net neutrality principle in China
4.1.1 Operators have discrimination against consumers
4.1.2 Mutual discrimination and unfair competition among operators and Internet service providers…..
4.1.3 The speech and information review of operators and network service providers…..
4.2 The possible future of net neutrality principle in China
4.2.1 Put the rules of Net Neutrality into the progress of Chinese legislation of Internet……
4.2.2 Strengthen the Chinese government supervision system of the violation of the net neutrality
Nowadays, people’s life is closely connected with the Internet on all aspects and Internet makes people’s life more efficient and convenient. In the late 1990s, cable operators were forced to sell content services with Internet access services and blocked their competitors, which first attracted the attention of academics.[1] In 2000, Mark A. and Lawrence Lessig from Stanford Law School published the “The End of End—to—End Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era”; in 2001, Lawrence Lessig published “The Internet Under Siege”; in 2002, Wu Xiuming from the University of Columbia Law School published the “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination”. These three documents marked the establishment of the concept of “network neutrality”, Wu Xiuming and Lawrence Lessig became the leader of the “network neutrality”.[2] Vinton Cerf, the father of the Internet, states that Internet is an “Interconnection of computer networks that enable connected machines to communicate directly” [3].
“Network neutrality” is the shorthand for a proposed regime of economic regulation for the Internet[4]. Because of the trend to deliver traditional telecommunications services, as well as new forms of content and applications, by Internet protocol (IP), a regime of network neutrality regulation would displace or subordinate a substantial portion of existing telecommunications regulation.[5] Indeed, the net neutrality principle can be advanced on broad economic bases (such as consumer rights, de-regulated market, and competition policies), as well as on more normative/ideological bases[6].
That is to say, if you learn net neutrality from different aspects you may have different expression of its definition. Generally the term is understood to mean that a network should treat all data neutrally and allow all users to connect to the network without restrictions.[7] The proposal goes straight to the heart of the debate on the idea of “Net neutrality” – the phrase that was first coined by Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, and is used to signify the concept that the Internet is merely a carrier of online content that does not distinguish one website from another[8].
The central idea inherent in this concept is that a “maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally”, and while a formal definition of the operationalization of the principle does not exist, point out that net neutrality “usually means that broadband service providers charge consumers only once for Internet access, do not favor one content provider over another, and do not charge content providers for sending information over broadband lines to end users.”[9] In addition to the words, telecommunications carriers have taken action. In 2005, Madison River Communications Company blocked Vonage Company VoIP traffic[10]. In 2007, Comcast Company limits Bit Torrent user speed events.[11]
What constitutes network neutrality? Several definitions are in current use: The ability of all Internet users to access the content or applications of their choice; Assurance that all traffic on the Internet is treated equally, whatever its source, content or destination; Absence of unreasonable discrimination on the part of network operators in transmitting Internet traffic[12].
Net neutrality is this: If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level. That’s all. It’s up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens. Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the Internet for free[13]. Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn’t pay more money for high quality of service. We always have, and we always will.[14] In short, net neutrality is about the rules of the road for Internet users, and about the relationship between the owners of those roads and the users[15].
The concept of Net Neutrality has been defined differently by various authors，but there is no common definition.
The principle of network neutrality states that the Internet service provider (ISP) shall allow to all its users access to all web content or online application, without any restrictions. Net neutrality refers to the concept that all content and applications on the Internet should be equally accessible[16]. In simple terms, the principle states that the ISP shall not discriminate between any web content and applications, and shall provide an open access to all its users without any priority being given to any web content or application.[17] The practical effect of banning such differential pricing would be to prevent the pricing of access to content or applications providers according to priority of delivery.[18] We can see that no discrimination and no priority are very important elements to apply net neutrality principle.
Furthermore, the network neutrality principle is usually couched in terms of preserving the “openness” of the Internet so that consumers can freely access third-party applications over Internet networks without the fear that the broadband network provider will deteriorate or degrade the transmission to these third-party applications and services in favor of their own applications and services.[19] However, net neutrality is an issue that arises in all competitive and non-competitive information environments that use Internet Protocol (IP) and the public Internet to communicate.[20] Many forms of net neutrality proposals are justified on the basis of the need for regulatory guarantee but are unlikely to pass scrutiny of the competitive outcome test because they are aimed at regulating, means behaviors that have no significant negative impact on competition.[21]
In contrast, the competitive outcome approach requires that ISP behavior in the access market be assessed ex post on a case-by-case basis with the overriding question being whether the impugned behavior could substantially lessen or impede competition in the content and applications market. Proponents of network neutrality regulation argue that such restrictions on the pricing policies of network operators are necessary to preserve innovation on the edges of the network, as opposed to innovation within the network.[22] Proponents of net neutrality argue that regulation is necessary to preserve innovation in an online content[23]. They fear that, absent net neutrality requirements, broadband service providers will preserve for themselves or sell to the largest Internet companies’ preferential access to customers, thereby stifling opportunities for new entrants.[24] However, recognizing that network congestion and real-time applications demand some differential pricing according to bandwidth or priority, proponents of network neutrality regulation would allow broadband Internet access providers to charge higher prices to end-users (but not content or applications providers) who consume more bandwidth or who seek priority delivery of certain traffic.[25] No blanket or detailed rules of prohibition or constriction should be imposed.
Instead specific, real and significant threats to competition should be identified and rectified as the facts may arise.[26] Some venture capitalists have even argued that abandoning net neutrality would result in would-be entrepreneurs becoming more hesitant to start a business, which might hurt the competitiveness of American online firms in the long run[27].
To be short, net neutrality principle is necessary to build an open Internet environment, which encourages free competition and innovation.
It’s up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens. Net Neutrality is not asking for the Internet for free. It is the point that we need to keep it in mind. Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn’t pay more money for high quality of service. We always have, and we always will. There have been suggestions that we don’t need legislation because we haven’t had it. These are nonsense, because in fact we have had net neutrality in the past – it is only recently that real explicit threats have occurred.[28] Net neutrality regulation is required as a guarantee that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will not behave in the access market in manners that can impede competition, innovation and investment in the Internet content and applications market[29]. That is to say, net neutrality principle is beneficial to the innovation and competition of the Internet, so many small Internet companies and consumers speak highly of it.
When it comes to the net neutrality, many people have different ideas about it. Some say that network neutrality is a network design paradigm that argues for broadband network providers to be completely detached from what information is sent over their networks,[30] while a few regard it as an absence of restrictions or priorities placed on the type of content carried over the Internet by the carriers and ISPs that run the major backbones,[31] and a few others define it differently. The principle of network neutrality has no precise definition and can be best understood by determining its types. The various types or “flavors” of network neutrality are as follows[32].
Since the inception of the Internet network, the data packets were transmitted in bits and bytes with none of the packets given priority over other. The Internet network has evolved over period of time, leading to a drastic rise in the number of its users, as a result of which the ISPs, in order to attract more and more customers, have resorted to unethical means by blocking and rerouting various packets. Data packet neutrality prohibits such unethical measures.[33]
In simple terms, content neutrality means that an ISP shall provide to all its customers an open and equal access to online content without any discrimination. This flavor of “network neutrality” is focused on ensuring customer access.[34] There is no wonder that consumers would support net neutrality because it is beneficial to them.
Data packet neutrality or content neutrality states that the ISP shall provide an open access to all the online data and shall give no priority to any particular data packet.[35] Today, some Internet companies argue that, without network neutrality, network providers may charge a fee for specific content or content that comes from certain sources.[36] So it is clear that no discrimination and no differential charges are of great importance to this type of net neutrality.
One meaning of network neutrality has to do with prohibiting blocking and degrading by the last mile of the web contents by broadband providers such as telecommunications companies or cable companies.[37] Blocking is any obstruction imposed in the access of online data (Internet Protocol packets or ports), by the ISP to the end-user/users. The assertion here is that no discrimination shall be made by the ISPs in favour of their own content or its affiliates, applications, etc.[38] Under the concept of rerouting: for example the ISP may change the route or reroute the traffic in order to attain some benefit like blocking a rival’s services or avoiding a transport charge.[39] That is to say, ISPs cannot do anything to block the network in order to support their own applications or affiliates.
The first case where the packet data was blocked by an ISP was revealed in 2005, when Madison River Communications, a North Carolina based broadband provider, was accused of blocking its customers from accessing a popular Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service called Vonage,[40]presumably to protect Madison River’s conventional telephone service from competition.[41] The FCC enforced network neutrality through a consent decree, whereby Madison consented to cease the blocking of Vonage and a fine of US $15,000 was imposed. Therefore, we can know that if net neutrality is critical for the free and fair competition of the Internet market.
Some network neutrality proponents have taken the position that network providers should be allowed to charge different prices to end-users consuming different amounts of bandwidth (i.e. consumer tiering), but not to content and applications providers (i.e. access tiering).[42] Lawrence Lessig defines access tiering as “any policy by network owners to condition content or service providers’ right to provide content or service to the network upon the payment of some fee”.[43] This is in addition to basic Internet access fees.[44] A theoretically more interesting network neutrality debate concerns proposals to restrict commercial deals concerning superior access to a broadband platform for performance-sensitive applications and content.[45] Access tiering represents a prima facie challenge to the model of conventional Internet connectivity.[46] The main question that remains unanswered is whether the government should prohibit or closely regulate access tiering? Concerning this issue, different states have different attitude and I will explain it later.
Where do you need the principle of Net Neutrality? How is it applied? These are questions that we concern about. Net Neutrality plays its role by prohibiting discrimination. It originated as a largely academic debate among thinkers like Tim Wu, Lawrence Lessig, Mark Lemley and Christopher Yoo. The idea of network neutrality took on substantial political salience in the early 2000s, as web content providers like Google and Amazon began to publicly press for federal measures prohibiting network providers from discriminating among content.[47] The main purpose of Net Neutrality is to encourage the innovation in the Internet industry and to help build open Internet environment. Thus, no discrimination is of great importance.[48] A network neutrality mandate would prohibit network owners from discriminating against particular applications and content providers.[49]
The network neutrality controversy, however, is in no way confined to the United States. Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, and other nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have begun studying the issue.[50] So far, many states have already applied net neutrality principle. It becomes more and more popular.
In the beginning, Internet architects like Jerome Saltzer, David Clark, and David P. Reed proposed the idea of an “end-to-end” network design: i.e. the goal of connectivity was best achieved by implementing a dumb core and pushing intelligence to the ends of the network.[51] Professor Jonathan Zittrain notes that this end-to-end design (e2e) was based on two principles: procrastination and trust.[52] The principle of procrastination assumes network problems “can be solved later”: “the network should not be designed to do anything that can be taken care of by its users.”[53] The ‘trust-your-neighbour’ principle assumed that network participants are trustworthy and that “they will be participants rather than customers”.[54] The result was that the network was completely open to outsiders to develop uses for it without anyone’s permission, and “the Internet’s protocols thus assumed that all packets of data were intended to be delivered with equal urgency”.[55] Lessig theorizes that the e2e design had at least three “important consequences for innovation”.[56]
First, because applications run on computers at the edge of the network, innovators with new applications need only connect their computers to the network to let their applications run; Second, because the design is not optimized for any particular existing application, the network is open to innovation not originally imagined; Third, because the design effects a neutral platform–neutral in the sense that the network owner can’t discriminate against some packets while favoring others, the network can’t discriminate against a new innovator’s design.[57]
By the late 1990s/early 2000s, network technology had advanced to the point where scholars like Lessig and Tim Wu began to voice concerns that network owners may deploy devices at the core of the network that would impede the e2e principle and silently interfere at the content/application level of the Internet.[58] As phone and cable companies affiliated with ISPs, net neutrality proponents feared that the potential for vertical integration would tempt these corporations to discriminate amongst Internet traffic to benefit themselves.[59] Net neutrality detractors (mainly phone and cable companies) argued there was no evidence of discrimination and proposed that “… network neutrality regulation was a solution in search of a problem.”[60] In 2007, U.S. cable provider/ISP Comcast put an end to the question by demonstrating that there was a definite problem.
The principle of Net Neutrality has close relation with the development of the Internet. The concept of network neutrality began with the invention of the telephone network/public switched telephone network (PSTN)[61]; these networks were expressly forbidden to give preferential treatment to any customer over another, as every telephone was linked to a telephone exchange and calls could be connected only by the exchange’s discretionary actions.[62] That is to say, the idea of neutrality exists not only in the Internet, but also in telephone network.
Net Neutrality principle has a long history and will be respected even now and in the future. Before the popularity of optical fiber, bandwidth is limited, but special software and services have more requirements on the bandwidth.[63] Therefore, operators believe that these applications take up too much bandwidth resources, affecting other users to connect the network, which made the request to set restrictions on such software applications or charge a separate fee.
The current network neutrality debate stems from a similar tension between open innovation and monopolistic control.[64] Just like the situation in United States, the Net Neutrality principle is regulated in the “Open Internet Order”. [65] We can see that the Net Neutrality is closely connected with the innovation and open environment of Internet.
Regarding the net neutrality, states have approached this regulatory issue in different ways. In July 2010, Chile became the first country in the world to legally guarantee net neutrality.[66] The requirements of net neutrality are strictest in United States and it develops most deeply and thoroughly. The EU, after a public consultation between June and September 2010, decided against legislating on the matter, determining that transparency and media scrutiny would be sufficient to keep the Internet free and open. Canada’s regulatory agency, the Canadian Radio-television Communications Commission (CRTC) rejected a model based on charging per bandwidth, but decided to permit data throttling on peer-to-peer file sharing networks between 4:30 p.m. and 2 a.m.[67]
After nearly three years of analysis, on June 13, 2010, the National Congress of Chile by an amendment to its General Law of Telecommunications, with approval by the Chamber of Deputies by 100 votes to zero with one abstention, became the first country in the world with network neutrality laws.[68] As we can see, states of South America and Europe become the leaders of setting up net neutrality principle.
It all began when a majority of the ISPs of Chile started performing actions derogatory to the principle of network neutrality such as blocking Internet Protocol packets and data ports, etc. That is when a community called Neutralidad Sí, along with a group of citizens, made a representation to the representatives of congress regarding the significance of the principle of network neutrality and the need of such a law in Chile.[69]
As a result, after a three-year discussion in its parliament, the law was finally passed in the interests of consumers on June 2010. Chile has been a pioneer in many aspects of telecommunications, and the passage of its network neutrality law is another example.[70] Article 24H of the General Law of Telecommunications of Chile deals with the principle of network neutrality. It states that an ISP: May not arbitrarily block, interfere with, discriminate against, hinder or restrict the right of any Internet user to use, send, receive or offer any content, application or legal services through the Internet, and any other legal activity or use conducted through the network.[71] In this sense, each user must be provided with an Internet access or connectivity by the ISP, as appropriate, without arbitrarily differentiating content, applications or services based on the source or ownership thereof, taking into account the different configurations of the Internet connection in accordance to its current contract with its users.[72]
However, it allows the ISPs to take all reasonable measures or actions necessary for traffic management and network management in a particular area provided such actions are authorized. The ISPs are prohibited from performing actions affecting competition or which are of a competitive nature.[73] The General Law of Telecommunications of Chile doesn’t provide an absolute law on network neutrality; instead it imposes certain reasonable restrictions, it allows the ISP to block access to certain content, applications or services in order to preserve user privacy, protection against viruses, network security or upon the request of the users.[74] It also imposes an obligation on the Internet services provider to publish the information regarding Internet access, speed, link quality, distinguishing between national and international connections and the nature and service guarantees, on its website. In addition the ISP may not restrict a user to use any kind of device or tool on the network unless they harm the network or the quality of service, or are illegal.[75]
The Chilean law on network neutrality provides a three-tined approach: firstly, it determines that ISPs may not differentiate content based on origin; secondly, it creates an obligation for ISPs to allow users to use any legal equipment[76]; and thirdly, it also creates an obligation with regard to transparency of filters, speeds and quality of service.[77] The provisions are drafted in such a manner that it provides the ISP with access tiering, and thereby they can charge variable prices based on the Internet speed, with the intention of moving the industry away from flat fee[78], in order to reduce traffic congestion and a fall in the Internet speed.
Similarly network neutrality is regarded as a widely discussed, least understood concepts in the world of Internet policy[79]; as a result there are very few countries which have adopted the concept of network neutrality as a law within their legislations.
The first public expression of network neutrality in the United States dates back to the pacific telegraph Act of 1860, which states that “any information from any person, company, organization or any fixed node connected by a telegraph network shall In accordance with the acceptance criteria of information, unless the Government gives it the right of first refusal” [80]. Subsequently, the Telecommunications Act of 1934 describes the distinction between “Telecommunication Services” and “Information Services”, the former means “direct provision of paid telecommunication services to the public”, while the latter is defined as “the provision of information through the telecommunications channel (service)”. After one decade, the Telecommunications Act of 1996[81] has become an anachronism. The current regulatory environment in the United States concerning the Internet is based on the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Due to the slow incorporation of the laws into practice through both houses of the United States parliament and legal systems, its effects have only begun to show in the 21st century.[82] The new battle in American telecommunications regulation— said by some to decide the future of the Internet—centers on an arcane notion dubbed “network neutrality.”
In 2002, the FCC found that there were monopolistic lines in the field of wired Internet access. To end this, the FCC began to develop measures to manage the wired Internet, which became the beginning of the network neutrality debate.[83] Before 2004, the vast majority of controversies over net neutrality had focused on the procedural and legal aspects of the FCC’s Internet governance policy.[84] In 2005, the FCC required Internet service providers to comply with the four fundamental implications of the network neutrality proposed by the FCC in its White Paper on Internet Policy that 1) the user has access to any legitimate Internet content they choose; 2) the user has the right, without prejudice to the network; 3) Users have the right to operate their chosen applications without affecting their enforcement; 4) Users should benefit from competition between network access providers, service providers and content providers.[85] From this, we can learn the situation of net neutrality in US.
In the United States, the question now headed to both the courts and Congress concerns the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)’s ability to re-characterize Internet access providers as common carriers under the existing, substantially 379 obsolete statutory framework for regulating telecommunications.[86]
The US FCC enacted the “Open Internet Order” in 2010, which provides the principles of “transparency”, “no discrimination”, “no blocking” and “reasonable management” in order to maintain the freedom and openness of the network, as well as to encourage innovation, investment, employment, economic growth, freedom of competition and expression.[87] The US Federal Communications Commission has introduced new rules to promote the ideal of net neutrality, taking on the practices of broadband providers. Both service providers and content generators claim they support an Internet free from interference.
This battle is far from straightforward, and already heading to court.[88] January 2011, Verizon Communications files a federal lawsuit saying that broadband service providers could not be treated as ‘common carriers’, and so the FCC does not have the jurisdiction to impose the new rules. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering whether it should try again to impose ‘net neutrality’ rules on broadband service providers after its previous effort to do so was struck down in a court challenge earlier this year.[89] January 2014, a Federal Appeals Court rules in favor of Verizon and strikes down the FCC’s 2010 rules. But the Court agrees that broadband providers represent a threat to Internet openness and development without rules similar to those in the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 being put in place.
Regulation of electronic communications in the United States reflects a sharp dichotomy between two legal (not economic) classifications: telecommunication services and information services[90]. Telecommunication services are subject to numerous regulatory obligations; information services were historically subject to few if any explicit obligations.[91]
Core Internet services were always treated as information services, and thus largely unregulated; physical access to the Internet was, however, historically treated as a regulated telecommunication service. As long as this was the case, the US regulatory system worked more or less similarly to that which Europe adopted in 2002 -2003.[92]
The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is in the midst of a historic change in its regulatory treatment of broadband Internet service providers (BSPs). In 2002, the FCC altered its course with respect to federal regulation of providers of Internet access by classifying cable modem Internet access service as an information service subject to light regulation under Title I of the Communications Act.[93] In a remarkable change of course and recognition of a failed experiment, the FCC plans to reclassify broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to much more potentially burdensome Title II regulations[94].
In short, the FCC plans to restore common carriage to providers of broadband Internet access service by announcing rules against blocking, discrimination, paid prioritization and fast lanes in general.[95] In addition, the FCC promises to forbear from many Title II regulations including the three provisions (Title II ss.203, 204, and 205) implicating what is commonly referred to as rate regulation[96], and by installing a consumer-friendly complaint process. According to outside observers, the Federal Communications Commission, faced with this dilemma, may choose either to argue that its regulations do not fall under the rubric of common carriage, or attempt to reclassify broadband as a common carrier. Neither path is considered to be easy, as major industry players are expected to resist any attempt to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Communications Act.[97] Nevertheless, the ruling left some room for FCC action by allowing the agency to police broadband use by bringing enforcement actions on a case-by-case basis against companies that act in an allegedly anti-competitive manner.[98] As a result, FCC achieved its goal by the case United States Telecom Association V. FCC.
Being the focus of global attention regarding telecommunications, the European region has brought together the hottest and most troublesome topics, such as the construction of next generation access networks (NGAs) and the open and ‘neutral’ net, which are among the biggest headaches experienced by telecom carriers.[99] The debate about net neutrality is still at an earlier stage in Europe than it is in the US.[100] In the discussion of network neutrality among EU member states, regulators are advised to make network transparency be the most important principle in order to minimize the risk of operator’s discriminatory anti-competitive behavior.[101] Even though, Europe Union started to discuss net neutrality late, but it develops very fast. The EU framework for telecommunications consists of the sector-specific ONP (‘Open Network Provision’) framework operated by the European Commission and the National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) of the Member States of the European Union, and EU competition law applied by the European Commission and the national competition authorities and the court system.[102]
In November 2009, the European institutions reached agreement on far-reaching and, in parts, controversial reform of the EU telecoms regulation. The Commission proclaimed that reform would lead to stronger consumer rights, an open Internet, a single European telecoms market and high-speed Internet connections for all citizens.[103] Although the European framework as adopted in 2002–03 did not precisely address net neutrality, revisions to the regulatory framework in 2009 touched on a number of net neutrality issues.
In particular, national regulatory authorities (NRAs) are required to promote “the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice”.[104] They are also entitled to set minimum quality of service requirements.[105] It is clear that the requirements of net neutrality in Europe Union are a little different from those in US.
The new telecoms rules will ensure that while ISPs will be allowed to use traffic management tools to allow premium high-quality services to develop and to ensure secure communications, they will not be allowed to use these techniques to degrade the quality of other services to unacceptably low levels or to strengthen dominant market positions.[106] National regulators will have powers to set minimum quality levels for network transmission services so as to promote “net neutrality” and “net freedoms” for European citizens.[107] We can see from these the quality of network service can be chosen by the European citizens.
In early March 2015, the EU government promised to adopt a more liberal network of legislation to allow telecommunications carriers to charge for specific Internet services, in order to charge additional costs to ensure the quality of the connection, provided that this part of the service does not affect the large most users for the normal use of the Internet.[108]
The agreement also enshrines for the first time the principle of net neutrality in EU law, users will be free to access the content of their choice, they will not be unfairly blocked or slowed down anymore, and paid prioritization will not be allowed. This means, for example, that the access to a start-up’s website will not be unfairly slowed down to make the way for bigger companies[109]. No service will be stuck because it does not pay an additional fee to Internet service providers. There will not be gatekeepers to decide what users can and cannot access.
In the open Internet, all traffic will be treated equally, subject to strict and clearly identified public-interest exceptions, such as network security or combating child pornography, and subject to efficient day-to-day network management by Internet service providers.[110] The EU will have the strongest and most comprehensive open Internet rules in the world, complete with strong end-user rights to ensure that subscribers get what they pay for. These rules will be a reality across all Member States as soon as the text officially applies on April 30, 2016.[111] The four remedies that have been widely used in Europe are: Local Loop Unbundling (LLU): a copper pair (or equivalent) is rented to a third party for its exclusive use; Shared access: enables the incumbent to continue to provide telephony service while the new entrant delivers high-speed data services over that same local loop; Bistream access: the incumbent installs a high-speed access link to the customer premises, and makes this access link available to third parties (new entrants) over a shared access facility to enable them to provide high-speed services to customers.[112] Simple resale: a new entrant receives and sells to its end users a product that is commercially similar to the DSL product provided by the incumbent to its own retail customers.[113] These provisions are important to an understanding of the European response to network neutrality to the extent that they help to ensure retail competition for broadband services.[114] As noted previously, effective retail competition for broadband makes harmful network neutrality problems less likely. Internet service providers have powerful tools at their disposal that allow them to differentiate between the various data transmissions on the Internet, such as voice or ‘peer-to-peer’ communication. Even though traffic management may allow premium high-quality services (such as IPTV) to develop and can help ensure secure communications, the same techniques may also be used to degrade the quality of other services to unacceptably low levels or to strengthen dominant positions on the market[115]. That is why, under the new EU rules, national telecoms authorities will have the powers to set minimum quality levels for network transmission services so as to promote “net neutrality” and “net freedoms” for European citizens.[116] Thus, we can learn that the net neutrality principle develops later than that in US and the requirements are looser compared with United States.
Concerning the net neutrality in Canada, it needs to start from The Telecommunication Act 1991. It contains certain provisions undermining the principles of network neutrality. The Act empowers Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) as the authority to enforce the principles of network neutrality.[117] In 2006, guidelines on issues of economic regulation in the telecommunications sector were issued by the Government of Canada in a Policy Direction to the CRTC (The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission).[118]The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) are vested with the authority to regulate telecommunications service providers by the Telecommunications Act.
The CRTC has determined that certain specific sections of the Telecommunications Act, in particular sections 27 and 36, can be used to address issues of net neutrality.[119] The backdrop to the Policy Direction was a comprehensive report and set of recommendations for a new telecommunications regulatory framework submitted to the government by the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel on March 22, 2006.[120] In addition to its review of current telecommunications regulation, the TPR Panel specifically examined net neutrality regulation and concluded that: Canada’s telecommunications policy and regulatory framework should include provisions that confirm and protect the right of Canadian consumers to access publicly available Internet applications and content of their choice by means of public telecommunications networks that provide access to the Internet[121]. The result has been the introduction of new net neutrality rules, a reassessment of a controversial usage-based billing decision, the implementation of a consumer wireless code, transformative broadcast regulation focused on consumer choice, and regulatory consideration of additional pro-consumer measures.[122]
Policy direction was further clarified in 2007 when the Canadian Government issued binding guidelines to the CRTC on matters of economic regulation in the telecommunications sector. The guidelines, which were issued as a Policy Direction, are rooted in competition law principles and direct the CRTC, in assessing existing and new regulatory measures, to rely on market forces to the maximum extent possible, weigh the costs and benefits of regulation and opt for less intrusive measures than behavior and price regulation.[123]
However, because consumer access issues are complex and rapidly evolving, the Panel also believes it is important to distinguish between various kinds of concerns that arise in relation to consumer access, and to address them through the most appropriate regulatory mechanisms.[124] These concerns include: first, concerns arising as a result of anti-competitive conduct; second, concerns arising as a result of business decisions taken in the context of normal commercial business practices; third, concerns arising from decisions taken for non-commercial reasons. [125] The CRTC promulgated regulations on October 24, 2009. By doing so, to promote net neutrality by Canadian ISPs. Under the regulations, any throttling of classes of Internet traffic can be done only in the face of “a defined need”, such as to eliminate congestion, and must be “nothing more” than necessary to meet that need.[126]
The policy was to allow “market forces to continue to shape the evolution of the Internet infrastructure, investment and innovation to the greatest extent feasible.”[127] The discussion of net neutrality legislation, therefore, was “premature” according to the government.
Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission was a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit case vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 that the court determined could only be applied to common carriers.[128] The court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to impose the order in its entirety. Because the FCC had previously classified broadband providers under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, the court ruled that the FCC had relinquished its right to regulate them like common carriers. At issue was whether the FCC could regulate Internet service providers with regards to network neutrality[129].
The court first defines their task as, “not to assess the wisdom of the Open Internet Order regulations, but rather to determine whether the Commission has demonstrated that the regulations fall within the scope of its statutory grant of authority.” The court then sets about breaking up the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 into its constituent parts and either vacating or upholding each part.
The court vacated two parts of the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, determining that the FCC did not have the authority to impose these orders without classifying network providers as common carriers.[130] Therefore, the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 regulations, which could only be applied to common carriers, could not be applied to broadband providers. The court upheld the transparency order of the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, which it found was not contingent upon network operators being classified as common carriers.[131]
The court mostly agreed with the FCC’s interpretation of section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The court also agreed with the FCC that broadband providers represent a threat to Internet openness and could hinder future Internet development without at least rules similar to those in the FCC Open Internet Order 2010.[132]
In the Verizon decision, the D.C. Circuit concluded that s.706 supplied the FCC with affirmative authority to regulate the conduct of BSPs, a power that the FCC had searched for since passage of the Cable Modem Order. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act provides the FCC with the authority to monitor broadband deployment and to use regulatory methods to promote the deployment of broadband infrastructure.[133]
The FCC Open Internet Order 2010 established three orders on fixed and mobile operators of Internet access. The Verizon decision created an opportunity for the FCC to reassess the failed path it was on with respect to effective regulation of BSPs.[134] This order was applied to both fixed and mobile operators. It requires them to publicly disclose accurate information regarding their network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service.[135] The District of Columbia US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the FCC’s decision may not be unreasonable but its departure from its own precedent without sufficient explanation was arbitrary and capricious.[136]
Immediately following the decision, both Comcast and Verizon issued a statement that the Internet will continue to work for consumers. Verizon stated the ruling will result in more innovation and more choice for consumers. AT&T stated that their commitment to network neutrality would not diminish. Time Warner Cable stated that their commitment to deliver the best service would not be compromised. As part of the Comcast NBC merger, Comcast was required to follow the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 for 7 years. They reiterated this commitment after the trial.[137]
On February 10, 2014, Netflix updated its ISP speed rankings with January 2014 data that show the average access speed via Verizon FiOS traffic was dropped down between December 2013 and January 2014.[138] Ars Technica, a technology news and information website, suggested the possibility that the ruling might affect this sudden traffic speed drop. Pointing to Netflix’s performance change, several news media pointed out that the battle began shifting from network neutrality frameworks to private peering deals, which had not been covered by the FCC Open Internet Order 2010. In a remarkable change of course and recognition of a failed experiment, the FCC plans to reclassify broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to much more potentially burdensome Title II regulations.[139]
In January 2014, in response to the ruling, the petition campaign, which urged the President Obama to direct the FCC to reclassify ISPs as “common carriers”[140], was launched on the White House’s petition site. It received more than 105,000 signatures.[141] On 18 February 2014, the Obama administration replied to the petition. It stated that although the president Obama “vigorously supports” a robust, free and open Internet, he was not able to direct the FCC to do that because the FCC is an independent agency.[142]
Then, in November 2014, President Obama threw his support behind the ideas of reclassifying broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service and using Title II with significant forbearance to regulate BSPs.[143] On one hand, the FCC used that authority to create new net neutrality regulations that apply to BSPs while, on the other hand, the FCC can now use that authority to justify forbearance from certain regulations on BSPs that emanate from the new net neutrality regulations.[144] The President’s statement seemed to tip the scale in the direction of reclassification of broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service.[145]
On February 19, 2014, Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the FCC, issued a statement responding to the court’s decision and laying out their intentions for the future of network neutrality. The FCC stated that they will not appeal the decision, but will establish new rules for the transparency, the no blocking, and the non-discrimination, based on the decision. The FCC stated it will keep “Title II authority on the table” and work “on a case by case basis” to evaluate whether standards of network neutrality are met by carriers.[146]
Additionally, the FCC laid out plans to start challenging state laws prohibiting municipal broadband, based in part on the dissenting opinion of Judge Laurence H. Silberman, who wrote that the FCC has the authority to take “measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.”[147]
In short, the FCC plans to restore common carriage to providers of broadband Internet access service by announcing rules against blocking, discrimination, paid prioritization and fast lanes in general.[148] This time, although FCC failed, it continues to fight for net neutrality and codifies the Open Internet Order.
In the case Verizon V. FCC, FCC planned to set net neutrality principle but failed. The FCC responded with the 2015 Open Internet Order at issue in the instant challenge.[149] The Order reclassifies fixed and mobile broadband service as “telecommunications services”. The FCC exempted broadband carriers from mandatory unbundling requirements that were triggered by the telecommunications service classification.
Finally, the FCC promulgated five net neutrality rules, applied to both fixed and mobile broadband service. The first three, termed “bright-line rules,” ban blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. The fourth, termed a “general conduct rule”, prohibits providers from unreasonably interfering with end users’ ability to select the service or Internet content of their choice. Finally, the fifth rule built upon the transparency rule upheld previously by the D.C. Circuit. Petitioners, several groups of service providers, edge providers, users, organizations, and investors challenged the Order. The D.C. Circuit denied the various petitions, thus upholding the Order.
The court first determined that reclassifying fixed and mobile broadband service, as telecommunications service was permissible under the Telecommunications Act. Turning to step two, the court found reasonable the FCC’s conclusion that users rely on broadband service primarily to access information from other providers, rather than independent content like email offered by broadband service providers.[150] The court accepted the FCC’s conclusion that DNS and caching services were adjuncts to telecommunications service that primarily facilitate use of the network.
The court next turned to challenges to the Commission’s regulation of interconnection arrangements — agreements between broadband providers and other networks to ensure end user access to content.
Turning to challenges specific to mobile broadband service, the court noted that under the Act, mobile services are subdivided into “commercial mobile services” and “private mobile services”[151]，only the former of which are subject to common carrier regulation.[152] The court next rejected various procedural and substantive challenges to the FCC’s decision to forebear from enforcing unbundling requirements on broadband providers. Next, the court rejected challenges to the promulgated rules on due process/vagueness grounds.
Finally, the court found no First Amendment infirmity in the Order. The court noted that conveying Internet content did not involve any editorial discretion and that broadband providers, like telephone companies, were neutral, indiscriminate platforms for the conveyance of information.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just passed the strongest net neutrality rules in this country’s history.[153] The FCC thinks the new regulations will help the Internet, making high-speed access available to more rural areas of the country and lowering costs.[154] The US broadband industry has lost its lawsuit attempting to overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules and the related reclassification of Internet service providers as common carriers.[155] In addition to enforcing net neutrality rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, the decision allows the FCC to continue regulating fixed and mobile broadband providers under the common carrier provisions in Title II of the Communications Act.[156] On one thing, it is more and more popular that many states in the world start to set the “neutrality principle” in the laws and regulations. Before the introduction of the FCC network neutrality of the new regulations in United States, several countries in the world have to formulate legislation in the form of the principle of network neutrality. In June 2010, the Chilean Congress amended the Telecommunications Act, and it became the first country in the world to establish a network neutrality; the revised Telecommunications Act prohibits ISPs from arbitrarily shielding, interfering, discriminating, preventing or restricting Internet users from using, sending, receiving or ISPs must provide access to all Internet content on an equal footing, and should not be discriminated against by origin or tenure, or by any other means.[157] In June 2012, following the lead of Chile, the Netherlands incorporated network neutrality into legislation, becoming the first country in Europe to establish network neutrality principle.[158]
Following the introduction of the FCC’s new regulations on network neutrality, the EU adopted a proposal in October 2015 to address the principle of cyber neutrality, but slightly different from the FCC’s network-neutral new rules in the specific rules. The race to decide who makes money from the Internet, and how, reached a significant landmark in February 2015 when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States unveiled fresh rules to secure net neutrality for consumers.[159] “Today’s ruling is a victory for consumers and innovators who deserve unfettered access to the entire Web, and it ensures the Internet remains a platform for unparalleled innovation, free expression and economic growth,”Wheeler said in a statement issued shortly after the ruling.[160]
As people increasingly recognize the fundamental role of the Internet in social and economic activities, the trend to see the Internet as a utility has become increasingly strong, requiring ISPs to not take discriminatory measures such as shielding or restriction.[161] Therefore, in the international level to support network-neutral voice gradually become mainstream, through the laws, regulations, judicial precedents and other means to recognize, to establish the principle of network neutrality, because it relates to the Internet innovation and free competition in the future.[162]
This case is very new but of great importance, it means the net neutrality wins and become more and more popular.
The same court – United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, decided these two cases. In the first case, FCC is the appellee, while in the second case, FCC is one of the respondents. In the case of Verizon V. FCC, the court summarized the Computer Inquiries proceedings it undertook starting in the 1960s, highlighting how the FCC had once treated broadband Internet access provided by telephone companies as a telecommunications service.
The court then noted that the Bushera FCC reversed this line of decisions when it decided to treat broadband access provided by cable companies differently, classifying them as “information services” not subject to Title II of the Communications Act.[163] These missteps — which eventually led to the classification of all broadband Internet access services, including DSL and wireless, as information services — mean that such services are exempt from Title II’s common-carrier requirements. And so the court concluded that the FCC has no authority to apply common-carrier obligations — like nondiscrimination and no-blocking rules — to broadband providers.[164]
The recent ruling is the latest in a lengthy legal battle over whether the FCC can regulate the Internet.[165] In the case United States Telecom Association V. FCC, the court upheld the FCC, while it is closely related with Open Internet Order as well. The second case arose after the same court struck down an earlier set of net neutrality rules in 2014, on the grounds the FCC did not have the legal authority to impose the rules. In response, the agency reclassified Internet providers as “common carriers,” similar to phone companies, in order to impose the new rules.[166] Netflix, which has in the past complained that Internet companies slowed down its content as a competitive tactic, hailed the decision. “Today’s appeals court decision underscores what’s possible when millions of consumers unite to be heard and government officials listen,” said the company in a statement[167]. “The Court went out of its way to define interconnection as a central part of Net Neutrality, ensuring that providers like Netflix will be able to reach consumers without ISP interference.”
Network neutrality is an increasingly important topic due to the growing role of the Internet in our society. The rapid commercialization of the Internet since the mid-1990s has transformed the previously research-oriented network into a marketplace with millions of vendors and possible buyers. If the United States adopts network neutrality regulation, other industrialized nations probably will soon follow.[168] In the United States, although the EU, Japan, Russia and other countries and regions have legislation on the Internet legislation, but its content is relatively loose, it is difficult to cause substantial restrictions on the operator.[169] While most of the discussion has taken place in the United States, any decisions made in the US will affect the European Union as well due to the US-centric nature of the Internet.[170] It appears that the network neutrality debate will unfold first in the United States, where the House of Representatives passed a bill in June 2006 addressing the matter.[171] The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in favor of net neutrality rules, paving the way for the FCC to be able to regulate Internet service providers (ISPs) as a traditional utility, like electric, water, or telecommunication companies.[172] FCC in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals to win the Internet rules so that the Internet rules, even if the US Telecom Association appeal, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, it is unlikely to reverse the results, so those telecom operators led by opponents can only send Hope that the Republicans in the election to win, and then through the budget proposal to reduce the FCC for the “Open Internet Directive” law enforcement budget, so that the network of new rules can not be implemented and become a dead letter.[173] In the US Congress, Republican lawmakers have proposed a proposal to cut the FCC’s new rules and regulations for legislation, which shows that the network is neutral in the United States encountered great resistance.[174]
Despite the support of the main technology companies, EFF and other civil rights organizations, network neutrality advocate Tim Wu, but because of a great touch of the United States large telecommunications companies, broadband companies vested interests, so in the implementation process and even encountered heavy resistance. In fact, as early as October 2010, the FCC issued the “Open Internet Directive”, but then by the US telecommunications giant Verizon sued the court, and finally sentenced invalid. After the failure of the FCC, the “Rule Development Notice”(NPRM) was issued and the public was widely consulted. On February 26, 2015, the most stringent Internet Neutral New Rules was published.[175]
In 2010, China launched the “triple play” strategic plan, China’s national economic and social development of the second Five-Year Plan “requirements” to speed up the construction of broadband, integration, security, the next generation of national information infrastructure to promote information and the depth of integration of industrialization[176], promote economic and social areas of information.[177] “Development and upgrading of software industry, to achieve telecommunications networks, radio and television networks, the Internet ‘triple play’.”[178] It is noteworthy that the country’s goal is to introduce appropriate competition in the telecommunications industry to promote service innovation and information technology.[179]
China’s Internet in the early stages of development, contrary to the actual situation of the Internet than the United States even more serious, but the law enforcement supervision of the parties are ignored the importance of network neutrality. In China, the Internet companies, especially the rapid development of mobile Internet and some OTT application of the sudden emerged recently, shaking the traditional telecom broadband operators of the inherent business model. On the one hand, its value-added services such as SMS, MMS business has shrunk dramatically; on the other hand, we must strengthen the basic service construction, to cope with the ever-occupied and gradually scarce network resources. Broadband operators and Internet business relationship in the network resource allocation on the remodeling, it is the core content of “network neutrality rules”.[180]
So far, China has not explicitly put forward the concept of this rule and the applicable method.[181] But currently there is no one can clear the division of labor more effective law to constrain or solve the development process problems. As the telecommunications industry’s most legal effective regulation – “Telecommunications Regulations” and the radio and television industry’s most legal effective – “Radio and Television Regulations” are only telecommunications and radio and television authorities issued the regulations, so in the context of triple play, the neutrality of the core resources of the network becomes important.[182] China’s Internet development is also the case, policy development should go beyond the “network” itself, for the entire network ecosystem. In the context of network convergence, the pure Internet does not exist, it either relies on the traditional telecommunications network, or radio and television network.[183] There are four issues that are important for Chinese telecoms regulation, they are general telecommunications regulatory policy; market definition, market power assessment and SMP regulation; new service; and spectrum management. The US legislative model may not be simply copied for China in a short term.[184] As far as I concerned, when we consider setting the net neutrality into the legislation, it is important to put the public interest as the first objective. The following issues are often a negative attitude towards network neutrality in China, but doing nothing.[185] These negative attitudes are difficult for network neutrality principle to be applied in China.
First, operators have discrimination against consumers’ behavior. As in the “WeChat charges incident[186]”, the telecommunications attempt to QQ, WeChat and other network value-added service providers and consumers charge signaling charges, unreasonable additional charges.[187] In the “China Mobile WAP unlimited traffic monthly package disputes”, “PHS and China Unicom’s Disconnection dispute”, the movement secretly limit the specific user traffic, suspected discrimination against value-added services users.[188] As we all know, network neutrality calls for no discrimination on consumers.
Second, operators, Internet service providers of mutual discrimination and unfair competition. As in the “WeChat block event”, Tencent in the WeChat bundled with their own regular services, exclusion and shielding competitors Alipay, shrimp music and other applications, forcing users to not use.[189] In the “odd tiger 360 plug case”, the security software companies to competitors software as unsafe level, and suggested that consumers uninstall. As net neutrality calls for free and competition of the Internet environment[190], there is no doubt China needs the net neutrality principle to handle this kind of issue.
Third, operators, network service providers of network speech and information review. They are for economic or other considerations, by closing the account, domain name hijacking, keyword filtering, gateway IP blockade, etc., free to restrict the free flow of information and expression. As in the “Baidu PPC” event, the search engine according to the different levels of the bid, some businesses search results upgrade or downgrade, and cause false advertising harm consumers.[191]
Therefore, China has also begun to try to introduce the concept of network neutrality management and different treatment of the phenomenon[192], to protect the rights of Internet users, while taking the Internet industry innovation and market competition into account.[193] For example, the Telecommunication Ordinance, which was amended in 2014, proposes to strengthen the regulation of tariffs on telecom operators and establish sound regulatory rules. Ministry of Industry issued the “Internet Information Service Management Measures” and “regulate the Internet information service market order a number of provisions”[194], refined the network service providers to enterprises or consumers infringement standards.[195] These norms to a certain extent, to fill the legal blank, in law enforcement supervision and dispute resolution have played a guiding role.[196] In China, if network neutrality want to be applied, it is inevitable to pay much attention to the function of enforcement supervision.
Based on the situation of China, it is vital to emphasize the function of supervision. The United States on the “network neutrality control,” the rule of law debate for China’s relevant laws and regulations to provide a useful reference.[197] In China, “neutral” debate can legally extend to other platforms, connecting antitrust and unfair competition law analysis ideas[198], so as to better understand the logic of the development of the Internet.[199] With the rapid development of the Internet industry, China’s Internet regulatory authorities in the development of broadband network development is bound to gradually follow the trend of Internet development[200], in accordance with the spirit of people-oriented, and gradually establish the principle of network neutrality to effectively protect the basic rights and interests of the majority of Internet users[201]. Let’s see how network neutrality can be learned based on the situation of China.
First, introduce a number of rules of network neutrality control into the legislation of Internet as soon as possible. The Chinese current network legislation architecture is simple and rough, it is difficult to provide a strong guide for practice.[202] In fact, if the law can set a perfect and clear network legislation, which helps to reverse the original uncertainty of the cybercrime protocol, thus influence how people perceive the Internet development, social welfare and consumer attitude.[203] Besides, it has educational and guiding significance to the whole society[204]. If no rules can be obeyed, then it is tough to make the network neutrality principle to be practical.
Second, strengthen the Chinese government supervision system of the violation of the net neutrality in order to achieve the ideal supervision afterwards.[205] As to the organ that enforces the function of supervision there are some different opinions. Some scholars think the current Administration of Industry and Commerce can do it, others prefer to build another new specific one[206]. To learn from the experience from the United States “network neutrality”, establish a specialized regulatory agencies and develop appropriate norms to ensure that the Internet network of freedom and openness.[207] From my perspective, it is more important to make it work rather than who will do this. Even if it can not directly make the entity’s decision which is not conducive to the operator, but at least should urge them to improve the transparency of information, such as accepting public inquiries and complaints to assist the administrative investigation, disclosure of control content and dispute handling process.[208] Ministry of Industry should also maintain the healthy development of the Internet and social welfare from the perspective of the red line, the timely prevention, detection and suppression of improper shielding, blocking behavior.[209]
Second, the State Administration of Industry and Commerce and industry associations should fulfill consumer rights protection and supervision of market competition responsibilities, analysis and research violations of network neutral service behavior, forecast and assess its damage to consumers[210].
Finally, improve the fair judicial mechanism that is used when violates the network neutrality behaviors happen. The current problem is mainly the long time for the administration of justice[211]; the amount of compensation is not high, resulting in litigation costs far higher than the compensation.[212] Therefore, it is necessary to improve the rules of the main body of responsibility, behavior elements, penalties and compensation rules, the violation of consumer rights and interests of the relevant network vicious competition cases into public interest litigation, group litigation and other means to solve.
Third, strengthen the supervision of operators and network service providers to help put network review system into effect.[213] China is still in the period of social transformation, involving social stability and national management in the implementation of the “government-based, network service agencies, supplemented by information management” policy.[214] In the event of cleaning up network rumors, the default operator and network service providers and other network service providers are not in a position to assume that they are responsible for reviewing bad information.[215]
On the one hand, the network service provider has the power to remove, block, disconnect and link. On the other hand, the practice of “WeChat and anti-rumors” shows that operators, network service providers once aware of the infringement and not take timely measures to damage the expansion of the part to bear joint and several liability.[216]
However, due to “legal and regulatory prohibition” and other concepts of the connotation is very vague, leading operators, network service providers to review the right is difficult to be effectively regulated.[217] In order to avoid the risk of joint and several liability, often to strengthen the pre-examination of the density, excessive control of the network of freedom of speech[218], such as the right to receive the infringement issued by the right, without judgment to delete the search results. To make the network neutrality be effective, it needs not only government’s effort, but also the efforts and cooperation from Internet Service Providers.
Fourth, strengthen the equal and transparent network service mechanism to ensure the free flow of information.[219] The United States in the development of network neutrality in the process of regulation, and vigorously strengthen the network service provider information transparency, emphasizing the network service provider information disclosure on the importance of social welfare, this part is particularly worthy of our reference.[220]
At present, China’s network market with a high degree of concentration, competition is not sufficient[221]. Operators and network service providers are trying to influence the traffic and content of the Internet, trying to link their earnings to content control[222]. How to build a good mechanism to put the network neutrality into effect in China is a difficult problem that needs long time to figure it out.
The net neutrality is a new but significant issue since it is closely connected with everyone who uses the Internet everyday. It needs to balance the benefits between Internet Service Providers that are companies, as well as benefits between ISPs and consumers. To make it fair and keep the open Internet environment, it needs government, Internet Service Providers, and consumers’ effort. The net neutrality remand proceeding attracted an enormous amount of interest among the general public. The principle of network neutrality states that the Internet service provider (ISP) shall allow to all its users access to all web content or online application, without any restrictions.
Furthermore, the network neutrality principle is usually couched in terms of preserving the “openness” of the Internet so that consumers can freely access third-party applications over Internet networks without the fear that the broadband network provider will deteriorate or degrade the transmission to these third-party applications and services in favor of their own applications and services.[223] On top of that, net neutrality principle is beneficial to the innovation and competition of the Internet.
When it comes to the development of network neutrality around the world, states have approached this regulatory issue in different ways. In July 2010, Chile became the first country in the world to legally guarantee net neutrality. The requirements of net neutrality are strictest in United States and it develops most deeply and thoroughly. The EU, after a public consultation between June and September 2010, decided against legislating on the matter, determining that transparency and media scrutiny would be sufficient to keep the Internet free and open. Besides, Canada and other countries also start to pay attention the network neutrality.
During the period of developing the net neutrality principle, there are many cases worth mentioning. The most profound and significant to the legislation of net neutrality cases are the Verizon V. FCC and United States Telecom Association V. FCC. These two cases have influenced the whole process of net neutrality around the world.
As to the network neutrality in China, it is a comparatively new issue. Since the Internet market in China is special and less developed compared with other developed states, it has many problems to figure out and much difficulty to overcome. The suggestions that put forward in this dissertation concerning the development of network neutrality in China are personal and not so complete. To discuss the network neutrality situation in China, it needs to deal with the relationship among the government, Internet service providers and the consumers. For government, it needs to set related regulations or laws as well as related organs. For ISPs in China, they are special and different compared with those in developed states. Therefore, it need concrete solution.
The purpose of this dissertation is to provide some advice for Chinese net neutrality development through researching and investigating the situation of other developed states. Although the opinions in this dissertation are not so authentic and professional, it is a small effort at least.
I. Books
[1] Tencent Institute, The legislation and public policy of post Internet Age, page 400, Law Press China.
II. Journal Articles
[1] Li Haotian, A Study on the Progress of Neutral Legislation around the world, Consumption and Method, 2011, 11.
[2] Gregory Sidak, A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2(3), 349–474, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=928582.
[3] Brandi Field, Net Neutrality: An Architectural Problem in Search of a Political Solution, Asper Review of International Business and Trade Law, 2010, page 2.
[4] Lauri Rantakari, NETWORK NEUTRALITY: ANTICOMPETITIVE ISSUES IN INTERNET LEGISLATION, Helsinki Law Review 2008, available at http://www.helsinkilawreview.fi/articles/2008-7.pdf.
[5] Naqeeb Ahmed Kazia, Shringarika Priyadarshini, Network neutrality: what, where and why? Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 18(7), 227-236, C.T.L.R. 2012.
[6] T. Randolph Beard, George S. Ford, Thomas M. Koutsky and Lawrence J. Spiwak, Network Neutrality and Industry Structure, 2006, July 29,Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 149, 150.
[7] CHRISTOPHER T. MARSDEN, Net Neutrality Towards a Co-regulatory Solution, B L O O M S B U R Y A C A D E M I C, 2014, December 09, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1533428.
[8] Mace Rosenstein, Yaron Dori, Daniel Kahn, Uncertainty over neutrality, European Lawyer, 2010, No. 101, 7.
[9] Alexander J. Adeyinka, Avoiding “Dog in the Manger” Regulation – A Nuanced Approach to Net Neutrality in Canada, Ottawa Law Review 2008-2009, 40 Ottawa L. Rev. 1.
[10] Rachelle B. Chong, The 31 Flavors of the Net Neutrality Debate: Beware The Trojan Horse, Advanced Comm. L. and Pol’y Inst. 4, 2007.
[11] Lauri Rantakari, Network Neutrality: Anticompetitive Issues In Internet Legislation, Helsinki Law Review 175, 2008.
[12] Robert C. Atkinson, Network Neutrality: History Will Repeat Itself, 68 Communications and Strategies 67, 2008, available at http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsroom/newsn/601/robert-c-atkinson-network-neutrality-history-will-repeat-itself.
[13] Christopher S. Yoo, Network Neutrality, Consumers, and Innovation, U. Chi. Legal F. 179, 222, 2008.
[14] Yoo, Network Neutrality, Consumers, and Innovation, U. Chi. Legal F. 179, 222, 2008.
[15] Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, Antitrust Oversight of an Antitrust Dispute: An Institutional Perspective on the Net Neutrality Debate, 7 J. On Telecomm. and High Tech. L. 19, 31, 2009.
[16] Adam J. White, A “Third Way”, Or a Bridge to Nowhere? August 31, 2010, The New Atlantis: Journal of Technology and Society, available at http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/net-neutrality-a-third-way-or-a-bridge-to-nowhere.
[17] Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo, Keeping the Internet Neutral? Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo Debate, (2006–07) 59 Fed. Comm. L.J. 575, 575.
[18] Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet – And How to Stop It, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008, page 31.
[19] Wade Roush, Net Neutrality: Lessons from the Past, August 3, 2006, Technology Review India, available at https://www.technologyreview.com/s/406199/net-neutrality-lessons-from-the-past/ [Accessed August 8, 2012].
[20] Reiche, Redefining Net Neutrality after Comcast v. FCC, 2011, 26 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 733.
[21] Dong Yuanyuan, US “Network Neutrality” and its legislative value, Journalism University, 2011-108.
[22] Arthur Piper, Defending an Open Internet, IBA Global Insight, June/July, 2015, 69 No. 3.
[23] Dr Leonidas Kanellos, US Appeal Court struck down FCC’s net neutrality rules: is open Internet at risk? Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 2014, C.T.L.R. 2014, 20(3), 75-77.
[24] Bernd Holznagel, Xu Junqi and Thomas Hart, Regulating Telecommunications in the EU and China: What Lessons to be Learned? Communications Law, 2009, 14(6), 198-199.
[25] Marcus J. Scott, Pieter Nooren and Jonathan Cave, Network Neutrality: Challenges and responses in the EU and in the US, 2011, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/457369/IPOL-IMCO_ET(2011)457369_EN.pdf, June 9, 2015.
[26] Domhnall Dods, Paul Brisby, Rosaleen Hubbard, Kate Ollerenshaw, Bailey Ingram, Reform of European electronic communications law: a special briefing on the radical changes of 2009, Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 2010, 2010, 16(4), 102-112, C.T.L.R.
[27] Michael Geist, THE POLICY BATTLE OVER INFORMATION AND DIGITAL POLICY REGULATION: A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, July, 2016, 17 Theoretical Inquiries L. 415.
[28] Sweet & Maxwell, Canada: telecommunications – regulation – net neutrality, C.T.L.R. 2012, 18(2), N32.
[29] John B. Meisel, The role of forbearance in the net neutrality regulatory scheme, European Competition Law Review, E.C.L.R. 2015, 36(6), 249-254.
[30] Sweet, Maxwell, Verizon Telephone Cos v Federal Communications Commission: United States – telecommunications – regulation, Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, C.T.L.R. 2009, N246.
[31] Lowensohn, Josh, Comcast, Verizon, and others promise net neutrality ruling won’t hurt customers, The Verge, 28 February 2014, available at http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/5309268/comcast-verizon-and-others-promise-net-neutrality-ruling-wont-hurt.
[32] Joris Evers, Brazil, Chile Lead In Broadband in Latin America, Netflix, 18 March 2014.
[33] Randolph J. May, Title II Utility Regulation: From Unthinkable to Thinkable to Likely to Harmful, The Free State Foundation, February 4, 2015.
[34] Musil, Steven, White House says it won’t direct FCC to reclassify broadband, CNET, 18 March 2014, available at https://www.cnet.com/news/white-house-says-it-wont-direct-fcc-to-reclassify-broadband/.
[35] John B. Meisel, The role of forbearance in the net neutrality regulatory scheme, European Competition Law Review, E.C.L.R. 2015, 36(6), 249-254.
[36] Brodkin, Jon, FCC won’t appeal Verizon ruling, will regulate ‘Net on “case-by-case basis”, Ars Technica, 20 February 2014, available at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/fcc-wont-appeal-verizon-ruling-will-regulate-net-on-case-by-case-basis/.
[37] Dr Leonidas Kanellos，US Appeal Court struck down FCC’s net neutrality rules: is open Internet at risk? Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 2014, C.T.L.R. 2014, 20(3), 75-77.
[38] Hu Ling, Net Neutrality in China, Open Times, No.5, 2014, page 81.
[39] Sun Yuanzhao, Network Signaling Fees and Network Neutrality, Electronic Intellectual Property Rights, 2013, No. 4, page 50.
[40] Ma Yuan, 4G era of network neutrality, high-tech and industrialization, July 2014, No. 218, page 35.
[41] Li Hui, Global Network Neutral Progress and Impact on OTT, Modern Telecommunications Technology, Issue 3, page 33.
[42] Zou Jun, Network Neutrality: The Dilemma and Revelation of American Legislation, Modern Communication, December 12, page 123.
[43] Xu Wei, Re-qualifying the system of notification and its system effect, Modern Law, No. 1, page 36.
[44] Zhang Xinbao, Ren Hongyan, tort liability on the Internet, Journal of Renmin University of China, No.4, 2010, page 45.
[45] Chen Fuliang, network regulation of the network background of the Internet and the Internet industry chain change, Reform, 2013, No. 2, page 40-43.
[46] Chen Fuliang, network regulation of the network background of the Internet and the Internet industry chain change, Reform, 2013, No. 2, page 40-43.
[47] Huang Yong, The Exploration of network neutrality rules in China, Legal Land, No.9, 2015.
[48] Wu Liang, The Legal Dilemma of Network Neutral Regulation and Its Way out – From the Perspective of American Practice, Global Legal Comment, No.3, 2015.
[49] Zhai Jingjing, Fu Yuhui, Network neutrality: how will the future of the Internet be? – Review and Reflection on the “Neutral Neutrality” Controversy in the United States, Journal of Zhejiang University of Media and Communications, Vol. 17, No.3, June 2010.
[50] Fu Yuhui, The essence and influence of the US network neutrality debate, International Press, July, 2009.
[51] Wu Min, Network Neutrality Exploration under “Triple Play”, Radio and Television Information, August 2012.
[52] Julie E. Cohen, THE REGULATORY STATE IN THE INFORMATION AGE, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, July, 2016, 17 Theoretical Inquiries L. 369.
III. Newspaper Articles
[1] Phil Ament, The Great Idea Finder, May 30, 2007, available at http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/Internet.htm [Accessed August 8, 2012].
[2] Ray Lin, Definition of Net Neutrality, August 8, 2012, available at http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/whatisnetneutrality.htm.
[3] Definition of: Net neutrality, August 28, 2012. Available at http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,1237,t=Net+neutrality&i=55962,00.asp.
[4] James Speta, A Common Carrier Approach to Internet Interconnection, Fed.Comm. L. J. 225, 2002, 54.
[5] Claudio Ruiz, Chile: First Country to Legislate Net Neutrality, September 4, 2010, available at http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/09/04/chile-first-country-to-legislate-net-neutrality.
[6] Iain Thomson, Chile becomes first net neutrality nation, July 16, 2010, available at http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/1961015/chile-net-neutrality-nation.
[7] Andres, Chile enforces net neutrality for the first time, sort of, January 28, 2012, available at http://www.technollama.co.uk/chile-enforces-net-neutrality-for-the-first-time-sort-of.
[8] Patrick Nixon, Amended net neutrality regulation calms critics-Chile, March, 2011, available at http://www.bnamericas.com/news/telecommunications/amended-net-neutrality-regulation-calms-critics.
[9] Jeff John Roberts，Court Upholds FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules in Major Victory for FCC, JUNE 14, 2016, available at http://fortune.com/2016/06/14/net-neutrality-ruling/.
[10] Qi Yi, It is so arbitrary for Wechat to do so, Dahe Newspaper, February 6, 2015 third edition.
[11] Jiang Mingan, monitoring SMS and QQ have violated the freedom of communication suspected , Xiaoxiang Morning, March 2, 3rd edition.
IV. Domestic Laws
[1] Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified in scattered sections of 47 U.S.C.).
[2] Universal Service Directive(EU).
[3] Telecommunications Act of Canada 1991.
V.Websites
[1] Hsing Kenneth Cheng, Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay, Hong Guo, The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=959944.
[2] Berners Lee, Net Neutrality: This is serious, 2006, available at http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144.
[3] Jorge Molina Osorio, The Principle of Net Neutrality Consumer and Internet Users, Department of Telecommunications of Chile, 2010, available at http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idLey=20453.
[4] Kevin E. McCarthy, OLR BACKGROUNDER: APPELLATE COURT DECISION ON NET NEUTRALITY, 2014, available at https://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/pdf/2014-R-0033.pdf.
[5] White House, Statement by the President on Net Neutrality, November 10, 2014, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/10/statement-president-net-neutrality, April 8, 2015.
[6] Cao Jianfeng, LI Zheng, Network Neutrality Victory in Court – A Review of American Telecommunication Association and FCC, available at http://www.tisi.org/4675.
[7] Jennifer Yeh, The Decision in Verizon vs. FCC: A Legal Analysis, BroadbandMobileNet Neutrality, January 14, 2014, available at http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/01/14/decision-verizon-vs-fcc-legal-analysis.
[8] Adam Clark Estes, Net Neutrality Wins: What Now, available at http://gizmodo.com/net-neutrality-wins-what-now-1688183094.
[9] JON BRODKIN, Tom Wheeler defeats the broadband industry: Net neutrality wins in court, June 14, 2016, available at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/net-neutrality-and-title-ii-win-in-court-as-isps-lose-case-against-fcc/.
[10] Nicholas Rossolillo, Net Neutrality Wins Again: Here’s What Investors Should Know, Jun 27, 2016, available at https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/27/net-neutrality-wins-again-heres-what-investors-sho.aspx.
[11] Wang Xing, What can Chinese enterprises learn from US “network neutrality” dispute, Chinese enterprises can learn what? May 2014, available at http://www.leiphone.com/news/201406/net-neutrality-in-us-and-in-china.html.
VI. Court Cases
[1] MADISON RIVER MANAGEMENT COMPANY v. BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE CORPORATION, a/k/a BMS, 387 F.Supp.2d 521(M.D. Pa. 2005).
[2] Verizon V. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C.Cir.2012).
[3] US Telecom Association V. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir.2016 ).
VII. Other legal documents
[1] TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY REVIEW PANEL, CANADA, FINAL REPORT 187–90 (2006), available at https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/tprp-final-report-2006.pdf/$FILE/tprp-final-report-2006.pdf.
[2] Chapter 137,U.S.Statutes 36th Congress,1st Session,June 16,1860.Sec.3.
[3] Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet over Cable and Other Facilities, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd. 4798 (2002) (Cable Modem Order).
[4] Telecommunications Policy Review Panel: Final Report, Industry Canada, (Ottawa: Industry Canada, 2006).
[5] J. Scott Marcus, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis (OSP) Working Paper 36, July 2002, available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-224213A2.pdf.
[6] Agreement on EU Telecoms Reform paves way for stronger consumer rights, an open Internet, a single European telecoms market and high-speed Internet connections for all citizens, The Press and Communication Service of the European Commission, MEMO/09/491.
[1]Li Haotian, A Study on the Progress of Neutral Legislation around the world, Consumption and Method, 2011, 11.
[2]Ibid.
[3]Phil Ament, The Great Idea Finder, May 30, 2007, available at http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/Internet.htm.
[4]Gregory Sidak, A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2(3), 349–474, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=928582.
[5]Ibid.
[6]Brandi Field, Net Neutrality: An Architectural Problem in Search of a Political Solution, Asper Review of International Business and Trade Law, 2010, page 2.
[7] Lauri Rantakari, NETWORK NEUTRALITY: ANTICOMPETITIVE ISSUES IN INTERNET LEGISLATION, Helsinki Law Review 2008, available at http://www.helsinkilawreview.fi/articles/2008-7.pdf.
[8]T. Randolph Beard, George S. Ford, Thomas M. Koutsky and Lawrence J. Spiwak, Network Neutrality and Industry Structure, 2006, July 29,Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 149, 150.
[9] Hsing Kenneth Cheng, Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay, Hong Guo, The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=959944.
[10]MADISON RIVER MANAGEMENT COMPANY v. BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE CORPORATION, a/k/a BMS, 387 F.Supp.2d 521(M.D. Pa. 2005).
[11]Li Haotian, A Study on the Progress of Neutral Legislation around the world, Consumption and Method, 2011, 11.
[12]Marcus J. Scott, Pieter Nooren and Jonathan Cave, Network Neutrality: Challenges and responses in the EU and in the US, 2011, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/457369/IPOL-IMCO_ET(2011)457369_EN.pdf, June 9, 2015.
[13]T. Randolph Beard, George S. Ford, Thomas M. Koutsky and Lawrence J. Spiwak, Network Neutrality and Industry Structure, 2006, July 29,Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 149, 150.
[14]CHRISTOPHER T. MARSDEN, Net Neutrality Towards a Co-regulatory Solution, B L O O M S B U R Y A C A D E M I C, 2014, December 09, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1533428.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Nicholas Rossolillo, Net Neutrality Wins Again: Here’s What Investors Should Know, Jun 27, 2016, available at: https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/27/net-neutrality-wins-again-heres-what-investors-sho.aspx.
[17] Naqeeb Ahmed Kazia, Shringarika Priyadarshini, Network neutrality: what, where and why? Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 18(7), 227-236, C.T.L.R. 2012.
[18] Gregory Sidak, A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2(3), 349–474, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=928582.
[19] T. Randolph Beard, George S. Ford, Thomas M. Koutsky and Lawrence J. Spiwak, Network Neutrality and Industry Structure, 2006, July 29,Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 149, 150.
[20] CHRISTOPHER T. MARSDEN, Net Neutrality Towards a Co-regulatory Solution, B L O O M S B U R Y A C A D E M I C, 2014, December 09, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1533428.
[21] Hsing Kenneth Cheng, Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay, Hong Guo, The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=959944.
[22]John B. Meisel, The role of forbearance in the net neutrality regulatory scheme, European Competition Law Review, E.C.L.R. 2015, 36(6), 249-254.
[23] Robert C. Atkinson, Network Neutrality: History Will Repeat Itself, 68 Communications and Strategies 67, 2008, available at http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsroom/newsn/601/robert-c-atkinson-network-neutrality-history-will-repeat-itself.
[24] Mace Rosenstein, Yaron Dori, Daniel Kahn, Uncertainty over neutrality, European Lawyer, 2010, No. 101, 7.
[25] Gregory Sidak, A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2(3), 349–474, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=928582.
[26] Alexander J. Adeyinka, Avoiding “Dog in the Manger” Regulation – A Nuanced Approach to Net Neutrality in Canada, Ottawa Law Review 2008-2009, 40 Ottawa L. Rev. 1.
[27] Hsing Kenneth Cheng, Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay, Hong Guo, The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=959944.
[28] Berners Lee, Net Neutrality: This is serious, 2006, available at http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144.
[29]Alexander J. Adeyinka, Avoiding “Dog in the Manger” Regulation – A Nuanced Approach to Net Neutrality in Canada, Ottawa Law Review 2008-2009, 40 Ottawa L. Rev. 1.
[30] Ray Lin, Definition of Net Neutrality, August 8, 2012, available at http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/whatisnetneutrality.htm.
[31]Definition of: Net neutrality, August 28, 2012. Available at http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,1237,t=Net+neutrality&i=55962,00.asp.
[32]Rachelle B. Chong, The 31 Flavors of Net Neutrality: A Policymaker’s View, 12 Intell. Prop. L. Bull. 147, 151, 2007, 08.
[33] Naqeeb Ahmed Kazia, Shringarika Priyadarshin, Network neutrality: what, where and why? Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 2012, C.T.L.R. 2012, 18(7), 227-236.
[34]Chong, The 31 Flavors of Net Neutrality, 12 Intell. Prop. L. Bull. 147, 151, 2007, 08.
[35]Christopher S. Yoo, Network Neutrality, Consumers, and Innovation, U. Chi. Legal F. 179, 222, 2008.
[36] James Speta, A Common Carrier Approach to Internet Interconnection, Fed.Comm. L. J. 225, 2002, 54.
[37] Rachelle B. Chong, The 31 Flavors of the Net Neutrality Debate: Beware The Trojan Horse, Advanced Comm. L. and Pol’y Inst. 4, 2007.
[38]Marcus J. Scott, Pieter Nooren and Jonathan Cave, Network Neutrality: Challenges and responses in the EU and in the US, 2011, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/457369/IPOL-IMCO_ET(2011)457369_EN.pdf, June 9, 2015.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Lauri Rantakari, Network Neutrality: Anticompetitive Issues In Internet Legislation, Helsinki Law Review 175, 2008, available at: http://www.helsinkilawreview.fi/articles/2008-7.pdf.
[41] Robert C. Atkinson, Network Neutrality: History Will Repeat Itself, 68 Communications and Strategies 67, 2008, available at http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsroom/newsn/601/robert-c-atkinson-network-neutrality-history-will-repeat-itself.
[42]Christopher S. Yoo, Network Neutrality, Consumers, and Innovation, U. Chi. Legal F. 179, 222, 2008.
[43] Yoo, Network Neutrality, Consumers, and Innovation, U. Chi. Legal F. 179, 222, 2008.
[44]Ibid.
[45] Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, Antitrust Oversight of an Antitrust Dispute: An Institutional Perspective on the Net Neutrality Debate, 7 J. On Telecomm. and High Tech. L. 19, 31, 2009.
[46]Marcus J. Scott, Pieter Nooren and Jonathan Cave, Network Neutrality: Challenges and responses in the EU and in the US, 2011, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/457369/IPOL-IMCO_ET(2011)457369_EN.pdf, June 9, 2015.
[47] Adam J. White, A “Third Way”, Or a Bridge to Nowhere? August 31, 2010, The New Atlantis: Journal of Technology and Society, available at http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/net-neutrality-a-third-way-or-a-bridge-to-nowhere.
[48] Lowensohn, Josh, Comcast, Verizon, and others promise net neutrality ruling won’t hurt customers, The Verge, 28 February 2014, available at http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/5309268/comcast-verizon-and-others-promise-net-neutrality-ruling-wont-hurt.
[49] Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo, Keeping the Internet Neutral? Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo Debate, (2006–07) 59 Fed. Comm. L.J. 575, 575.
[50] TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY REVIEW PANEL, CANADA, FINAL REPORT 187–90 (2006), available at: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/tprp-final-report-2006.pdf/$FILE/tprp-final-report-2006.pdf.
[51]Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet – And How to Stop It, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008, page 31.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid, page 32.
[55]Ibid, page 33.
[56]John B. Meisel, The role of forbearance in the net neutrality regulatory scheme, European Competition Law Review, E.C.L.R. 2015, 36(6), 249-254.
[57] Lessig, Ideas, supra note 2 at 36-37.
[58]Tim Wu, Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination, 2003, 2 J. of Telecomm & High Tech. L. 141. available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863.
[59] Ibid, page 147.
[60] Comcast, supra note 6 at ii, Petition for Declaratory Ruling of Free Press at ii, online: FCC, available at https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/Sec._706_Petition_For_Reconsideration.pdf
[61] Christopher S. Yoo, Network Neutrality, Consumers, and Innovation, U. Chi. Legal F. 179, 222, 2008.
[62]Naqeeb Ahmed Kazia& Shringarika Priyadarshini, Network neutrality: what, where and why?, 18(7), 227-236, C.T.L.R. 2012.
[63]Wade Roush, Net Neutrality: Lessons from the Past, August 3, 2006, Technology Review India, available at http://www.technologyreview.in/web/17245/ [Accessed August 8, 2012].
[64] Ibid.
[65] Tencent Institute, The legislation and public policy of post Internet Age, page 400, Law Press China.
[66] Andres, Chile enforces net neutrality for the first time, sort of, January 28, 2012, available at http://www.technollama.co.uk/chile-enforces-net-neutrality-for-the-first-time-sort-of.
[67]Michael Geist, THE POLICY BATTLE OVER INFORMATION AND DIGITAL POLICY REGULATION: A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, July 2016, 17 Theoretical Inquiries L. 415.
[68]Claudio Ruiz, Chile: First Country to Legislate Net Neutrality, September 4, 2010, available at http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/09/04/chile-first-country-to-legislate-net-neutrality.
[69]Ibid.
[70]Andres, Chile enforces net neutrality for the first time, sort of, January 28, 2012, available at http://www.technollama.co.uk/chile-enforces-net-neutrality-for-the-first-time-sort-of.
[71]Christopher S. Yoo, Network Neutrality, Consumers, and Innovation, U. Chi. Legal F. 179, 222, 2008.
[72] Jorge Molina Osorio, The Principle of Net Neutrality Consumer and Internet Users, Department of Telecommunications of Chile, 2010, available at http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idLey=20453.
[73]Naqeeb Ahmed Kazia& Shringarika Priyadarshini, Network neutrality: what, where and why?, 18(7), 227-236, C.T.L.R. 2012.
[74] Iain Thomson, Chile becomes first net neutrality nation, July 16, 2010, available at http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/1961015/chile-net-neutrality-nation.
[75] Osorio, The Principle of Net Neutrality Consumer and Internet Users, Department of Telecommunications of Chile, August 8, 2012, available at http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idLey=20453.
[76] Claudio Ruiz, Chile: First Country to Legislate Net Neutrality, September 4, 2010, available at http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/09/04/chile-first-country-to-legislate-net-neutrality.
[77]Andres, Chile enforces net neutrality for the first time, sort of, January 28, 2012, available at http://www.technollama.co.uk/chile-enforces-net-neutrality-for-the-first-time-sort-of.
[78]Patrick Nixon, Amended net neutrality regulation calms critics-Chile, March, 2011, available at http://www.bnamericas.com/news/telecommunications/amended-net-neutrality-regulation-calms-critics.
[79]Reiche, Redefining Net Neutrality after Comcast v. FCC, 2011, 26 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 733.
[80]Chapter 137,U.S.Statutes 36th Congress,1st Session,June 16,1860.Sec.3.
[81] Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified in scattered sections of 47 U.S.C.).
[82]Lauri Rantakari, NETWORK NEUTRALITY: ANTICOMPETITIVE ISSUES IN INTERNET LEGISLATION, Helsinki Law Review 2008, available at http://www.helsinkilawreview.fi/articles/2008-7.pdf.
[83]Dong Yuanyuan, US “Network Neutrality” and its legislative value, Journalism University, 2011-108.
[84]Ibid.
[85] JON BRODKIN, Tom Wheeler defeats the broadband industry: Net neutrality wins in court, June 14, 2016, available at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/net-neutrality-and-title-ii-win-in-court-as-isps-lose-case-against-fcc/.
[86]Julie E. Cohen, THE REGULATORY STATE IN THE INFORMATION AGE, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, July, 2016, 17 Theoretical Inquiries L. 369.
[87] Tencent Institute, The legislation and public policy of post Internet Age, page 400, Law Press China.
[88] Arthur Piper, Defending an Open Internet, IBA Global Insight, June/July, 2015, 69 No. 3.
[89] Mace Rosenstein, Yaron Dori, Daniel Kahn, Uncertainty over neutrality, European Lawyer, 2010, No. 101, 7.
[90] Ibid.
[91]Marcus J. Scott, Pieter Nooren and Jonathan Cave, Network Neutrality: Challenges and responses in the EU and in the US, 2011, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/457369/IPOL-IMCO_ET(2011)457369_EN.pdf, June 9, 2015.
[92]J. Scott Marcus, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis (OSP) Working Paper 36, July 2002, available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-224213A2.pdf.
[93]Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet over Cable and Other Facilities, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd. 4798 (2002) (Cable Modem Order).
[94] Dr Leonidas Kanellos, US Appeal Court struck down FCC’s net neutrality rules: is open internet at risk? Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 2014, C.T.L.R. 2014, 20(3), 75-77.
[95] Arthur Piper, Defending an Open Internet, IBA Global Insight, June/July, 2015, 69 No. 3.
[96]Dr Leonidas Kanellos, US Appeal Court struck down FCC’s net neutrality rules: is open Internet at risk? Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 2014, C.T.L.R. 2014, 20(3), 75-77.
[97]Jeff John Roberts, Court Upholds FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules in Major Victory for FCC, JUNE 14, 2016, available at http://fortune.com/2016/06/14/net-neutrality-ruling/.
[98] Dr Leonidas Kanellos, US Appeal Court struck down FCC’s net neutrality rules: is open Internet at risk? Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 2014, C.T.L.R. 2014, 20(3), 75-77.
[99] Bernd Holznagel, Xu Junqi and Thomas Hart, Regulating Telecommunications in the EU and China: What Lessons to be Learned? Communications Law, 2009, 14(6), 198-199.
[100] Marcus J. Scott, Pieter Nooren and Jonathan Cave, Network Neutrality: Challenges and responses in the EU and in the US, 2011, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/457369/IPOL-IMCO_ET(2011)457369_EN.pdf, June 9, 2015.
[101] Li Haotian, A Study on the Progress of Neutral Legislation around the world, Consumption and Method, 2011, 11.
[102]CHRISTOPHER T. MARSDEN, Net Neutrality Towards a Co-regulatory Solution, B L O O M S B U R Y A C A D E M I C, 2014, December 09, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1533428.
[103] Bernd Holznagel, Xu Junqi and Thomas Hart, Regulating Telecommunications in the EU and China: What Lessons to be Learned? Communications Law, 2009, 14(6), 198-199.
[104] Ibid.
[105] Universal Service Directive(EU) art.22(3).
[106]Bernd Holznagel, Xu Junqi and Thomas Hart, Regulating Telecommunications in the EU and China: What Lessons to be Learned? Communications Law, 2009, 14(6), 198-199.
[107] Domhnall Dods, Paul Brisby, Rosaleen Hubbard, Kate Ollerenshaw, Bailey Ingram, Reform of European electronic communications law: a special briefing on the radical changes of 2009, Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 2010, 2010, 16(4), 102-112, C.T.L.R.
[108]Tencent Institute, The legislation and public policy of post Internet Age, Law Press China, page 402.
[109]Marcus J. Scott, Pieter Nooren and Jonathan Cave, Network Neutrality: Challenges and responses in the EU and in the US, 2011, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/457369/IPOL-IMCO_ET(2011)457369_EN.pdf, June 9, 2015.
[110]Mace Rosenstein, Yaron Dori, Daniel Kahn, Uncertainty over neutrality, European Lawyer, 2010, No. 101, 7.
[111] Ibid .
[112] Lowensohn, Josh, Comcast, Verizon, and others promise net neutrality ruling won’t hurt customers, The Verge, 28 February 2014, available at http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/5309268/comcast-verizon-and-others-promise-net-neutrality-ruling-wont-hurt.
[113]Marcus J. Scott, Pieter Nooren and Jonathan Cave, Network Neutrality: Challenges and responses in the EU and in the US, 2011, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/457369/IPOL-IMCO_ET(2011)457369_EN.pdf, June 9, 2015
[114] Ibid.
[115]John B. Meisel, The role of forbearance in the net neutrality regulatory scheme, European Competition Law Review, E.C.L.R. 2015, 36(6), 249-254.
[116]Agreement on EU Telecoms Reform paves way for stronger consumer rights, an open Internet, a single European telecoms market and high-speed Internet connections for all citizens, The Press and Communication Service of the European Commission, MEMO/09/491.
[117] Telecommunications Act of Canada 1991, Art. 2
[118] Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives, P.C. 2006-1534, S.O.R./2006-355, C. Gaz. 2006.II. 140.
[119] Alexander J. Adeyinka, Avoiding “Dog in the Manger” Regulation – A Nuanced Approach to Net Neutrality in Canada, Ottawa Law Review 2008-2009, 40, 1.
[120] Telecommunications Policy Review Panel: Final Report, Industry Canada, (Ottawa: Industry Canada, 2006).
[121] Ibid.
[122] Michael Geist, THE POLICY BATTLE OVER INFORMATION AND DIGITAL POLICY REGULATION: A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, July, 2016, 17 Theoretical Inquiries L. 415.
[123] Alexander J. Adeyinka, Avoiding “Dog in the Manger” Regulation – A Nuanced Approach to Net Neutrality in Canada, Ottawa Law Review 2008-2009, 40, 1.
[124]Lowensohn, Josh, Comcast, Verizon, and others promise net neutrality ruling won’t hurt customers, The Verge, 28 February 2014, available at http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/5309268/comcast-verizon-and-others-promise-net-neutrality-ruling-wont-hurt.
[125] Ibid. at 6-16.
[126] Sweet & Maxwell, Canada: telecommunications – regulation – net neutrality, C.T.L.R. 2012, 18(2), N32.
[127] Geist, supra note 22.
[128]Verizon V. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C.Cir.2012).
[129]Randolph J. May, Title II Utility Regulation: From Unthinkable to Thinkable to Likely to Harmful, The Free State Foundation, February 4, 2015.
[130]Musil, Steven, White House says it won’t direct FCC to reclassify broadband, CNET, 18 March 2014, available at https://www.cnet.com/news/white-house-says-it-wont-direct-fcc-to-reclassify-broadband/.
[131]Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, Antitrust Oversight of an Antitrust Dispute: An Institutional Perspective on the Net Neutrality Debate, 7 J. On Telecomm. and High Tech. L. 19, 31, 2009.
[132] Kevin E. McCarthy, OLR BACKGROUNDER: APPELLATE COURT DECISION ON NET NEUTRALITY, 2014, available at https://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/pdf/2014-R-0033.pdf.
[133] John B. Meisel, The role of forbearance in the net neutrality regulatory scheme, European Competition Law Review, E.C.L.R. 2015, 36(6), 249-254.
[134] Ibid.
[135]US Telecom Association V. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir.2016 ).
[136] Sweet, Maxwell, Verizon Telephone Cos v Federal Communications Commission: United States – telecommunications – regulation, Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, C.T.L.R. 2009, N246.
[137]Lowensohn, Josh, Comcast, Verizon, and others promise net neutrality ruling won’t hurt customers, The Verge, 28 February 2014, available at http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/5309268/comcast-verizon-and-others-promise-net-neutrality-ruling-wont-hurt.
[138]Joris Evers, Brazil, Chile Lead In Broadband in Latin America, Netflix, 18 March 2014.
[139]Randolph J. May, Title II Utility Regulation: From Unthinkable to Thinkable to Likely to Harmful, The Free State Foundation, February 4, 2015.
[140] Musil, Steven, White House says it won’t direct FCC to reclassify broadband, CNET, 18 March 2014, available at https://www.cnet.com/news/white-house-says-it-wont-direct-fcc-to-reclassify-broadband/.
[141]Ibid.
[142] Musil, Steven, White House says it won’t direct FCC to reclassify broadband, CNET, 18 March 2014, available at https://www.cnet.com/news/white-house-says-it-wont-direct-fcc-to-reclassify-broadband/.
[143]White House, Statement by the President on Net Neutrality, November 10, 2014, available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/10/statement-president-net-neutrality, April 8, 2015.
[144] John B. Meisel, The role of forbearance in the net neutrality regulatory scheme, European Competition Law Review, E.C.L.R. 2015, 36(6), 249-254.
[145] Ibid.
[146] Brodkin, Jon, FCC won’t appeal Verizon ruling, will regulate ‘Net on “case-by-case basis”, Ars Technica, 20 February 2014, available at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/fcc-wont-appeal-verizon-ruling-will-regulate-net-on-case-by-case-basis/.
[147]Ibid.
[148] John B. Meisel, The role of forbearance in the net neutrality regulatory scheme, European Competition Law Review, E.C.L.R. 2015, 36(6), 249-254.
[149]US Telecom Association V. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir.2016 ).
[150] Adam Clark Estes, Net Neutrality Wins: What Now, available at http://gizmodo.com/net-neutrality-wins-what-now-1688183094.
[151]Musil, Steven, White House says it won’t direct FCC to reclassify broadband, CNET, 18 March 2014, available at https://www.cnet.com/news/white-house-says-it-wont-direct-fcc-to-reclassify-broadband/.
[152] JON BRODKIN, Tom Wheeler defeats the broadband industry: Net neutrality wins in court, June 14, 2016, available at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/net-neutrality-and-title-ii-win-in-court-as-isps-lose-case-against-fcc/.
[153] Adam Clark Estes, Net Neutrality Wins: What Now, available at http://gizmodo.com/net-neutrality-wins-what-now-1688183094
[154]Nicholas Rossolillo, Net Neutrality Wins Again: Here’s What Investors Should Know, Jun 27, 2016, available at https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/27/net-neutrality-wins-again-heres-what-investors-sho.aspx.
[155]JON BRODKIN, Tom Wheeler defeats the broadband industry: Net neutrality wins in court, June 14, 2016, available at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/net-neutrality-and-title-ii-win-in-court-as-isps-lose-case-against-fcc/.
[156] Ibid.
[157]Cao Jianfeng, LI Zheng, Network Neutrality Victory in Court – A Review of American Telecommunication Association and FCC, available at http://www.tisi.org/4675.
[158]Ibid.
[159]Arthur Piper , Defending an Open Internet, IBA Global Insight, June/July, 2015, No. 3.
[160]JON BRODKIN,Tom Wheeler defeats the broadband industry: Net neutrality wins in court, 2016, 06, available at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/net-neutrality-and-title-ii-win-in-court-as-isps-lose-case-against-fcc/.
[161]Ibid.
[162]Cao Jianfeng, LI Zheng, Network Neutrality Victory in Court – A Review of American Telecommunication Association and FCC, available at http://www.tisi.org/4675.
[163]Ibid.
[164]Jennifer Yeh, The Decision in Verizon vs. FCC: A Legal Analysis, BroadbandMobileNet Neutrality, January 14, 2014, available at http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/01/14/decision-verizon-vs-fcc-legal-analysis.
[165]Dr Leonidas Kanellos, US Appeal Court struck down FCC’s net neutrality rules: is open Internet at risk? Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, C.T.L.R. 2014, 20(3), 75-77.
[166] Jeff John Roberts, Court Upholds FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules in Major Victory for FCC, JUNE 14, 2016, available at http://fortune.com/2016/06/14/net-neutrality-ruling/.
[167] Ibid.
[168] Gregory Sidak, A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2(3), 349–474, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=928582.
[169]Wang Xing, What can Chinese enterprises learn from US “network neutrality” dispute, Chinese enterprises can learn what? May 2014, available at http://www.leiphone.com/news/201406/net-neutrality-in-us-and-in-china.html.
[170] Lauri Rantakari, NETWORK NEUTRALITY: ANTICOMPETITIVE ISSUES IN INTERNET LEGISLATION, Helsinki Law Review 2008, available at http://www.helsinkilawreview.fi/articles/2008-7.pdf.
[171]Stephen Labaton, House Backs Telecom Bill Favoring Phone Companies, N.Y. TIMES, June 9, 2006, at C3.
[172] Nicholas Rossolillo, Net Neutrality Wins Again: Here’s What Investors Should Know, Jun 27, 2016, available at https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/27/net-neutrality-wins-again-heres-what-investors-sho.aspx.
[173]Gregory Sidak, A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2(3), 349–474, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=928582.
[174] Cao Jianfeng, LI Zheng, Network Neutrality Victory in Court – A Review of American Telecommunication Association and FCC, available at http://www.tisi.org/4675.
[175] Ibid.
[176]Wu Min, Network Neutrality Exploration under “Triple Play”, Radio and Television Information, August 2012.
[177]Ibid.
[178] Zou Jun, Network Neutrality: The Dilemma and Revelation of American Legislation, Modern Communication, December 12, page 123.
[179] Hu Ling, Net Neutrality in China, Open Times, No.5, 2014.
[180] Huang Yong, The Exploration of network neutrality rules in China, Legal Land, No.9, 2015
[181] Ibid.
[182] Wu Min, Network Neutrality Exploration under “Triple Play”, Radio and Television Information, August 2012.
[183]Zou Jun, Network Neutrality: The Dilemma and Revelation of American Legislation, Modern Communication, December 12, page 123.
[184] Ibid.
[185]Hu Ling, Net Neutrality in China, Open Times, No.5, 2014, page 81.
[186]Qi Yi, It is so arbitrary for Wechat to do so, Dahe Newspaper, February 6, 2015 third edition.
[187] Sun Yuanzhao, Network Signaling Fees and Network Neutrality, Electronic Intellectual Property Rights, 2013, No. 4, page 50.
[188] Ma Yuan, 4G era of network neutrality, high-tech and industrialization, July 2014, No. 218, page 35.
[189] Qi Yi, It is so arbitrary for Wechat to do so, Dahe Newspaper, February 6, 2015 third edition.
[190] Wu Liang, The Legal Dilemma of Network Neutral Regulation and Its Way out – From the Perspective of American Practice, Global Legal Comment, No.3, 2015.
[191] Jiang Mingan, monitoring SMS and QQ have violated the freedom of communication suspected , Xiaoxiang Morning, March 2, 3rd edition.
[192] Ma Yuan, 4G era of network neutrality, high-tech and industrialization, July 2014, No. 218, page 35.
[193] Wu Liang, The Legal Dilemma of Network Neutral Regulation and Its Way out – From the Perspective of American Practice, Global Legal Comment, No.3, 2015.
[194]Jiang Mingan, monitoring SMS and QQ have violated the freedom of communication suspected , Xiaoxiang Morning, March 2, 3rd edition.
[195] Ibid.
[196] Fu Yuhui, The essence and influence of the US network neutrality debate, International Press, July, 2009.
[197] Ibid.
[198] Zhai Jingjing, Fu Yuhui, Network neutrality: how will the future of the Internet be? – Review and Reflection on the “Neutral Neutrality” Controversy in the United States, Journal of Zhejiang University of Media and Communications, Vol. 17, No.3, June 2010.
[199] Hu Ling, Net Neutrality in China, Open Times, No.5, 2014.
[200]Jiang Mingan, monitoring SMS and QQ have violated the freedom of communication suspected , Xiaoxiang Morning, March 2, 3rd edition.
[201]Fu Yuhui, The essence and influence of the US network neutrality debate, International Press, July, 2009.
[202] Li Hui, Global Network Neutral Progress and Impact on OTT, Modern Telecommunications Technology, Issue 3, page 33.
[203]Zhai Jingjing, Fu Yuhui, Network neutrality: how will the future of the Internet be? – Review and Reflection on the “Neutral Neutrality” Controversy in the United States, Journal of Zhejiang University of Media and Communications, Vol. 17, No.3, June 2010.
[204] Wu Liang, The Legal Dilemma of Network Neutral Regulation and Its Way out – From the Perspective of American Practice, Global Legal Comment, No.3, 2015.
[205] Ibid.
[206]Hu Ling, Net Neutrality in China, Open Times, No.5, 2014.
[207] Zhai Jingjing, Fu Yuhui, Network neutrality: how will the future of the Internet be? – Review and Reflection on the “Neutral Neutrality” Controversy in the United States, Journal of Zhejiang University of Media and Communications, Vol. 17, No.3, June 2010.
[208]Zou Jun, Network Neutrality: The Dilemma and Revelation of American Legislation, Modern Communication, December 12, page 123.
[209] Ibid.
[210]Li Hui, Global Network Neutral Progress and Impact on OTT, Modern Telecommunications Technology, Issue 3, page 33.
[211] Sheng Yan, Network Neutrality, Radio and Television Information, No. 8, 2012, page 28-30.
[212]Wu Liang, The Legal Dilemma of Network Neutral Regulation and Its Way out – From the Perspective of American Practice, Global Legal Comment, No.3, 2015.
[213] Ibid.
[214] Xu Wei, Re-qualifying the system of notification and its system effect, Modern Law, No. 1, page 36.
[215] Chen Fuliang, network regulation of the network background of the Internet and the Internet industry chain change, Reform, 2013, No. 2, page 40-43.
[216] Wu Liang, The Legal Dilemma of Network Neutral Regulation and Its Way out – From the Perspective of American Practice, Global Legal Comment, No.3, 2015.
[217] Sheng Yan, Network Neutrality, Radio and Television Information, No. 8, 2012, page 28-30.
[218]Zhang Xinbao, Ren Hongyan, tort liability on the Internet, Journal of Renmin University of China, No.4, 2010, page 45.
[219]Ibid.
[220]Sheng Yan, Network Neutrality, Radio and Television Information, No. 8, 2012, page 28-30.
[221]Zou Jun, Network Neutrality: The Dilemma and Revelation of American Legislation, Modern Communication, December 12, page 123.
[222]Chen Fuliang, network regulation of the network background of the Internet and the Internet industry chain change, Reform, 2013, No. 2, page 40-43.
[223]T. Randolph Beard, George S. Ford, Thomas M. Koutsky and Lawrence J. Spiwak, Network Neutrality and Industry Structure, 2006, July 29,Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 149, 150.
Every student wants the best grades and that’s our Focus
Our team consists of outstanding writers who have specialized knowledge in specific subject areas and professionals experienced in academic research writing. They hold at least a graduate degree—230 with Masters and MSN, experts carefully selected and trained to ensure the best quality of our work. .
We are committed to hiring the most skilled writers who can deliver high-quality work at a reasonable price for college students. Thus, we offer the best value for money without sacrificing the standard of our essay writing services; the quality of the paper's content. #Remember to activate the DISCOUNT Code on the order form COUPONS' section before making payment for your essay.
The service guarantees that our final work is 100% original, rearched and human written. We are committed to delivering plagiarism-free and AI-free work to each university/college student's 'write my paper' request. To uphold this promise, we check every draft for any possible instances of duplication, wrong citation, grammar errors and artificiality before we send it to you. Thus, you can always rely on us to write genuine and high-standard content for your essay assignments.
When you decide to place an order with Homework Ace Tutors, here is what happens: