Dictionary of Arguments

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffe

 
Author Item Summary Meta data
I 178
Network Neutrality/Zittrain: Those who provide content and services over the Internet have generally lined up in favor of “network neutrality,” by which faraway ISPs would not be permitted to come between external content or service providers and their customers. The debate is nuanced and far ranging. (1) Proponents of various forms of
I 179
network neutrality invoke the Internet’s tradition of openness as prescriptive: they point out that ISPs usually route packets without regard for what they contain or where they are from, and they say that this should continue in order to allow maximum access by outsiders to an ISP’s customers and vice versa.

1. For an overview of different perspectives on the debate, see, for example, “Network Neutrality”: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Commerce, Sci. & Transp., 109th Cong. (2006) (statement of Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School), available at http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/lessig-020706.pdf; Tim Wu, Network Neutrality FAQ, http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html (last visited May 15, 2007); Christopher S. Yoo, Would Mandating Broadband Network Neutrality Help or Hurt Competition? A Comment on the End-to-End Debate, 3 J. TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. 71 (2004); David Farber & Michael Katz, Hold Off on Net Neutrality, WASH. POST, Jan. 19, 2007, at A19. For a more detailed discussion of the network neutrality debate, compare Tim Wu, Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination, 2 J. TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. 141 (2003), and Mark A. Lemley & Lawrence Lessig, The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era, 48 UCLAL. REV. 925 (2001), with Christopher S. Yoo, Beyond Network Neutrality, 19 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 1 (2005). See also Legal Affairs Debate Club—Keeping the Internet Neutral? Christopher S. Yoo and Tim Wu Debate, LEGAL AFFAIRS, May 1, 2006, http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/dc_printerfriendlymsp?id=86. For articles noting the centrality of end-to-end, see for example, Marjory S. Blumenthal, End-to-End and Subsequent Paradigms, 2002 L. REV. M.S.U.-D.C L. 709 (describing end-to-end as the current paradigm for understanding the Internet); and Lawrence Lessig, The Architecture of Innovation, 51 DUKE L.J. 1783 (2002) (arguing that end-to-end establishes the Internet as a commons). For the perspective of a number of economists, see William J. Baumol et al., Economists’ Statement on Network Neutrality Policy (AEI-Brookings Joint Ctr., Working Paper No. RP07– 08, 2007). For an argument about why competition alone does not preclude network discrimination, see Brett M. Frischmann & Barbara van Schewick, Network Neutrality and the Economics of an Information Superhighway: A Reply to Professor Yoo, 47 JURIMETRICS (forthcoming 2007) (manuscript at 7—8), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1014691. See also Jonathan L. Zittrain, The Generative Internet, 119 HARV. L. REV. 1974, 1988—89, 2029—30 & n.208 (2006).


_____________
Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.

Zittrain I
Jonathan Zittrain
The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It New Haven 2009


Send Link
> Counter arguments against Zittrain
> Counter arguments in relation to Kripke’s Wittgenstein

Authors A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  


Concepts A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z