A CONSUMER-WELFARE APPROACH TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY REGULATION OF THE INTERNET

"Network neutrality" is the shorthand for a proposed regimeof economic regulation for the Internet. Because of the trendto deliver traditional telecommunications services, as wellas new forms of content and applications, by Internet protocol(IP), a regime of network neutrality regulation would displaceor subordinate a substantial portion of existing telecommunicationsregulation. If the United States adopts network neutrality regulation,other industrialized nations probably will soon follow. As aresult of their investment to create next-generation broadbandnetworks, network operators have the ability to innovate insidethe network by offering both senders and receivers of informationgreater bandwidth and prioritization of delivery. Network neutralityregulation would, among other things, prevent providers of broadbandInternet access service (such as digital subscriber line (DSL)or cable modem service) from offering a guaranteed, expediteddelivery speed in return for the payment of a fee. The practicaleffect of banning such differential pricing (called "accesstiering" by its critics) would be to prevent the pricing ofaccess to content or applications providers according to priorityof delivery. To the extent that an advertiser of a good or servicewould be willing to contract with a network operator for advertisingspace on the network operator's affiliated content, anotherpractical effect of network neutrality regulation would be toerect a barrier to vertical integration of network operatorsinto advertising-based business models that could supplementor replace revenues earned from their existing usage-based businessmodels. Moreover, by making end-users pay for the full costof broadband access, network neutrality regulation would denybroadband access to the large number of consumers who wouldnot be able to afford, or who would not have a willingness topay for, what would otherwise be less expensive access. Forexample, Google is planning to offer broadband access to end-usersfor free in San Francisco by charging other content providersfor advertising. This product offering is evidently predicatedon the belief that many end-users demand discounted or freebroadband access that is paid for by parties other than themselves.Proponents of network neutrality regulation argue that suchrestrictions on the pricing policies of network operators arenecessary to preserve innovation on the edges of the network,as opposed to innovation within the network. However, recognizingthat network congestion and real-time applications demand somedifferential pricing according to bandwidth or priority, proponentsof network neutrality regulation would allow broadband Internetaccess providers to charge higher prices to end-users (but notcontent or applications providers) who consume more bandwidthor who seek priority delivery of certain traffic. Thus, thedebate over network neutrality is essentially a debate overhow best to finance the construction and maintenance of a broadbandnetwork in a two-sided market in which senders and receivershave additive demand for the delivery of a given piece of information—andhence additive willingness to pay. Well-established tools ofRamsey pricing from regulatory economics can shed light on whethernetwork congestion and recovery of sunk investment in infrastructureare best addressed by charging providers of content and applications,broadband users, or both for expedited delivery. Apart fromthis pricing problem, an analytically simpler component of proposednetwork neutrality regulation would prohibit a network operatorfrom denying its users access to certain websites and Internetapplications, such as voice over Internet protocol (VoIP). Althoughsome instances of blocking of VoIP have been reported, suchconduct is not a serious risk to competition. To address thisconcern, I analyze whether market forces (that is, competitionamong access providers) and existing regulatory structures aresufficient to protect broadband users. I conclude that economicwelfare would be maximized by allowing access providers to differentiateservices vis-à-vis providers of content and applicationsin value-enhancing ways and by relying on existing legal regimesto protect consumers against the exercise of market power, shouldit exist.     

THE ECONOMICS OF "WIRELESS NET NEUTRALITY"

Network neutrality issues have been vigorously debated worldwideover the past few years. One major aim of network neutralityproponents is to prevent high-speed Internet service providersfrom charging content providers for priority delivery. Recently,proponents have turned their attention to the regulation ofwireless networks, such as those for cellular phones, whichprovide increasing numbers of consumers with access to Internetservices. Some application providers have relied on a recentacademic paper to support greater regulation of wireless operators.Although the proposals to regulate these networks use the phrase"net neutrality," the regulations they seek to impose on wirelessoperators have little in common with those being sought forother Internet service providers. In this article, we providea framework for determining whether certain kinds of regulationsshould be imposed on the owners of wireless networks. We alsoconsider the benefits and costs of specific proposals for theregulation of these networks. Our principal conclusion is thatthe costs of most of these proposals are likely to exceed thebenefits.     

Network neutrality: Issues for Australia

The beginning of the 21st century saw the beginning of substantial debate on “open access” to the Internet and the related concept of “network neutrality”. This paper is a short introduction to some of the complexities of the debate, focussing on the difficulties of attempting to regulate rapidly developing technologies, as well as particular issues of price and market regulation in Australia. Generally, network neutrality advocates believe that without regulation, telecommunications companies will use their control over “last mile” infrastructure to engage in discriminatory and anti-competitive practices against content providers. Opponents argue that this concern is illusory, and regulatory restrictions requiring neutrality will in their turn restrict innovation by network providers. In Australia, most discussion has focussed on price and market regulation. However, many Australian opponents of network neutrality say that it is an American problem, irrelevant to Australia, because of different pricing models for the Australian broadband market.     

Professional regulation

Recent years have witnessed an increase in interest in professional regulation. The extent to which the professions should control professional regulation and the provision of professional services is the issue at stake. The strengthening of societal forces and attitudes on either side has intensified matters. Forces on the side of professional dominance include tradition, expertise, and politics. Opposed are individual liberty and individualism, theories of free enterprise, and egalitarianism. The controversy has also been influenced by recent political developments involving the emergence of two antiregulatory movements: the “control” movement, and the “antigovernment” movement. The former involves an attempt to control government regulatory power. The latter is a more broad-based political attack on regulation aimed at less government in general. The most significant impact of the current controversy is that professional regulation has become an important public issue.     

Political Liberalism. Neutrality and the Political

Abstract. The paper examines the current discussion in liberalism around the issue of the "neutrality" of the state. It scrutinizes the "political liberalism" defended by John Rawls and Charles Larmore and shows that the consequence of their approach is to evacuate the dimension of "the political" from the idea of a well-ordered society. By presenting the exclusions existing in their model of liberal society as the product of free agreement resulting from rational procedures, "political liberals" offer us a picture in which antagonism, violence and power have only disappeared because they have been made invisible. The consequence is to leave liberalism unable to conceptualize power and antagonism. The paper concludes that there cannot be such a thing as a "neutral justification of the neutrality of the state" (Larmore 1987) and that a pluralist perfectionist perspective like the one proposed by Joseph Raz offers a more adequate way to envisage the specificity of modern pluralist democracy.     

From porn to cybersecurity passing by copyright: How mass surveillance technologies are gaining legitimacy … The case of deep packet inspection technologies

Recent coverage in the press regarding large-scale passive pervasive network monitoring by various state and government agencies has increased interest in both the legal and technical issues surrounding such operations. The monitoring may take the form of which systems (and thus potentially which people) are communicating with which other systems, commonly referred to as the metadata for a communication, or it may go further and look into the content of the traffic being exchanged over the network. In particular the monitoring may rely upon the implementation of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technologies. These technologies are able to make anything that happens on a network visible and recordable. While in practice the sheer volume of traffic passing through a DPI system may make it impractical to record all network data, if the system systematically records certain types of traffic, or looks for specific patterns in all traffic, the privacy concerns are highly significant. The aim of this paper is twofold: first, to show that despite the increasing public awareness in relation to the capabilities of Internet service providers (ISPs), a cross-field and comparative examination shows that DPI technologies are in fact progressively gaining legal legitimacy; second to stress the need to rethink the relationship between data protection law and the right to private life, as enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on human rights and Article 7 of the European Charter of fundamental rights, in order to adequately confine DPI practices. As a result, it will also appear that the principle of technical neutrality underlying ISP's liability exemptions is misleading.     

Supreme Court Preview:Reed v. Town of Gilbert to Address Content Neutrality in Sign Regulation

Abstract

For the first time in two decades, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled in the 2014–2015 term to review the thorny planning and legal subject of local government regulation of outdoor signs and billboards and the core First Amendment requirement that regulations of speech be ”content neutral“. In basic terms, the content‐neutrality doctrine prohibits the government from regulating a speaker's content or message–including messages on outdoor signs. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the Court will be asked to decide whether Gilbert, Arizona's sign code, which distinguishes among several categories of signs, including religious, political, and ideological signs, meets the content neutrality requirement. In so doing, the Court may provide direction on how far local governments can go in regulating speech based on message, and the Court can resolve a longstanding division among the federal appellate courts over the meaning of content neutrality     

Fostering The Public's End-To-End: A Policy Initiative for Separating Broadband Transport From Content

The continued expansion of the Internet has caused considerable debate over the issue of open access. This article offers a policy initiative to ensure the preservation of the end-to-end network. The key to the proposed regulatory solution-separating content from transport-instills interconnection obligations on those providers who supply the first and last mile of high-speed Internet access. While obligated to supply access, facility-based DSL and cable modem providers would be free from rate regulation as non-dominant common carriers. DSL and cable modem providers would also be deemed neutral conduits when carrying ISP traffic, thereby allowing individuals to create their own communication environments and fostering further content and application creativity in the broadband arena.     

Expanding Media Law and Policy Education: Confronting Power,Defining Freedom,Awakening Participation

The changes brought about by the Digital Age have not triggered significant increases in political participation or meaningful reductions in longstanding social power asymmetries, which are now increasingly negotiated in policy contexts that involve mass media (surveillance, big data, net neutrality). At the same time, new technology and communication patterns have opened fissures in public opinion about the limits of free expression while also creating new legal risks for citizen-communicators. This article suggests that universities need to recalibrate their curricula to meet the exigencies of this moment, which should include an increased emphasis on media law and policy courses and initiatives. The article outlines a rationale for action, and some strategies, based on the need to: (1) expand citizens’ expressive agency by equipping them with the knowledge to shield themselves from overt restraints and subtle forms of coercion; (2) deepen citizens’ civics knowledge, enhance their political efficacy and enable their political participation; (3) facilitate citizens’ engagement in reemerging debates about the meaning and scope of the First Amendment; and (4) spur citizen involvement in confronting pressing constitutional and media policy issues whose resolution will ultimately shape the broader balance of social power.     

网络“裸聊”行为之刑法规制

裸聊是网络色情现象的一种重要表现形式，裸聊行为是否构成犯罪应具体问题具体分析。部分裸聊行为如发生在单个成年人之间、发生在隐蔽场所的，因不会扰乱社会秩序，可以不作为犯罪处理；裸聊不构成聚众淫乱罪应当定性为传播淫秽物品罪。而网络裸聊是具有严重社会危害性的行为，极易诱发未成年人犯罪，严重破坏社会道德风尚，引发家庭矛盾，导致社会不安定，我们应当用刑法来加以禁止。     

The EU approach to net neutrality: Network operators and over-the-top players,friends or foes?

This paper will mainly focus on the EU approach to net neutrality, notably the adequacy of existing and future EU rules to tackle the issue and the ongoing policy debate. It will also consider whether the market has effectively worked around the regulatory lacunae by looking into the relationships between the telecoms industry, as a regulated sector, and the over-the-top (OTT) players. In this regard, it will explore to what extent there is a real battle between telcos and OTTs or if both parties are already finding their own ways to overcome their (apparent) disputes.     

What Is Neutrality?

This paper reinvestigates the question of liberal neutrality. We contend that current liberal discussions have been dominated—if not hijacked—by one particular interpretation of what neutrality could imply: namely, exclusive neutrality, aiming to exclude religious and cultural expressions from the public sphere. We will argue that this is merely one among several relevant interpretations. To substantiate our claim, we will first elaborate upon inclusive neutrality by formulating two supplementary interpretations: proportional neutrality and compensatory neutrality. Second, we will argue that inclusive proportional neutrality is the most appropriate interpretation in many contexts. Our discussion highlights the fact that some political disputes should not be seen in terms of the antithesis between liberal neutrality and illiberal alternatives but, instead, as a clash between various valid but incompatible interpretations of what liberal neutrality may imply.     

Globalization and regulatory change: The interplay of laws and technologies in E-commerce in Southeast Asia

Electronic commerce has brought about business and technological changes globally, and these global changes have given rise to major legal reforms across nations. In the fast-changing global digital economy, states need strategies to maintain competitiveness of their markets while simultaneously ensuring the secure and effective use of technologies involved in conducting electronic transactions. This paper examines how the use and recognition of electronic signatures are regulated in Southeast Asia – the region that has shown the most significant growth in global e-commerce in past few years. Based on a comparative analysis of the laws of four representative ASEAN member states – namely Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam, this paper argues that there is a regional trend towards adopting more liberal and technology-neutral standards for electronic signatures. Electronic signature regulation in Southeast Asia is now built upon limited technological neutrality (or the so-called “two-tiered” approach) as a shared regulatory understanding, but this approach is operationalized differently in each state due to distinctive national contexts. Within the common legal framework, each state has developed its own system of control and management with respect to higher-level signatures (using advanced technologies). The principle of technological neutrality, a concept originally developed for the regulation of technologies in response to the liberalization of telecommunications market, has been the central theme of discussions on the e-transactions policy-making scene. As the author shows, in the process through which states localize the global standards of technological neutrality, ASEAN as a vehicle of regulatory change has played an essential role in translating this principle to the national context.     

A Struggle for Competence: National Security,Surveillance and the Scope of EU Law at the Court of Justice of European Union

In Privacy International and Quadrature Du Net, the Grand Chamber of the CJEU ruled that the e-Privacy Directive generally prevents bulk retention and transmission of traffic and location data, unless Member States can prove serious threats to national security. In such cases, bulk data can be retained during a strictly necessary period, subject to review by a court or independent administrative body. The judgments will impact other data retention and sharing arrangements, such as the PNR, proposed e-Privacy Regulation and e-Evidence package, and adequacy decisions under GDPR, including for post-Brexit UK. The rulings suggest the CJEU's significance in national security, which has been outside of European integration, but has become a ground for political struggle between EU institutions and Member States. While Privacy International unequivocally asserts CJEU's authority in national security and is a victory for data protection, Quadrature Du Net does not oppose indiscriminate data retention in principle and is an ambivalent response to political pressure.     

Regulating Political Donations by Companies: Challenges and Misconceptions

This paper analyses the regulation of company political donations in the UK. It argues that UK policy makers have failed to understand the nature of company donors and, consequently, that the UK Companies Act 2006 requirement for shareholder consent for company donations is not an effective solution to concerns about company donors. To this end, the paper presents a comprehensive empirical analysis of company donations to show that the vast majority of donor companies are closely held or owner‐managed entities where shareholder consent rules are ineffective. The paper highlights particular concerns that arise with donation by such companies and argues for a more accurate understanding of company donations in order to formulate effective policy responses to concerns about the role of company donors.     

Realizing ‘Political’ Neutrality

Political liberalism is supposed to be neutral among reasonable comprehensive doctrines, including comprehensive liberalism. Some critics think that it implicitly assumes comprehensive liberalism. I argue that political liberalism has the resources to avoid this charge and chart a path between sectarianism and unprincipled accommodation that allows a range of policy justifications onto the political agenda of a scope that honors the ideal of neutrality.     

Do we need a forensic science teaching network?

The challenging events of the past year have forced those of us working in higher education to adapt our teaching practices to conform to the restrictions put in place. For many this has been an opportunity to take a fresh view of the way material has been delivered in the past, and critically reflect on how it might be delivered in the future. There has been an explosion of innovative ideas and the introduction of support networks such as ‘#RemoteForensicCSI’ to aid with sharing these new innovations and examples of good practice.However, the past year has also helped to highlight a lack of an established network that could support the teaching of forensic science in the UK. Teaching networks within the UK exist for related disciplines, such as the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Higher Education Chemistry Teaching Network, but no network focuses on the teaching challenges specific to forensic science. Such a network could help to address the gap in pedagogical research to help support more effective teaching and give learners the best opportunities possible. This would complement the work of the Chartered Society of Forensic Science including upholding accreditation standards and the existing Link Member Scheme, whilst providing an environment to specifically support the teaching of forensic science. Any network could also look to link with other networks internationally such as the Council of Forensic Science Educators in the USA and identify examples of good practice worldwide that could be used to enhance and inform forensic science teaching in the UK.The teaching of forensic science is multifaceted with a need to strike a balance between practical skills and theoretical knowledge. Like many vocational courses forensic science teaching staff have a diverse range of backgrounds, encompassing both academic and practitioner experience. This results in a range of experiences and approaches to teaching and delivery, creating a fantastic melting pot for ideas, but outlets for sharing these innovative approaches are limited. This article will highlight some of the pedagogical gaps within forensic science teaching and areas that we could learn from. Most importantly, it will issue a clarion call to those working in this area to push for a UK Forensic Teaching Network.     

Technology and special needs provision in the UK: is current law satisfactory?

Recently, the government has issued legislation on disability discrimination (the UK Disability Discrimination Act 2005) that is silent on the issue of access to technology for those adults and minors with special needs/disabilities either in the classroom or out of the classroom. At the same time, commercial legislation from Europe drives forward with new directives on the regulation of technology as part of the European Union's Lisbon Goals to make Europe more efficient through the use of Information Communications Technologies (ICTs) and to provide an increasing array of on-line services (payment of taxes, licensing, identity cards, and access to public services). With more rapid provision of public and private services on-line, there is a pressing need to ask to what extent current legislation should address access to assistive technology for those with special needs and disabilities. Furthermore, the legal obligation on government to provide ICTs as communications aids in school classrooms either as an auxiliary aid or service, or as an education and associated service for those who are disabled is unclear under current UK disability discrimination and special needs law. As far as the writer is aware, currently, no study as yet has reviewed disability and SEN legislation to determine what obligations (if any) arise on government to provide communications aids based on ICTs to children with disabilities. And yet, disability remains a central issue.     

Legal Rights and the Limits of Conceptual Analysis: A Case Study

Legal philosophers divide over whether it is possible to analyze legal concepts without engaging in normative argument. The influential analysis of legal rights advanced by Jules Coleman and Jody Kraus some years ago serves as a useful case study to consider this issue because even some legal philosophers who are generally skeptical of the neutrality claims of conceptual analysts have concluded that Coleman and Kraus's analysis manages to maintain such neutrality. But that analysis does depend in subtle but important ways on normative claims. Their argument assumes not only a positivist concept of law, but also that it counts in favor of an analysis of legal rights that it increases the number of options available to legal decisionmakers. Thus, whether Coleman and Kraus's analysis is right in the end depends on whether those normative assumptions are justified. If even their analysis, which makes the thinnest of conceptual claims, depends on normative premises, that fact serves as strong evidence of the difficulty of analyzing legal concepts while remaining agnostic on moral and political questions.