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.     

从“拉美陷阱”看中国和谐社会的构建

在现代化的进程中,拉丁美洲国家曾取得举世瞩目的成就.但是,20世纪80年代以来,拉丁美洲国家陷入"拉美陷阱"而不能自拔.研究拉美国家的现代化进程,吸取其经验和教训,对于构建社会主义和谐社会有积极的意义.     

心肌缺血内皮素RT-PCR初步研究及其意义

目的为探讨心肌缺血后内皮素基因在心肌组织内表达的变化。方法用RT-PCR法研究了心肌缺血60min后心肌内皮素的表达情况。结果发现RT-PCR结果显示缺血组和正常组均检出ET-1mRNA,但是二者之间有显著性差异,说明缺血可以诱导ET-1mRNA增高。结论本实验为ET-1免疫组织化学法研究奠定了分子基础。     

论“和谐社会”及其构建

中国共产党人发出构建"和谐社会"的宣言,这标志着"和谐"成为一种社会形态和社会分类的标准载入史册.构建和谐社会不仅是党的奋斗目标,也是检验其执政能力的一个尺度.     

新加坡“人才立国”思想探析

通过人才培养分流、奖学金、双语教育、终身教育方式精心育才;政策优惠,吸引外才;精英治国,人尽其才,这就是新加坡政府“人才立国”的思想特点。因此,我们应发展现代国民教育、在职教育、终身教育,实施全民培训工程;以人为本,营造良好政策环境、激励环境、工作生活环境和人文环境;以法为本,树立正确的用人思想,营造公平竞争环境,合理使用人才,完善用人机制。     

艾滋病、小偷与立法

“艾滋小偷”正在成为一个严重的社会问题。“艾滋小偷”对他人的种种不法伤害,是 现阶段一种新的违法行为,造成实际传染后果的应当构成犯罪。“艾滋小偷”不仅犯有盗窃罪,同 时又伴有吸毒、贩毒、嫖娼、敲诈、抢劫等多种犯罪。我国应尽快修改和完善《刑法》、《看守所条 例》、《强制戒毒法》、《传染病防治法》、《监狱法》等法律法规,早日出台《艾滋病防治条例》,以便统 一监管和及时惩治各类艾滋病犯罪。     

"西学东渐"与清初"中西会通"的科学观

明清之际的"西学东渐",在一定程度上改变了清初学人的科学思维方式,极大拓宽了他们的科学视野,从而推进了中国传统科学向西方近代科学的历史性转变.但在"天朝情结"和"以夏变夷"观念误导下,清初学者由"会通"滑入"索源",提出了"西学中源"说,把"中西会通"转向乾嘉时期对中国传统科学的盲目推崇,从而延缓了中国近代化的进程.     

《诗经》《楚辞》“还乡”母题原型及比较研究

"还乡"母题渊源于原始蒙昧时代的生命体验和思考,及至<诗经><楚辞>时代衍生出现实性以及个体生命"存在之思"的精神性"还乡"内容,成为后世文学的书写和想象的灵感源泉.在中国文学史上,<诗经>第一次集中书写了农耕文明背景上的"还乡",在回归家园以及对生命来源的感恩中,<诗经>流贯着人世之归的素朴世俗情怀.比较而言,诞生于巫风盛行楚地的<楚辞>,因其更多原始文明神秘性和宗教感的存续,诗人一方面行吟于人世之归的"还乡"之路,另一方面又走向超迈的神界之游.