What do you think?
Rate this book
Net Neutrality Compendium: Human Rights, Free Competition and the Future of the Internet
The ways in which Internet traffic is managed have direct consequences on Internet users’ rights as well as on their capability to compete on a level playing field. Network neutrality mandates to treat Internet traffic in a non-discriminatory fashion in order to maximise end users’ freedom and safeguard an open Internet.
This book is the result of a collective work aimed at providing deeper insight into what is network neutrality, how does it relates to human rights and free competition and how to properly frame this key issue through sustainable policies and regulations. The Net Neutrality Compendium stems from three years of discussions nurtured by the members of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DCNN), an open and multi-stakeholder group, established under the aegis of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
This book is the result of a collective work aimed at providing deeper insight into what is network neutrality, how does it relates to human rights and free competition and how to properly frame this key issue through sustainable policies and regulations. The Net Neutrality Compendium stems from three years of discussions nurtured by the members of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DCNN), an open and multi-stakeholder group, established under the aegis of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
319 pages, Hardcover
First published December 7, 2015
2 people are currently reading
6 people want to read
About the author
Luca Belli
17 books1 followerLuca Belli, PhD is Full Researcher at the Center for Technology and Society (CTS) of Fundação Getulio Vargas Law School, Rio de Janeiro, where he leads the Internet Governance Architectures project. Luca is the founder and co-chair of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Read
December 18, 2017given how dominant this issue currently is in US News I had hoped this book would be more popular. It is a series of articles, written in the exact vocabulary of academic papers but without the barriers to access of mathematical jargon or computer code, that explain net neutrality, its significance and its impact in human rights. The explanation of what net neutrality is is a bit repetitive but it hammers the point home. A few quotes:
"Network neutrality prescribes that Internet traffi c shall be treated in a nondiscriminatory
fashion so that Internet users can freely choose online content, applications,
services and devices without being infl uenced by discriminatory delivery of
Internet traffi c. Such freedom of choice is allowed by the original architectural
choices that made the Internet an open and general-purpose network fostering endusers’
creativity and innovation while preserving individuals’ freedom of expression.
The concept of network neutrality refers to the policy and regulatory choices
that should be made to frame network management practices so that Internet
openness and full respect for human rights can be safeguarded. Indeed, some traffi c
management techniques have the potential to limit end-users’ freedom to seek,
impart and receive information and ideas or to compromise the privacy of endusers’
communications. In this regard, network neutrality policies aim at safeguarding
individuals’ capability to access and use lawful online content, applications,
services and devices, without having to request the authorization of any operators.
Most importantly, net neutrality supports the full enjoyment of end-users’ rights by
defi ning the legitimate purposes for the achievement of which discriminatory traffi c
management techniques need to be used, rather than to leave the utilisation of such
techniques to exclusive market criteria. As such, net neutrality corroborates the
decentralised and open architecture of the Internet, defl ating entry barriers to the
‘free market of ideas’, and thus setting a level playing fi eld for any user to participate
in the development of the Internet ecosystem.
" In the Internet neutrality context, however, outright blocking often poses a
much less realistic threat than the risk that access providers will seek to discriminate
among different types or providers of Internet content. Discrimination among
content can refer to either prioritizing or slowing down certain content for delivery
over an access provider’s network. When the net neutrality debate fi rst fl ared in the
US in the mid 2000s, broadband company executives made statements not about
blocking per se, but about their desire either to obtain payment from the services
their subscribers used or to enter into special arrangements with certain content
providers to guarantee faster delivery speeds. This desire—to be paid by content
providers for carrying their traffi c—has continued to manifest in disputes over the
terms by which large content networks (such as Google/YouTube) and large access
providers (such as France Telecom—Orange) interconnect and exchange traffi c. 20
And there appears to be a growing trend toward “sponsored data” arrangements,
particularly in the mobile market, under which content providers make deals with
access providers to exempt their content and services from data usage caps. 21
Discriminatory treatment of traffi c has a more subtle but nonetheless meaningful
impact on users’ rights. First, the means of identifying traffi c to carry out
discriminatory treatment may impact the privacy of users’ communications. In
addition, choosing freely from among the myriad content, applications, and services
available on the open Internet is an important part of the exercise of the
right to free expression online. If access providers speed up or slow down access
to certain sites, that choice risks becoming the illusion of choice, with users
unwittingly steered toward particular content or services they might not have
otherwise chosen.
Moreover, the Internet is not simply another mass medium for the one-way
dissemination of content and information; it is also a platform for the development
of new communications tools. Much like the way the free expression right is an
enabler of other rights, the Internet is an enabler of varied, diverse media and
services that in turn advance the enjoyment of free expression and other rights.
Internet neutrality helps preserve a competitive market for such online content and
services, fostering a diverse array of information sources and communication tools
that enables the enjoyment of human rights by users of those tools. New competitors
benefi t tremendously from the open Internet’s low barriers to entry. Once a company
pays for its own Internet connection, it instantly gets access to the whole global
network—a virtually infi nite addressable market. Small providers of content, applications
and services can compete directly for end users on a technologically neutral
playing fi eld, regardless of identity of the users’ ISPs.
By contrast, if the Internet were to move in a direction where each ISP may
determine whether and how fast its subscribers can access particular content and
services, providers of online content and services would face a very different
environment. Every new service would have to worry about how its traffi c would be
treated by various ISPs across the globe in order to be assured reaching the largest
potential audience. And inevitably, some application providers would seek to gain
competitive advantage by striking deals with ISPs for favorable treatment. As deals
with ISPs became commonplace, anyone who did not strike such deals might face
signifi cant competitive disadvantages. Or in cases where paid priority was viewed
as a necessity, content providers may choose to withhold their content from the
customers of some access providers rather than pay. Whether through the onset of
higher economic barriers to entry (such as a small startup in South America not
having the leverage to pay to compete in foreign markets) or through refusals to
serve certain markets deemed not worth the cost, the end result would be far fewer
information sources and communications tools for Internet users. "
"Network neutrality prescribes that Internet traffi c shall be treated in a nondiscriminatory
fashion so that Internet users can freely choose online content, applications,
services and devices without being infl uenced by discriminatory delivery of
Internet traffi c. Such freedom of choice is allowed by the original architectural
choices that made the Internet an open and general-purpose network fostering endusers’
creativity and innovation while preserving individuals’ freedom of expression.
The concept of network neutrality refers to the policy and regulatory choices
that should be made to frame network management practices so that Internet
openness and full respect for human rights can be safeguarded. Indeed, some traffi c
management techniques have the potential to limit end-users’ freedom to seek,
impart and receive information and ideas or to compromise the privacy of endusers’
communications. In this regard, network neutrality policies aim at safeguarding
individuals’ capability to access and use lawful online content, applications,
services and devices, without having to request the authorization of any operators.
Most importantly, net neutrality supports the full enjoyment of end-users’ rights by
defi ning the legitimate purposes for the achievement of which discriminatory traffi c
management techniques need to be used, rather than to leave the utilisation of such
techniques to exclusive market criteria. As such, net neutrality corroborates the
decentralised and open architecture of the Internet, defl ating entry barriers to the
‘free market of ideas’, and thus setting a level playing fi eld for any user to participate
in the development of the Internet ecosystem.
" In the Internet neutrality context, however, outright blocking often poses a
much less realistic threat than the risk that access providers will seek to discriminate
among different types or providers of Internet content. Discrimination among
content can refer to either prioritizing or slowing down certain content for delivery
over an access provider’s network. When the net neutrality debate fi rst fl ared in the
US in the mid 2000s, broadband company executives made statements not about
blocking per se, but about their desire either to obtain payment from the services
their subscribers used or to enter into special arrangements with certain content
providers to guarantee faster delivery speeds. This desire—to be paid by content
providers for carrying their traffi c—has continued to manifest in disputes over the
terms by which large content networks (such as Google/YouTube) and large access
providers (such as France Telecom—Orange) interconnect and exchange traffi c. 20
And there appears to be a growing trend toward “sponsored data” arrangements,
particularly in the mobile market, under which content providers make deals with
access providers to exempt their content and services from data usage caps. 21
Discriminatory treatment of traffi c has a more subtle but nonetheless meaningful
impact on users’ rights. First, the means of identifying traffi c to carry out
discriminatory treatment may impact the privacy of users’ communications. In
addition, choosing freely from among the myriad content, applications, and services
available on the open Internet is an important part of the exercise of the
right to free expression online. If access providers speed up or slow down access
to certain sites, that choice risks becoming the illusion of choice, with users
unwittingly steered toward particular content or services they might not have
otherwise chosen.
Moreover, the Internet is not simply another mass medium for the one-way
dissemination of content and information; it is also a platform for the development
of new communications tools. Much like the way the free expression right is an
enabler of other rights, the Internet is an enabler of varied, diverse media and
services that in turn advance the enjoyment of free expression and other rights.
Internet neutrality helps preserve a competitive market for such online content and
services, fostering a diverse array of information sources and communication tools
that enables the enjoyment of human rights by users of those tools. New competitors
benefi t tremendously from the open Internet’s low barriers to entry. Once a company
pays for its own Internet connection, it instantly gets access to the whole global
network—a virtually infi nite addressable market. Small providers of content, applications
and services can compete directly for end users on a technologically neutral
playing fi eld, regardless of identity of the users’ ISPs.
By contrast, if the Internet were to move in a direction where each ISP may
determine whether and how fast its subscribers can access particular content and
services, providers of online content and services would face a very different
environment. Every new service would have to worry about how its traffi c would be
treated by various ISPs across the globe in order to be assured reaching the largest
potential audience. And inevitably, some application providers would seek to gain
competitive advantage by striking deals with ISPs for favorable treatment. As deals
with ISPs became commonplace, anyone who did not strike such deals might face
signifi cant competitive disadvantages. Or in cases where paid priority was viewed
as a necessity, content providers may choose to withhold their content from the
customers of some access providers rather than pay. Whether through the onset of
higher economic barriers to entry (such as a small startup in South America not
having the leverage to pay to compete in foreign markets) or through refusals to
serve certain markets deemed not worth the cost, the end result would be far fewer
information sources and communications tools for Internet users. "
Displaying 1 of 1 review