Fuente de alimentación

The FCC’s network neutrality rulings have generally avoided technical NN rulings in favor of guiding principles and best practices for internet service providers. In part, this is because the structure and protocols of the web are often fast-changing

297  _{Winseck,  “New  Zealand’s  Ultra-­‐Fast  Broadband  Plan.”}  

and the FCC has generally acted reactively, rather than proactively. Most recently, this slow movement can be seen in the growing attention to internet interconnection and peering agreements. While some argue these agreements should not be linked to the classical understanding of NN as regarding the last mile user service, the effects of these

agreements may have a significant role in the issue’s outcome.299

The FCC and regulators elsewhere in the world have generally shied away from architecture and technology-specific internet regulation. Instead, they have relied on

policies emphasizing “openness” and “transparency” from network owners.300 For

example, the Body for European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC) has passed and encouraged policies focused on economic relationships rather than

technology specifics by requiring greater network transparency and reinforcing the

unbundling of network owners from ISPs.301

Similarly, rather than technology or network-specific rules, the FCC’s policies have largely been based on transparency, vague terms regarding non-discrimination and openness. One the one hand, this can be seen as a move toward principle-based, rather than rule-based regulation. NN opponents often argue specific rule-based regulation of internet infrastructure would hamper future development and

innovation.302 However, unclear regulations regarding network architecture have left a

299  _{Feld,  “Of  CDNs,  Netflix,  Net  Neutrality,  and  Cable  Fu#$@!ery.”}   300  _{Marsden,  “Network  Neutrality.”}  

301  _{Marcus  et  al.,  “Network  Neutrality”;  Internet  Society,  Comments  on  Draft  Guidelines  on}  

Net  Neutrality  for  the  Body  of  European  Regulators  for  Electronic  Communications;  BEREC,  

BEREC  Publishes  Net  Neutrality  Findings  and  New  Guidance  for  Consultation.  

302  _{Thierer,  “Are  Dumb  Pipe  Mandates  Smart  Public  Policy  -­‐  Vertical  Integration,  Net}  

great deal of flexibility to ISPs and increase the potential for rule-bending and abuse in the name of QoS.

Political choices, economic opportunism, geography, technological innovation and sometimes chance have shaped the architecture used today. It has brought together legacy infrastructure from previous technologies with new innovations of content, programming and computing. As such, the conscious architecture choices moving forward should ideally reflect a reconciliation of the needs and desires of both the network managers and the public who uses and benefits from its existence and efficiency.

While e2e networking is far from dead, the power of network owners as arbiters of limited bandwidth space puts them in a particularly strong position for steering the existing protocols by which the web operates and the physical infrastructure through which it travels. In the US, this is exacerbated by the control of a handful of centralized DSL and Cable ISPs creating a bottleneck for users who are particularly susceptible to coercion, manipulation or abuse. Because of their size, it appears incumbent ISPs have little or no incentive to invest in infrastructure – some have argued this will only increase if regulators allow ISPs to increase revenue by content charges such as the

FCC’s proposed “fast lanes.”303 As the largest ISPs increasingly integrate vertically with

That  Challenge  the  Status  Quo”;  Yoo,  “Is  There  a  Role  for  Common  Carriage  in  an  Internet-­‐

Based  World?”.  

303  _{Wyatt,  “In  Policy  Shift,  F.C.C.  Will  Allow  A  Web  Fast  Lane”;  Cheng,  Bandyopadhyay,  and}   Hong  Guo,  “The  Debate  on  Net  Neutrality,”  74–75.  

content offerings becoming available online, the danger of discrimination toward

competing content will intensify.304

But the lessons gathered from the cases of Australia and New Zealand suggest that network neutrality does not naturally evolve from architecture, but is instead consciously coded and preserved. Although the growth of FTTP investment and construction by new entrants like independent municipalities and Google as well as incumbents like AT&T and Verizon may relieve some bandwidth scarcity concerns,

demand for a fast, reliable web will only grow.305 While more utilities, products and

services are moving online, the rapid development of data compression technology to reduce congestion and buffering may further reduce the congestion of time-sensitive

and data-heavy traffic, but that remains to be seen.306

As long as internet infrastructure is controlled by a relatively small handful of incredibly powerful gatekeepers, greater capacity should be seen as a substitute for neutrality policy. While architectural choices are powerful tools for regulating behavior online, the increasing complexity of global networks offers many opportunities for intervention. For that reason, other dimensions must be relied upon to help preserve and maintain network neutrality.

304  _{Grove  and  Baumann,  “Complexity  in  the  Telecommunications  Industry,”  41.}   305  _{Crawford,  Captive  Audience.}