Samuel Chen

Tc367
10/18/15
INFO 1200
Policy Memo: Network Neutrality
Introduction
This memo addresses the topic of network neutrality. The idea of network neutrality is that all
internet traffic, regardless of its nature, should be treated equally [8]. The purpose of this memo
is to provide a concise survey of the issue, examine arguments on both sides of the debate, and
provide key policy recommendations addressing the kernel of network neutrality along with
immediate actions a governing body can take in ensuring a better outcome for the internet.
Specifically we focus on net neutrality in the United States; the governing body is the Federal
Communications Committee.
We examine the issues related to network neutrality through a non-consequentialist ethical
framework: we closely analyze the rights and actions of the stakeholders in play. We examine
how opposing arguments and their respective implications relate to the stakeholder rights and
make our recommendation accordingly.
Section 1 provides background information on the issue of network neutrality. Section 2
examines the arguments made by proponents of network neutrality and their ethical significance.
Section 3 examines the arguments made by the opponents of network neutrality and their ethical
significance. Section 4 outlines the ethical consequences of the acting upon the various policy
options. Section 5 recommends the optimal policy option. This is followed by the conclusion that
emphasizes the keys points, takeaway recommendation and further work that can be done.
Section 1: What is Network Neutrality?
In this section we survey the issue of network neutrality: The key definitions, the issues at stake,
the stakeholders and their respective stances and the corresponding policy options the
stakeholders are pushing for.
The idea of network neutrality is that all internet traffic, regardless of its nature, should be treated
equally [8]. Proponents of network neutrality believe that network neutrality is a critical
component to an Open Internet [6] [2]. An open internet emphasizes open standards,
transparency, lack of internet censorship and low barrier to entry. All these ideas are tied to the
expectation of decentralized technological power [6] [9].
The stakeholders in this discussion are the internet service providers (ISPs), internet application
companies, internet users, and the government.
The issues pertaining to the debate are of policy options that regulate, to various extents, internet
service providers (ISP), and how such potential regulation could promote network neutrality as

well as how such regulations affect the private interests, namely internet service providers. Such
regulations would determine whether ISPs could discriminate by communication protocol,
discriminate by IP address, favor private networks, or utilize peering discrimination [5][8].
Policy options that promote net neutrality would prohibit ISPs from programming the network to
discriminate in the aforementioned ways, meaning the internet network becomes a simple means
of transferring data, a dump pipe, where all decision related to management of the transactions
of the network are left to the connected parties (end nodes), and not the network itself [7].
Section 2: Arguments for Network Neutrality
In this section we examine prominent arguments made by proponents of network neutrality. We
focus on the prominent arguments made by notable figures in this group.
The first arguing point is that ISPs control of data would grant ISPs the power of being
gatekeepers of the internet, stifling innovation. Vint Cerf, recognized as one of the fathers of the
internet, emphasizes this in his network neutrality hearing testimony before the U.S. senate
committee: The Internets open, neutral architecture has proven to be an enormous engine for
market innovation, economic growth, social discourse, and the free flow of ideas. The
remarkable success of the Internet can be traced to a few simple network principles end-to-end
design, layered architecture, and open standards -- which together give consumers choice and
control over their online activities [1]. He further states why discriminatory practices by ISPs
would be harmful to the internet: Because the network is neutral, the creators of new Internet
content and services need not seek permission from carriers or pay special fees to be seen online.
As a result, we have seen an array of unpredictable new offerings that might never have evolved
had central control of the network been required by design [1]. He underlines: Allowing
broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the
principles that have made the Internet such a success. Tim Wu, legal scholar that coined the
term net neutrality, argues that without net neutrality the market will transform to one ruled by
innovation to one ruled by deal making with ISPs [8]. Similar arguments are made across the
board of prominent internet engineers, human rights activists and prominent lawyers.
Secondly, proponents argue that net neutrality ensures that the internet remains a free and open
technology that fosters democratic communication [3]. If ISPs were granted the power of being
gatekeeper, various viewpoints and communication could be shut out and hidden by the ISPs.
Network neutrality ensures the right to free speech and promotes democratic communication.
Section 3: Arguments against Network Neutrality
In this section we examine prominent arguments made by opponents of network neutrality. We
focus on the arguments made by notable technologists in this group.
The main argument against network neutrality, voice by all opponents of net neutrality, is that
regulation on ISPs would stifle innovation and decrease incentive for investment into network
infrastructure. This sentiment is voiced by various telecom company executives as well as
venture capital executives. Marc Andreessen, expresses a common sentiment amongst
opponents: So, I think the net neutrality issue is very difficult. I think its a lose-lose. Its a good
idea in theory because it basically appeals to this very powerful idea of permission less

innovation. A pure net neutrality view is difficult to sustain if you also want to have continued
investment in broadband networks. If youre a large telco right now, you spend on the order of
$20 billion a year on capex. You need to know how youre going to get a return on that
investment. If you have these pure net neutrality rules where you can never charge a company
like Netflix anything, youre not ever going to get a return on continued network investment
which means youll stop investing in the network. And I would not want to be sitting here 10 or
20 years from now with the same broadband speeds were getting today. So the challenge, I
think, is to accommodate both of those goals, which is a very difficult thing to do. And I dont
envy the FCC and the complexity of what theyre trying to do. The main fear of regulation is
stifling of innovation. [2]
Section 4: Ethical Analysis of Policy Options
In this section, we consider the most prominent policy option on each side of the debate and
examine its ethical consequences through a non-consequentialist framework. Which parties are
acting within their rights? Which policy options minimize violation of such rights?
The main policy decision to make it whether or not to enforce net neutrality policies on ISPs.
Specifically, this involve classifying ISPs as a type of common carrier under the eyes of the
Federal Communications Committee (FCC), allowing FCC to enforce such policies [2]. We
examine the ethical consequences of enforcing, or alternatively, not enforcing the net neutrality
policies.
We focus on stakeholders that are proponents of net neutrality enforcement: Internet users.
Internet users are entitled to the service they are guaranteed by the contract with their ISP.
However, more broadly, it can be argued that internet users deserve to reap the benefits of the
publically funded research into internet technology, funded by the taxes the internet users pay.
Internet users of all types, civilians, small/large businesses, non-profits groups, all have the right
to enjoy the functionality of the internet, given their agreement with their ISP. If net neutrality is
enforced, these rights are guaranteed to all users regardless of their activities relating to internet
usage. If net neutrality isnt enforced, ISPs can discriminate between users based on whatever
criteria the ISPs deem fit: organizational traits, ideological beliefs, etc.
Stakeholders that are opponents of network neutrality are mostly composed of ISPs, and some
venture capitalist and ISP executives all of whom are internet users. If net neutrality is enforced,
the venture capitalists and executives and the rest of the internet users in this class retain their
rights. However, ISPs lose the right to discriminate against its users based on the users activity
or traffic. ISPs can no longer offer their services as a tiered service based on the type of activity
the user is engaged in.
Section 5: Policy Recommendation
In this final section, we recommend the optimal policy options given our ethical analysis.
We recommend implementing policies and enforcing network neutrality principles. Here we
make a normative, but fairly reasonable assumption: the risks of loss of free speech amongst

internet users is a more grave concern than loss of ISPs ability to discriminate against its users
based on user traits.
The fear of blocking innovation due to lack of incentive for investments in network infrastructure
is a valid concern that opponents of net neutrality raise, however, venture and profits are not
rights, they are not guaranteed and must always pursued, in any industry, within the confines
some appropriate regulation. Thus such concerns, under this ethical framework, do not provide a
strong basis to argue against network neutrality.
Conclusion
Given ethical concerns of both proponents and opponents in the debate, we deem that proponents
of network neutrality have more to lose if no form of network neutrality is enforced. Thus we
recommend the enforcement of network neutrality. Further work should be done to ensure that
under new regulations, innovation continues to thrive. The state of such concerns should be
monitored in accordance with the time and needs of the stakeholders.

Works Cited
[1] Cerf, Vint. "Prepared Statement of Vinton G. Cerf Vice President and Chief Internet
Evangelist Google Inc." N.p., 07 Feb. 2006. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
<https://www.commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf>.
[2] LaFrance, Alexis C. MadrigalAdrienne. "Net Neutrality: A Guide to (and History Of) a
Contested Idea." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 25 Apr. 2014. Web. 19 Oct.
2015.
[3] "Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney - No Tolls on The Internet." Washington Post.
The Washington Post, 08 June 2006. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
[4] "Marc Andreessen on Net Neutrality." Marginal REVOLUTION RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct.
2015.
[5] "Open Internet - Digital Agenda for Europe - European Commission." Digital Agenda for
Europe. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
[6] "Open vs. Closed: What Kind of Internet Do We Want?" Gigaom. N.p., 23 Mar. 2012. Web.
18 Oct. 2015.
[7] Saltzer, J. H., D. P. Reed, and D. D. Clark. "End-to-end Arguments in System Design." ACM
Trans. Comput. Syst. TOCS ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2.4 (1984): 277-88.
Web.
[8] Wu, Tim. "Network Neutrality FAQ." Network Neutrality FAQ. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.
[9] Wu, Tim. "Why You Should Care about Network Neutrality." N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.