Rafael Moreira

Engl 398E: Professional Writing: Writing about Economics

Prof: Susan Keleher
University of Maryland – College Park

THE CASE FOR IMPOSING A NETWORK NEUTRALITY

LAW

By Rafael Moreira
November 2007

1
 INTRODUCTION
Network neutrality (or net neutrality) is a principle that all content, websites, and platforms should

be treated equally independent of users’ internet service provider (ISP) plans. For example, users

should have access to a news website at the same speed as they have to a movie online without their

ISP determining which one is more important and which one should be prioritized. There is

currently no national law in the United States enforcing net neutrality, although it is fairly accepted

that the Internet has been neutral since its conception,1 despite threats in the last years, such as

Comcast blocking or slowing down certain applications,2 and AT&T threatening to terminate the

contract of users who criticize the company.3

The network neutrality debate has happened before with other kinds of networks, such as telegraph

and telephone, and it seems that neutrality has always been the best way.4 Because the broadband

provider market is not so competitive, companies might have the incentive to favor some

applications over others, like some of them have already started doing. ISPs claim that they need to

discriminate so they have incentive to increase bandwidth, but studies have shown that they would

actually have less incentive to do that in a non-neutral internet.5 One of the reasons net neutrality

should be enforced is that its implementation could encourage competition in the internet

applications and websites market, which ultimate leads to growth of the overall economy. 6 The

debate has been heating up in the past couple years, and, although no national law has been passed

on the subject yet, Congress has been discussing it, and some presidential candidates have given

support to the cause.7 8

More importantly, network neutrality should be enforced because it represents important American

values such as free market, consumer choice, and technological innovation. 9

2
BACKGROUND

quality for the person listening. The case then

The debate on network neutrality is older than went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that

it appears to be. A similar discussion AT&T’s prohibition was not fair, thus
11
happened, for example, in the 1860s. At that exonerating Hush-a-Phone. In the following

time, Western Union, the national telegraph decade, the Supreme Court ruled that the

monopolist, signed a deal with the Associated Carterfone, a radio system that used AT&T’s

Press (AP) that did not block other wire telephone network without harming it, could

networks, but discriminated against them. operate and continue using the monopolist’s

Since Western Union had exclusive contracts network. These two rulings set the ground for

with railroads, and the AP with newspapers, what is fair in networks, and led to

the deal ended up being a threat to American innovations such as fax machines, answering

democracy. With such an influence in the machines, and modems -- which would later

American news, the AP had the power to lead to dial-up internet.12

manipulate politics, and, according to

historian Menahem Blondheim, the Associated The Carterfone decision is still highly

Press censored, in the 19th century, messages important in today’s network neutrality

from politicians they did not favor, in behalf debate. Earlier this year, Skype, a VoIP (Voice

of the State.10 over Internet Protocol) program, filed a

petition with the FCC to ensure consumers’

In the 1950s, AT&T, when it was the country’s right to run the software, or any other

telephony monopolist, tried to prohibit Hush- applications or non-harmful devices on their

a-Phone from selling a product that, when mobile phones. The company argues that its

attached to AT&T telephones, reduced the risk case is similar to Carterfone’s, and that if

of being overheard and increased sound confirmed by the FCC, the petition would lead

3
to price competition and innovation.13 And the ranging from $50 to $100, one can conclude

same way telephone companies cannot that it is very difficult to start a new ISP

determine whom the users can and cannot call business.14

or what they can do, electricity companies

cannot and do not discriminate against brand According to the FCC, only about 53 percent

or appliance, nor determine what a user can or of Americans can choose between cable and

cannot do with electricity. A Sony and an LG DSL service. And, of the 47 percent left, 28

TV set should work equally fine when a user percent have only one choice and 19 percent

plugs it to an electrical outlet. no choice at all.15 To make things worse, as of

2004, cable and telephone companies had 98.7

COMPETITIVENESS OF THE percent of the broadband market, leaving a

BROADBAND MARKET
little more than 1 percent left for alternative

broadband networks, such as wireless, and

One of the reasons why the network neutrality
satellite.16 If this scenario is not shocking
debate has surfaced is that there is little to
enough, it should be noted that the share of
almost no competition in the ISP market in the
alternative networks has been shrinking: in
United States, so the companies might have an
1999, they accounted for 2.9 percent of the
incentive to discriminate. One of the reasons
broadband market.17 These numbers show that
for this weak competition is the entry barriers
the average American will face either a
to the market. The greatest one of those
monopoly or a duopoly when trying to choose
barriers is probably the heavy sunk costs
her or his ISP.
involved in starting a new network. For

instance, Verizon has costs of around $2,500

In a perfectly competitive market, customers
per customer for its new fiber optic internet
would be able to easily switch their broadband
service, FIOS; considering that each
provider if they had the desire to, and ISPs
subscriber will probably pay some value

4
would probably not discriminate or favor any providers would be able to charge customers

application or website, since if they did, their according to their individual bandwidth use.

subscribers would have an incentive to But their argument is flawed.

migrate to a competitor that gave them a more

open internet experience. A good example of First, users who use more bandwidth (e.g.,

how competition is better for society is the online gamers) are probably already paying

case of Japan, where the broadband market is more than consumers who do not use much

extremely competitive. As a result of (e.g., people who use the web just for e-mail,

competition, besides having a neutral web, news websites, etc.), since they probably pay

Japanese consumers have had the option of for different overall access speeds that suit

downloads at the astonishing speed of 100 best for they needs. This kind of price

Mbps since 2004 at prices significantly lower discrimination is neutral, considering that it is

than the ones for much slower connections in not based on content – i.e., two users paying

the United States.18 To illustrate the difference for the same speed, even if one is an online

between the two countries, in Prince George’s gamer and the other a casual online news

County, Md, Comcast’s maximum offered reader, will face the same speed doing their

download speed is 8 Mbps,19 less than 10% of usual activities, even though one activity is

what Japanese customers could have 3 years “heavier” than another. Second, investing in

ago. local networks in a neutral environment is

rewarding: for example, providers that own

NETWORK NEUTRALITY AND the “pipes” can offer services such as Virtual
BANDWIDTH EXPANSION
Private Networks (VPNs), which lets someone

ISPs and anti-net neutrality groups argue that access a private network from outside of it.

a non-neutral web is needed to achieve much- Companies that did not invest in the

needed rapid bandwidth expansion, since infrastructure cannot offer that, and this kind

5
of advantage gives an incentive to expand Whitacre, at the time CEO of internet service

bandwidth and does not hurt neutrality provider SBC (which later bought AT&T),

principles.20 Finally, a study conducted by said in 2005 that letting content providers such

Cheng, Bandyopadhyay, and Guo (CBG) that as Google and Yahoo! use the company’s

applied game theory into the network pipes for free was “nuts”.22 In the same year,

neutrality issue showed that ISPs have William L. Smith, the chief technology officer

actually more incentive to expand bandwidth for DSL ISP BellSouth (later acquired by

under a neutral internet. Their argument is that AT&T) said that a search engine like Yahoo!,

sunk costs involved with expanding for example, should be allowed to pay an ISP

bandwidth are the same in a neutral and in a to have its website loaded faster than

non-neutral web, but long-run net cash flow is Google’s.23 Verizon’s chief executive Ivan

higher under a neutral environment. They Seidenberg also declared that the company

claim that there is greater marginal revenue had intention to reach for priority deals with

involved in expanding bandwidth in a neutral content providers, stating that the company

internet than in a non-neutral one; thus, ISPs has “to make sure [content providers] don’t sit

have more incentive to increase bandwidth in on [Verizon’s] network and chew up [its]

the first situation than in the latter.21 capacity.”24

THREATS TO NETWORK But the threats are not limited to words; ISPs
NEUTRALITY
have been taking action to make the internet

The network neutrality debate is extremely less neutral. Tim Wu conducted a survey in

urgent, considering that network neutrality has 2002 that showed that broadband providers, in

been threatened by the ISPs in the last years. general, restrict consumer usage of the

Showing how ISPs might behave in a world internet. He concluded that ISPs were usually

without net neutrality enforced, Edward giving priority to applications of the late

6
1990s and discriminating against newer ones. 2007, the Associated Press ran nationwide

Wu found that 100% of the surveyed cable tests that proved that Comcast has been

and 33% of the DSL ISPs restricted operating slowing down and sometimes even blocking

as a server and/or providing content to the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) services such as

public, for instance. 25 Bittorrent,28 which, according to a German

survey, account for between 50 to 90 percent

Furthermore, ISPs have also been blocking or of overall internet traffic, even though it is

restricting online applications that might used by a small number of users.29 Because of

compete with their (the ISPs’) own services. this data discrimination, Comcast is being

In 2004, Madison River Communications, a sued by Vuze, a company that legally sells

North Carolina DSL provider, blocked videos through Bittorrent,30 and consumer

consumers’ access to other companies’ VoIP groups have asked the FCC to intervene and

services. After FCC intervened, service was fine Comcast $195,000 per customer affected

restored, and Madison River had to pay a fine by the company’s P2P policy.31

of $15,000.26 In a similar case, Canadian cable

internet provider Shaw Communications Inc., Broadband providers have also been engaging

which also provides telephone services, started in actions that go against freedom of speech.

in 2006 charging costumers a monthly 10- In 2005, Telus, Canada’s second largest

dollar fee to “improve the quality and telecommunication company, blocked its

reliability of [other companies’] internet subscribers’ access to a website that supported

telephony services,” such as Vonage or the country’s Telecommunications Workers

Skype.27 Union, which was in a labor dispute with the

company.32 In another case, AOL was accused

Another kind of threat to network neutrality is in 2006 of blocking emails going to or from

related to bandwidth usage. In October of @aol.com addresses that contained the URL

7
“dearaol.com” in them.33 The website was an electrical company, Larry Page and Sergey

advocacy campaign against the company’s Brin did not have to pay ISPs for priority

scheme to make people pay to send emails to when they invented Google. And Google is

more than a certain number of people. An not the only example; the internet boom

AOL spokesman said, at the time, that the occurred in a neutral environment. In a neutral

blocking was only a “software glitch” that web, the most creative and appealing

“affected dozens of Web links in messages.” 34 businesses win, not necessarily the ones that

In a more recent case, AT&T put in its Terms started with the most capital. It is almost an

of Service that it could suspend a user’s ideal competitive market, considered that there

account “for conduct that AT&T believes … to is little to no entry barriers – one just needs an

damage the name or reputation of AT&T.”35 internet connection to start a website or create

After some protest, the company apologized an application. Success is mostly determined

and removed the clause from its Terms and is the basis of merit.37 In a neutral

Services, saying that they would not suspend environment, the customers (i.e., the market),

anyone for criticizing the company.36 not the broadband providers, decide what is

best for them and which services will survive.

COMPETITIVENESS BETWEEN ISPs will “suffer from cognitive biases (such

INTERNET APPLICATIONS
as predisposition to continue with current

Net neutrality is important to incentive ways of doing business) that make it unlikely

competitiveness between applications and to come to the right decisions,” even if they

websites. Since the beginning, the internet has are well-intentioned.38

been neutral, which has given the opportunity

for people to start businesses with minimal

sunk costs. Just like the inventors of television

did not have to pay for priority with the Customers Have the Right to Choose

8
 on the internet and to know what they are

Besides the market innovation issue, there is paying for.

the question of if it is fair to limit internet

usage. Customers, not the ISPs, should be able NETWORK NEUTRALITY AND THE
LAW
to choose what they want to do with their

internet. When they pay for internet, they are In the past two years, there has been a huge

paying for the whole internet experience; if at debate on how the government should deal (or

one time they want to just read the news not deal) with network neutrality. In 2005, the

online and at another time buy movies online, FCC announced four principles that should be

they should have the freedom to do so without followed by broadband providers, stating that

having to ask their ISP for permission. Like “(1) consumers are entitled to access the

Siva Vaidhyanathan, respected media scholar, lawful Internet content of their choice; (2)

said, “we [the customers] want to be able to consumers are entitled to run applications and

know that we are getting decent service for services of their choice, subject to the needs of

what we're paying. If my broadband company law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to

next week starts dialing down my Skype speed connect their choice of legal devices that do

so Skype doesn't work as well for me, I might not harm the network; and (4) consumers are

not even know it or notice it for a long time, entitled to competition among network

until Skype starts frustrating me, and out of providers, application and service providers,

frustration, I'm just going to pick up my old and content providers.”40 These principles,

phone and dial India the old-fashioned way although not laws, imply that the web should

and just pay for it because I know the call's be neutral.

going to go through.”39 Network neutrality

should be implemented in order to guarantee Since 2006, the Congress has promoted

the customers the right to do what they want hearings on the subject, and seven proposed

9
bills addressed the issue, but none of them has presidential candidate frontrunners Hillary

been approved41. The most significant of them Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and

were the Communications Opportunity, Republican candidate Mike Huckabee support

Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006, network neutrality.45 46

Furthermore, Maine

which was killed by the end of the 109th passed a bill this November enforcing network

Congress, and which, according to some net neutrality in the State.47 Although the net

neutrality advocates, could result in a non- neutrality debate is still relatively unknown by

neutral internet42; the Internet Freedom and the majority of the American public,48

Nondiscrimination Act of 2006, which was awareness seems to be growing, which is

also killed by the end of the 109th Congress, crucial, since the enforcement or the non-

and which network neutrality supporters enforcement of network neutrality can deeply

approved43; and the Internet Freedom change the internet, and even the world

Preservation Act, which has not been voted outside it, considering the impact that the

yet, but is also intended to enforce network internet has in today’s world.

neutrality.44 Besides these bills, Democratic

CONCLUSION

10
Network neutrality is when every piece of information is treated in the same way, no matter the

content. The same way every telephone call will be treated by the telephone company equally, on a

neutral web, every application or website is treated equally. There is still no national law enforcing

network neutrality, but the internet has been more neutral than not, since its conception, despite

some recent threats to this nature.

The net neutrality debate is similar to the one that occurred in the 19 th and in the 20th century about

the telegram and telephone networks. When there is little network competition, like what is

happening in the American ISP market, providers might want to discriminate against certain

applications. Broadband providers claim that they would not have an incentive to expand bandwidth

in a neutral environment, but some studies actually show the opposite. Moreover, net neutrality

sprouts competition and innovation between internet applications, which can lead to economic

growth. However, even though there are various threats to net neutrality, there are also many

reasons to be hopeful. For instance, some presidential candidates want to enforce a neutral web;

also, the topic has been discussed frequently in the last years by the Congress, as it should be. We

cannot let some important American values such as free market, consumer choice, and

technological innovation, disappear in such a fertile ground as the Internet, if we do not want it to

lose its creativity and fertility.

ENDNOTES

11
1
Cerf, Vinton. “Prepared Statement of Vinton G. Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google Inc.” U.S.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing on “Network Neutrality.” 7 Feb. 2006 1. 19 Nov
2007. <http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf>.
2
Svensson, Peter. "Vonage protests special fees on VoIP telephones." The Associated Press 19 Oct 2007. 19 Nov 2007
<http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HFnn3zt52SgJ:ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxRiQSVfgK4sLbVRE_X4MOlM9
q0AD8SCASPG0+http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxRiQSVfgK4sLbVRE_X4MOlM9q0AD8SCASPG0&hl=en&ct=
clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a> (URL cached by Google from the AP website, since the original URL seems to be
offline).
3
CowboyNeal, " AT&T Silences Criticism in New Terms of Service." Slashdot 29 Sep 2007 18 Nov 2007
<http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/29/104252&tid=153>.
4
Wu, Tim. "Hearing on 'Network Neutrality: Competition, Innovation, and Nondiscriminatory Access." House Committee
on the Judiciary Telecom & Antitrust Task Force 24 April 2006 3. 19 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=903118>.
5
Cheng, Hsing K., Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay & Hong Guo. "The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective." 20
May 2007 29-31. 18 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=959944>.
6
Cerf, Vinton. “Prepared Statement of Vinton G. Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google Inc.” U.S.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing on “Network Neutrality.” 7 Feb. 2006. 19 Nov 2007.
<http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf>.
7
"Edwards, Huckabee Support an Open Internet, McCain Waffles." Save the Internet Blog 30 May 2007 19 Nov 2007
<http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/05/30/edwards-huckabee-support-an-open-internet-mccain-waffles/>.
8
Mark, Roy. "Obama Promises Net Neutrality." eWeek 30 Oct 2007 19 Nov 2007
<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2209630,00.asp>.
9
Cerf, Vinton. “Prepared Statement of Vinton G. Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google Inc.” U.S.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing on “Network Neutrality.” 7 Feb. 2006 1. 19 Nov
2007. <http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf>.
10
Wu, Tim. "Hearing on 'Network Neutrality: Competition, Innovation, and Nondiscriminatory Access." House Committee
on the Judiciary Telecom & Antitrust Task Force 24 April 2006 2-3. 19 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=903118>.
11
"Hush-a-Phone v. FCC." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 17 Nov 2007, 20:52 UTC. 19 Nov 2007
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hush-a-Phone_v._FCC&oldid=172146608>.
12
"Carterfone." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2 Nov 2007, 20:26 UTC. 19 Nov 2007
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carterfone&oldid=168801099>.
13
Wolff, Phil. "Official statements by eBay and Skype." Skype Journal. 31 July 2007. Skype. 17 Nov 2007
<http://skypejournal.com/blog/2007/07/official_statements_by_ebay_an.html>.
14
Wu, Tim, Christopher S. Yoo. "Keeping the Internet Neutral?: Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo Debate." Federal
Communications Law Journal Vol. 59, No. 32007 11-12. 19 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=953989>.
15
Cerf, Vinton. “Prepared Statement of Vinton G. Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google Inc.” U.S.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing on “Network Neutrality.” 7 Feb. 2006. 19 Nov 2007.
<http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf>.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Cheng, Hsing K., Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay & Hong Guo. "The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective." 20
May 2007 30. 18 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=959944>.
19
"See Prices & Choose Packages." Comcast. Comcast. 18 Nov 2007
<http://www.comcast.com/Shop/Buyflow/Default.ashx>.
20
Wu, Tim. "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination." 24 April 2005 174. 18 Nov 2007
<http://ssrn.com/abstract=903118>.
21
Cheng, Hsing K., Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay & Hong Guo. "The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective." 20
May 2007 29-31. 18 Nov 2007 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=959944>.
22
O’Connell, Patricia. "At SBC, It's All About ‘Scale and Scope’ ." Business Week 07 Nov 2005 18 Nov 2007
<http://www.businessweek.com/@@n34h*IUQu7KtOwgA/magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm>.
23
Krim, Jonathan. "Executive Wants to Charge for Web Speed." Washington Post 01 Dec 2005 18 Nov 2007
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002109_pf.html>.
24
Searcy, Dionne & Amy Schatz. "Phone Companies Set Off a Battle over Internet Fees." Wall Street Journal 06 Jan 2006
18 Nov 2007 <http://www.freepress.net/news/13218>.
25
Wu, Tim. "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination." 24 April 2005 158-161. 19 Nov 2007
<http://ssrn.com/abstract=903118>.
26
Federal Communications Commission. “In the Matter of Madison River Communications, LLC and affiliated
companies.” Federal Communications Commission 2005 18 Nov 2007
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-543A2.pdf>.
27
Granelli, James S.. "Phone, Cable May Charge to Race Along the Internet." Los Angeles Times 09 Apr 2006 18 Nov 2007
<http://www.freepress.net/news/14860>.
28
Svensson, Peter. "Vonage protests special fees on VoIP telephones." The Associated Press 19 Oct 2007 18 Nov 2007
<http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HFnn3zt52SgJ:ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxRiQSVfgK4sLbVRE_X4MOlM9
q0AD8SCASPG0+http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxRiQSVfgK4sLbVRE_X4MOlM9q0AD8SCASPG0&hl=en&ct=
clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a>.
29
Ibid.
30
Gross, Grant. "Video distributor wants FCC to stop ISP traffic 'throttling'." Washington Post 17 Nov 2007 18 Nov 2007
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111700801.html>.
31
Ammori, Marvin, Parul Desdai, Harold Feld, Andy Schwartzman & Ben Scott. "Formal Complaint of Free Press and
Public Knowledge Against Comcast Corporation For Secretly Degrading Peer-to-Peer Applications." Free Press 01 Nov
2007 18 Nov 2007 <http://www.freepress.net/docs/fp_pk_comcast_complaint.pdf>.
32
Geist, Michael. "Telecommunications Policy Review." Telecommunications Policy Review Panel Aug 2005 5. 18 Nov
2007 <http://www.telecomreview.ca/epic/internet/intprp-gecrt.nsf/vwapj/Geist_Michael.pdf/$FILE/Geist_Michael.pdf>.
33
Olsen, Stefanie. "AOL charged with blocking opponents' e-mail." CNet News.com 13 Apr 2006 18 Nov 2007
<http://www.news.com/AOL-charged-with-blocking-opponents-e-mail/2100-1030_3-6061089.html>.
34
Ibid.
35
CowboyNeal, " AT&T Silences Criticism in New Terms of Service." Slashdot 29 Sep 2007 18 Nov 2007
<http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/29/104252&tid=153>.
36
McNamara , Paul. "AT&T issues 'censorship' mea culpa." Network World 10 Oct 2007 18 Nov 2007
<http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/20460>.
37
Wu, Tim. "Hearing on 'Network Neutrality: Competition, Innovation, and Nondiscriminatory Access." House Committee
on the Judiciary Telecom & Antitrust Task Force 24 April 2006 4. 19 Nov 2007
38
Lessig, Lawrence & Tim Wu. "Re: Ex Parte Submission in CS Docket No. 02-52." TimWu.org 22 Aug 2003 5. 19 Nov
2007 <http://www.timwu.org/wu_lessig_fcc.pdf>.
39
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. "Siva on NPR's 'On The Media' on Net Neutrality." Sivacracy.net 12 May 2006 19 Nov 2007
<http://www.sivacracy.net/archives/003114.html>.
40
"FCC Adopts Policy Statement." FCC News 05 Aug 2005 19 Nov 2007
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf>.
41
"Network neutrality in the United States." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 1 Oct 2007, 21:15 UTC. Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc. 19 Nov 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_the_US#Attempted_legislation>.
42
“Huge Victory for Real People as Telco Bill Dies.” Save the Internet Blog. 8 Dec. 2006. 19 Nov 2007.
<http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/08/congress-closes-telco-bill-dies-on-the-vine>.
43
“Bipartisan Victory in the House.” Save the Internet Blog. 25 May 2006. 19 Nov 2007.
<http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/05/25/bipartisan-victory-in-the-housebipartisan-majority-supports-internet-
freedom-in-the-house/>.
44
The Library of Congress – Thomas. 19 Nov 2007. <http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00215:>.
45
"Edwards, Huckabee Support an Open Internet, McCain Waffles." Save the Internet Blog 30 May 2007 19 Nov 2007
<http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/05/30/edwards-huckabee-support-an-open-internet-mccain-waffles/>.
46
Mark, Roy. "Obama Promises Net Neutrality." eWeek 30 Oct 2007 19 Nov 2007
<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2209630,00.asp>.
47
"Summary of LD 1675." State of Maine Legislature Nov 2007 19 Nov 2007
<http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280024544>.
48
Fisher, Ken. "Poll: Americans don't want net neutrality (or maybe they don't know what it is)." ars technica 18 Sep 2006
19 Nov 2007 <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060918-7772.html>.