The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School has released Network Neutrality and Quality of Service: What a Non-Discrimination Rule Should Look Like.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

This paper proposes a framework that policy makers and others can use to choose among different options for network neutrality rules and uses this framework to evaluate existing proposals for non-discrimination rules and the non-discrimination rule adopted by the FCC in its Open Internet Order. In the process, it explains how the different non-discrimination rules affect network providers' ability to offer Quality of Service and which forms of Quality of Service, if any, a non-discrimination rule should allow.

| Reviews of Digital Scholarship Publications | Digital Scholarship |

Public Knowledge has released Know Your Limits: Considering the Role of Data Caps and Usage Based Billing in Internet Access Service by Andrew Odlyzko, Bill St. Arnaud, Erik Stallman; and Michael Weinberg.

Here's an excerpt:

Regardless of the motivation driving its implementation, usage-based pricing has the potential to significantly impact how networks are designed and used. This, in turn, impacts the innovation that relies on those networks. Before deciding if and when usage-based pricing is desirable, it is critical to fully understand the history of usage-based pricing, how it impacts markets, and both the benefits and harms that such a model can bring.

This paper aims to explain the basic issues surrounding usage-based versus flat-rate pricing. Section I examines the trend towards usage-based pricing in both the wired and wireless markets. Section II then considers the benefits and justifications for using usage-based pricing. This is followed in Section III by a review of the history and economics of flat rate pricing. Since broadband access is central to so many national and societal goals, the penultimate section—Section IV—discusses the problems that might be caused by usage-based pricing. Finally, we end with a series of conclusions and recommendations for responsible implementation of usage-based pricing.

| Reviews of Digital Scholarship Publications | Digital Scholarship |

The Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with Respect to Regulating the Internet and Broadband Industry Practices resolution was defeated in the Senate.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 | Digital Scholarship |

ALA has issued an action alert: "Ask Your Senators to Vote 'NO' on Overturning Net Neutrality Order."

Here's an excerpt:

This week (Nov. 7-11), the full U.S. Senate will vote on Senate Joint Resolution 6, a bill to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) order passed to adopt "net neutrality."

Please call your Senators and ask them to vote "NO" on S.J. Res. 6. Your call sends a loud and clear message that libraries depend on an open and nondiscriminatory Internet to provide our patrons, the public, unfettered access to information.

Additional talking points:

• Voting no helps preserve the openness of the Internet which is essential to our nation's educational achievement, freedom of speech and economic growth.
• Without an open and neutral Internet, there is great risk that commercial Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will give higher priority to some users (e.g. give entertainment priority over education).
• ISPs may seek to impose additional fees on Internet users which could drastically impact libraries who require much greater bandwidth than households to serve their patrons, many at one time.

Read more about it at "Network (Net) Neutrality Legislative Activity."

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog | Digital Scholarship |

Digital Scholarship |

The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.1—Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. Sixty-seven of 583 proposed amendments passed, including number 404 by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) that blocks funding to support the implementation of the FCC's net neutrality rules and number 196 by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) that cuts funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by $20.5 million.

Read more about it at "Advocacy Works: Garrett Backs Down on Amendment to Zero Out IMLS," "Rogers: CR is a 'Monumental Accomplishment' for American Taxpayers," and "What Budget-Cutting Amendments Has the House Passed This Week?"

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |

Public Knowledge has announced the "Internet Strikes Back" Day (2/17/11) to support net neutrality.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Public Knowledge has set this Thursday, Feb. 17, as "Internet Strikes Back" day to counter Congressional opposition to a fair and open Internet.

The day was chosen because it is one day after members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee hold a hearing to unveil legislation that would roll back current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Net Neutrality rules and prohibit the Commission from enacting future rules.   On that day following the hearing, members of the public are being asked to call their member of Congress and oppose the legislation.

PK has set up a Web site, www.theinternetstrikesback.org which will allow visitors to sign up for mobile action alerts, including a text message reminder, and download an Internet Strikes Back badge for web sites.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |

The Association of Research Libraries has released "Issue Brief: FCC's Net Neutrality Rules and Implications for Research Libraries."

Here's an excerpt:

FCC Votes to Enact "Net Neutrality" Rules: After years of debate and consideration, on December 21, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") voted 3-2 in favor of enacting a narrow set of net neutrality rules to regulate the practices of broadband providers. "Net neutrality" is the principle that Internet users should have the right to access and provide content and use services via the Internet as they wish, and that network operators should not be allowed to "discriminate"—slow, block, or charge fees—for Internet traffic based on the source or content of its message. . . .

The wording of the net neutrality rules, advanced by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, appears to reflect an attempt at a compromise between network operators and advocates for strong net neutrality protections—including ARL, ALA, and EDUCAUSE. Ultimately, however, the limited scope of protection in the rules has not fully satisfied the concerns voiced by parties on both sides of the issue and thus has set the stage for further debate over regulation in the courts and in Congress.

| Digital Scholarship |

The American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and EDUCAUSE have filed comments with the FCC supporting the FCC's "Third Way" proposal.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The American Library Association (ALA) filed comments(pdf) with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on the commission’s Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on the Framework for Broadband Internet Service, commonly referred to as the "Third Way." The ALA has a strong track record of advocating for an open, or neutral, Internet. The ALA sees the Third Way as the most appropriate level of oversight as it provides the flexibility needed by the Internet community and also provides key protections to guarantee the public has equal access to the wide variety of online content readily available today.

The NOI proposes the FCC use a set of six provisions from Title II, two of which are particularly important to the library community. The ALA comments bring attention to the significance of Section 202, nondiscrimination, and Section 254, universal service. Including these sections is paramount to ensuring that libraries can continue to provide quintessential services to their patrons.

The ALA has long supported the concept of nondiscrimination which treats all Internet content equally. Libraries across the country provide the public with access to high quality educational and recreational online content – at no fee to the patron. In fact, 75 percent of libraries offer access to online databases that include business journals, full-text news articles, and job certification exams. Libraries provide patrons with downloadable and streaming audio and video content, as well as E-books. The ALA cautions that without Section 202 on nondiscrimination, this educational and other content could be relegated to the Internet slow lane by service providers in favor of content from the private sector.

EDUCAUSE has released 7 Things You Should Know About Net Neutrality.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Net neutrality is the principle that broadband Internet providers will handle all network traffic in a nondiscriminatory manner. The Internet was conceived as an "open" service that would operate under "common carrier" regulations, which requires providers to serve any customers who seek their services and to do so "indifferently." The principle was conceived to protect consumers from transportation providers that had a monopoly on transport facilities such as roads or canals and, later, wirelines. In 2005, common carrier requirements for broadband providers were lifted, opening the door to the possibility that providers could discriminate against certain users and certain content. Entities including higher education, public interest groups, and content companies are calling for federal authorities to guarantee net neutrality; many broadband providers oppose new regulations.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled in Comcast v. FCC that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require Comcast to stop throttling BitTorrent traffic.

Here's an excerpt:

Although the Commission once enjoyed broader authority over cable rates, see id. § 543(c)(4), its current authority is limited to setting standards for and overseeing local regulation of rates for "basic tier" service on certain cable systems. See id. § 543(b). In the Order, the Commission does not assert ancillary authority based on this narrow grant of regulatory power. Instead, the Order rests on the premise that section 1 gives the Commission ancillary authority to ensure reasonable rates for all communication services, including those, like video-ondemand, over which it has no express regulatory authority. . . .

It is true that "Congress gave the [Commission] broad and adaptable jurisdiction so that it can keep pace with rapidly evolving communications technologies." Resp't's Br. 19. It is also true that "[t]he Internet is such a technology," id., indeed, "arguably the most important innovation in communications in a generation," id. at 30. Yet notwithstanding the "difficult regulatory problem of rapid technological change" posed by the communications industry, "the allowance of wide latitude in the exercise of delegated powers is not the equivalent of untrammeled freedom to regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer . . . Commission authority." NARUC II, 533 F.2d at 618 (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). Because the Commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast's Internet service to any "statutorily mandated responsibility," Am. Library, 406 F.3d at 692, we grant the petition for review and vacate the Order.

The FCC issued the following statement about the ruling:

The FCC is firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans. It will rest these policies—all of which will be designed to foster innovation and investment while protecting and empowering consumers—on a solid legal foundation.

Today's court decision invalidated the prior Commission’s approach to preserving an open Internet. But the Court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.

Read more about it at "Comcast 1, FCC 0: What to Look For in the Inevitable Rematch"; "Court Rejects FCC Authority Over the Internet"; "Is Net Neutrality Dead? (FAQ)"; and "Public Knowledge Explains: The Comcast-BitTorrent Decision."

The Association of Research Libraries, EDUCAUSE, Internet2, NYSERNet, and ACUTA have submitted comments to the FCC on preserving open internet broadband industry practices.

Here's an excerpt:

In sum, the availability of low-cost, high-speed, nondiscriminatory Internet services is absolutely essential for colleges, universities, research institutions, and research libraries to achieve their missions in the 21st Century. The adoption of enforceable net neutrality principles will ensure equal access for non-profit voices, encourage competition in the online content and services markets, and preserve the cultural benefits that flow from the Internet’s open, democratic nature. By keeping broadband providers from discriminating against educational content and research, by barring broadband providers from raising artificial price barriers to competition, and by preserving open discourse and debate, net neutrality will preserve the principles that have made the Internet successful and transformative. We urge the Commission to adopt the six principles proposed in the NPRM [Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking] and to adopt meaningful enforcement procedures to ensure that they are implemented.

Senator John McCain has introduced the "The Internet Freedom Act of 2009" in the U.S. Senate and Rep. Marsha Blackburn has introduced the "Real Stimulus Act of 2009" in the U.S. House of Representatives. Both bills are aimed at preventing the FCC from imposing net neutrality regulations, saying: "The Federal Communications Commission shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services."

Read more about it at "House Bill Would Ban FCC Net Neutrality Rules" and "House, Senate Get Separate Bills to Kill Net Neutrality."