Track on Net Neutrality
Chairs: Rodolfo Tesone Mendizabal, President of the SDTIC (Information and Communication Technology Law Section at the Barcelona Bar Association)
Helena Nadal Sánchez
Without Net Neutrality, where then the universal logic of innovation?
Postmodernism is based on neo-liberal ideologies that do not acknowledge the lockean concept of (necessary, public) control, or the habermassian concept of the agora, the place to meet and share insights and knowledge.
A sustainable development of the Internet should be agreed. Knowledge societies cannot be built if knowledge does not flow freely. The basis of innovation is not only talent, but the exchange of knowledge.
David Arjones Giráldez
Net Neutrality from the perspective of its layer-based architecture: from public carriers to content managers?
The layer-approach to define the Internet is based on splitting it in different layers, at least three: physical layer, logic layer, content and services layer. There are three principles:
- Each layer must be fully regulated in its own.
- Regulation must be layer-aimed. A specific rule can apply to many of them, but they should not be designed with this goal in mind.
An agent in a layer must not operate in any other layer.
Within this framework, the problem of Net Neutrality can be approached different than usual.
For instance, if operators are tampering on content or services, they are going against the rule where agents cannot operate in but one layer.
Thus, the saturation of the network can be solved with a layer-based new pricing model, but without altering the rest of the layers.
Cristina Cullell March
Net Neutrality and freedoms in the telecommunications reform in the European Union: are they present in whole Europe?
The La Rue report (PDF, 140Kb) for the United Nations (May, 2011) states that access to the Internet should be as a fundamental right. How is Europe treating this right?
Key aspects of Net Neutrality that the EU has already include in their directives:
- Freedom of choice.
- Transparency.
- Quality of service.
European institutions before Net Neutrality:
- The European Commission thinks an open Internet is a major concern. Indeed, it guarantees the “freedoms on the Internet” of the European citizens, and informs the Council and the Parliament.
- European Parliament links Net Neutrality with Digital Rights.
- ORECE: member states are responsible for guaranteeing the neutrality in their territories. Guarantees the normative coherence and harmonization in the European Union. It publicizes good practices.
Does the EU require a complementary regulation on Net Neutrality? Surely we have to work harder on defining transparency and in setting a minimum threshold for quality of service.
José Manuel Pérez Marzabal
Open Internet, Net Neutrality and defence of the competence
There is some overlapping, a symmetry between antitrust regulation and the telcos regulation. And even if maybe the debate around Net Neutrality is not be a debate on the telecommunications’ market competition, more market competition undoubtedly favours major degrees of neutrality.
Clara Marsan Raventós
The Net as a public space: Is Net-neutrality necessary to preserve on-line freedom of expression?
It’s increasingly difficult to think about things one cannot do on the Internet. As a space, people are used to meet in that “space” regardless on who is actually providing the technological platform, only aiming at not being banned or filtered on that public space.
So, as a public space, the Internet becomes more important and the management of the information that populates is becomes a crucial aspect for the society.
Of course there are limits operating on the Internet, as public morality… as anything that already operates in the physical world. The problem being that while the Internet is truly global, such a thing as public morality is exclusively local, cultural, social.
The, which are the actors that can control the Internet and who can say whether public morality should or should not be an issue in the Internet?
There already is a vast array of tools that can be used for censoring content on the Net. And worst of all, those are tools that are decentralized and can be applied at different levels of the chain of content transmission. As tools are widespread, so are the different actors that can apply them in their processes.
Negotiation must then be a multistakeholder one.
7th Internet, Law and Politics Conference (2011)
If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:
Peña-López, I. (2011) “7th Internet, Law and Politics Congress (IV). Net Neutrality: communications” In ICTlogy,
#94, July 2011. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Retrieved month dd, yyyy from
https://ictlogy.net/review/?p=3779
Previous post: 7th Internet, Law and Politics Congress (III). The Net Neutrality debate: Stakeholders’ perspective
Next post: 7th Internet, Law and Politics Congress (V). Intellectual Property Rights on the Internet
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI