A Series of Tubes: The Internet's Backbone and Network Neutrality

From Technologies and Politics of Control
Revision as of 10:02, 18 February 2015 by Ryan (talk | contribs) (→‎Links)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Syllabus


February 17

The late Senator Ted Stevens famously said in a 2006 committee meeting that the “Internet is not something that you just dump something on; it’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.” While he was ridiculed widely at the time, Senator Stevens’s remarks actually reveal an interesting hortatory description of what the Internet should be (though given the rest of his comments, apparently not one that he intended). What Stevens’s metaphor suggests is that the physical conduits of the Internet should act like nothing more than non-judgmental conduits of the rest of the world’s traffic. We will see this week, however, that this is not a true reflection of how the tubes work, and we have strong debates as to what the government's role should be in ensuring that large enough "tubes" reach all those who would like to be online. The big questions for this week: What are the “tubes” of the Internet? Should the tubes have a role in controlling the throughput content? What is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet conduits?

Our guest this week will be Rob Faris, the Research Director of the Berkman Center.

Download Slides from this Week's Class


Readings

Connectivity
Network Neutrality

Optional Readings


Videos Watched in Class

Links

Common Carriers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

Public Goods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

Interconnection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interconnection

Switchboard Operators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchboard_operator

Radio Act of 1927: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Radio_Commission#The_Radio_Act_of_1927

The Kingsbury Commitment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment

FCC's history of cable TV: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/evolution-cable-television

Colbert explained the breakup and then rebuilding of AT&T: http://www.wticommunications.com/blog/steven-colbert-att-merger-explanation/

The RBOCs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company

The Folwer and Brenner article (needs Hein Online access, through Harvard): http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/tlr60&g_sent=1&id=229

Dial up modem sounds explained: http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/1/3057679/dial-up-modem-sound-explained

Brand X decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunications_Ass'n_v._Brand_X_Internet_Services

Brand X is a major part of Dawn Nunziato's book Virtual Freedom (we had you read an interview with her and Dan Solove): http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=10874

Brand X decision text: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-277.ZS.html

National Broadband Plan: http://transition.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf

The Berkman report is called Next Generation Connectivity: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/broadband/

OECD Report on Mobile Broadband Penetration: http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/broadband-statistics-update.htm

A concept in the law called a "regulatory taking": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_taking

Fiber to the Home (which is what Verizon was doing) is different from Qwest and ATT's Fiber to the Node: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x

Map of Municipal Broadband in US: http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap

Benefits of Chatanooga's Muni Internet: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/30/chattanooga-gig-high-speed-internet-tech-boom

Our friends in Leverett, MA (in the central-western part of the state, near Amherst) are a leader in the muni broadband movement: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2366044

The FCC Open Internet Order 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 (which talks about the 2005 genesis and 2009 revision)

Verizon sued the case went up to the DC Circuit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_%282014%29

John Oliver on Net Neutrality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

When the new Title II rules are issued, Verizon and other ISPs are likely to immediately sue: http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/03/source-fcc-will-reclassify-internet-as-public-utility-att-and-verizon-will-immediately-sue/

Reed Hastings on ISPs: http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/20/5530898/netflix-blasts-comcast-and-verizon-on-net-neutrality-some-big-isps

Class Discussion

REMINDER
Your comments must be submitted before 4:00PM ET on the Tuesday we hold class in order to count for participation credit. Please see the participation policy for more information.


Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: Andy 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)



Hi everyone - thought you might like to see the new report from Media Cloud, a joint project of the Berkman Center and the MIT Center for Civic Media about the role of the networked public sphere (see our class 2 reading from Yochai Benkler for discussion of the term) in shaping the net neutrality debate in the United States. We may revisit this in our class days about online speech, but for now I wanted to make sure you also had it as part of our class discussion for today. Enjoy! Andy (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2015 (EST)



Another late-breaking piece of additional reading - the FCC has issued an interesting fact sheet about it's pending decision to reclassify broadband under Title II. It's a good overview of the pending reclassification of broadband. Andy (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2015 (EST)



Hello All!

This week’s readings surprised me in many ways. First, before reading the Berkman Center’s 2010 report on Next Generation Connectivity I had no idea that the United States, when compared to other nations, was a “middle-of-the-pack performer on most first generation broadband measures, [and] a weak performer on prices for high and next-generation speeds”(12).

Then when I watched the 2012 Berkman Center YouTube video on How Do We Connect to the Internet? I was quite impressed with the penetration rates in the Scandinavian countries listed, as well as the extremely high average line speed in South Korea.

Consequently, while I contemplate this week’s question about, “what is the role of government when it comes to developing and regulating our Internet conduits,” I cannot help but notice that according to the Next Generation Connectivity report there is a strong correlation between government intervention, penetration and available line speeds, as it states, “it does appear that the leaders in fiber deployment—South Korea, Japan, and Sweden—are also the leading examples of large, long term public capital investments through expenditures, tax breaks, and low cost loans that helped deployment in those countries” (16).

As I continued to consider the role of government, I can see from the Community-Based Broadband Solutions report recently published by The Executive Office of the President, that issues persist regarding penetration, speed and cost in the United States. According to the President’s report there are still “nearly 51 million Americans [who] cannot purchase a wired broadband connection with download speeds of at least 25 Mbps, and only 63 percent have access to speeds of 100 Mbps or more” (7). Likewise the report describes how a great disparity exists between urban and rural communities with rural residents having limited access to line speeds equal or greater than 25 Mbps (TEOP, 8).

Even though the President’s report proposes that promoting competitive markets is a “proven mechanism for increasing Internet access, quality and affordability,” (11) it also suggests that it “will not necessarily solve all broadband access challenges” (12). Subsequently the report recommends that government infrastructure investments are worthwhile because they can “put in place the ‘middle mile’ network that lowers costs of entering the ‘last mile’ market” (TEOP,13).

Granted it does seem as though some states such as Massachusetts are on the right track when it comes to investing in infrastructure. However other states are clearly still lagging behind. As a result it seems as though the Federal government will need to intervene more on their behalf.

Thanks, Emily M.

Works Cited

Benkler, Yochai et al. Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world. Berkmen Center: Harvard University. February 2010. PDF.

Berkman Center. “How Do We Connect to the Internet?” Youtube.com 2012. Video.

The Executive Office of the President. Community-Based Broadband Solutions: The Benefits of Compition and Choice for Community Development and Highspeed Internet Access. January 2015.

EmiMac (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2015 (EST)



Solove (2010), interviewed one of his colleagues to discuss his views about the internet usage and censorship. His colleague indicated that the controversy is that most Americans believe that the internet is an opportunity to voice free speech. However, it lends itself to being censored by many private parties. This action violates the 1st amendment that guarantees free speech.

Solove ( 2010) , asked his colleague which of the internet gatekeepers was the most troubling. He reported broadband providers and wireless carriers were the most troubling. Large search engines such as Google have oversight to minimize or eliminate discriminatory practices. After reading this article, I continued to research this topic and realized there are other organizations that are concerned with internet censorship and freedom of speech and advocating for a civil liberties.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported that their views on internet censorship was explained in a Supreme Court case. In Reno v. ACLU, the court decided the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines. The court said the government can no more restrict a person's access to words or images on the Internet than it could be allowed to snatch a book out of a reader's hands in the library, or cover over a statue of a nude in a museum. I have included a website that reviews this case and how it addresses the transmission of information via the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union.

Tasha

References:

American Civil Liberties Union (n.d.). Retrieved from http://aclu.org/free-speech/internet-cer

Solove,D., (2010). Brightideas: Nunziato on virtual freedom: Net neutrality and free speech in the internet age. Retrieved from http://www.concurringopinion

TashaTasha (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2015 (EST)



I know I am going to open a can of worms, but I would like to present a couple of other ways for looking at what I think are two of the major issues from this week’s readings. I will be in class today for discussion but I thought I would take a risk and put this out there.

1. Internet connectivity, cost of service, higher cost for faster speeds, throttling of bandwidth. It is quite humbling to learn that US is only middle of the pack. However, the infrastructure has been largely built by private companies who did so in order to sell the service. If the government paid for the labor, time and materials to install over these past decades, then they can dictate same cost of service across the board. Communities investing tax dollars to provide this service are great and can therefore provide service to everyone at the same rate, because their tax dollars helped pay for it. Otherwise, Comcast and RCN should have a right to charge higher rates if they are providing a better service. They have to maintain the infrastructure as well and make a profit. Is the government going to repair the routers and switches that may have been damaged in the past couple of blizzards?

2. Net Neutrality, unfettered conduit, First Amendment rights to speech, no manipulation of searches, no blocking of sites. Be careful what you ask for – you may receive it. Do you really want a company’s SPAM email and stealing of cycles to interrupt your service or block your online streaming of 50 Shades of Grey? Do you really want your children browsing porn sites while they are at school simply because those people creating porn have the right to express themselves? Remember, even the FCC regulates content during certain hours of the day. If someone wants to watch violent action movies or porn, nobody is stopping them (as long as they are 18) from going to the video store. But I don’t want my 10 year old nephew having unfettered access to that or streaming of war scenes from Afghanistan. Sometimes putting restrictions on malicious virus/spamming or dangerous content is not a bad thing.

Just remember – there may be other factors and reasons at play. Sometimes it’s about a profit, and sometimes not. chelly byrne (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2015 (EST)

PS - In reading the newly added FCC proposal, I see they did provision for "legal content" not being blocked... but it is hard to determine the age of the audience on the internet. chelly byrne (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2015 (EST)



Really interesting inputs, Chelly. Your second numbered comment raises an issue that I think needs to be part of the policy discussion around net neutrality - specifically, at what tier do we impose the neutrality? At the physical network (ISP) layer? At the protocol layer? At the service layer? On the platforms themselves? My sense is most of the discussion has been only at the first level, but even in that tier there are hard questions - whether ISPs should be able to prioritize packets from certain protocols (VOIP, streaming video), especially in lower-bandwidth environments (mobile, on planes/trains, etc.). Andy (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2015 (EST)



I, too, was surprised with this weeks readings. First, I will begin with the question asked on the short clip-- "With no internet, how would life be different" -- I rarely stop to think about this, but life would be no where near the same without Internet. We are constantly connected everywhere we go that in many ways, people would not be able to exist and function "properly" without Internet. I was a little surprised with then numbers and statistics presented on Internet use throughout country and was also surprised South Korea houses the fastest Internet in the world.

I agree with point two on the post above mine, from Chelly. Restrictions of dangerous/inappropriate content is a good thing becasue it allows innocent children protection from the world we live in. However, the argument goes much deeper in terms of where free speech plays in to violating that amendment. There needs to be a balance with no loop holes, which seems to be the case with Internet in general. Cbore001 (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2015 (EST)



While reading on Net Neutrality I felt that the articles included were, overall, a little one sided in favor of net neutrality. While I support net neutrality, I wanted to read more in detail about the opposing viewpoint. The final article in the required reading by Adam Thierer 'More Confusion about Internet “Freedom”' touched on this and brought up some important questions like, “how much faith should we place in central planners as opposed to evolutionary market forces?” First of all, I’d like to say that the government and evolutionary market forces are both inherently flawed in that they are equally subject to manipulation by special interest parties, but the above question is highly relevant in the net neutrality debate.

In my opinion, Thierer goes a bit overboard in his argument against government intervention and his unwavering faith in the marketplace (not to mention that he needs a proofreader) by assuming that corporate power is less tyrannical than government power. I think that total power by either is equally damaging to the freedom of consumers and the question should become, “How can we prevent any major player from restricting Internet access?” While parts of his argument are compelling, the research shared in Yonchai Benkler’s Next Generation Connectivity that we are a middle-of-the-pack performer precisely because of our government policies against open access (something which may never change if left to “evolutionary market forces”) offers a picture that favors some government regulation.

While connectivity and net neutrality are parallel issues, the example of open access and the consequent innovation and increased Internet penetration in the countries that have adopted it says that government intervention is not always a bad thing. These very government interventions are exactly what have caused countries like Japan and South Korea to leave us in the cyber dust in the area of connectivity. We are behind in price, penetration, and speed partially because we allow the top monopolies to continue dominating unfettered and are allowed to control what happens to be one of the most important resources to the human race. The fact that the Internet so important is exactly why they will fight tooth and nail to keep control of it, because if they are in control they will always be in business.

What this comes down to is that the Internet is not just a marketplace matter. The Internet is not just another consumer good that people can take or leave, it’s something they must have access to or they will be left behind in education, status, and income. So, why would we, in good conscience, allow corporate profit to remain the bottom line for our access to this vital resource? Taking that one step further, I refer to Sovlove’s interview with Nunziato where it’s pointed out that communications have been blocked by companies based solely on content with no financial incentives in mind. Thus, the argument that the government will try to violate our constitutional rights by regulating the Internet ignores the fact that companies are already doing so, the difference being that they are not held accountable to the same provisions as the government. Obviously, just because one option is not working, does not mean that the alternative is ideal. The conversation on how to regulate the Internet needs to continue, but leaving it to the “open marketplace” clearly isn’t working.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend class in real time today because of work, but I look forward to hearing the discussion on this. Oliviabrinich (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2015 (EST)



That's a great critique in terms of the readings being a bit one-sided; we'll try and shape that up in the future. One good reading that didn't make the list on the debate side is Christopher Yoo and Tim Wu's debate on net neutrality for the Maurer Law Journal. We left it off because it's a bit dated and very technical, but it cuts a bit deeper than the Therier article. Thanks for the comments! Andy (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2015 (EST)



Greetings Everyone,

Olivia, I agree in that the many positive articles about the beauties of net neutrality caused me to question what the other side had to say about it. My conclusions have left me in a sort of confused middling field where I absolutely cannot agree with either side and I can only see nefarious motives from all directions -- thanks to this week's readings I'm feeling stuck in a bad Roger Corman movie or a Kafka-esque moral limbo.

Theirer's article was indeed a fresh breather from all the pro-net-neutrality discussions and the question surrounding net neutrality left me with the conclusion that all these scenerios were merely choices presenting us with merely differentiating degrees of evils-- which scenario was the lesser of them? Centralized regulation? Marketplace havoc? Corporate shenanigans? I had most trouble wrapping my mind around what is actually happening right now and who in fact, knows the facts in totality. To what extent are we positive that these individual companies have the power and control or manipulate access and to what extent are they doing so? To what extent would the FCC actually be able to regulate Internet under a telecommunications classification?

Conclusions were bleaker leaving the readings than in anticipating them: placing the Internet and all its cables into a kind of "box" and then handing over the care of that box to any one actor in the world is a terrifically calamitous idea. Be it via government regulation or Corporate market puppeteering.

Net neutrality is a discussion about GIVING. Giving free and equal access to all for all. Or it is one about ensuring free and equal access to all for all. But vest any one actor with the power to give, the power to ensure, and that same actor has the power to take. Ensuring is also a two way street -- ensuring good or ensuring bad.

The Slate article painted a bleak picture with the idea that the murder of net neutrality would mean corporate censorship of the most nefarious kinds -- of the kinds driven by money, power, and corporate monopolistic self-interest. Again, the same discussion against giving the State power to control and "ensure freedom" on the Internet can be applied here to the market world.

With the power to give comes the power to take. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Keeping this simple lesson in mind, I found myself very confused as to what to think about how we are to best ensure the ideal of Internet freedom of communication and connection.

So at the end of the day, what really is the difference? The core problem to me seems to be that the Internet is at all controllable in any sense. Once it has handles to its large and once chaotic and incomprehensible body, the Internet becomes something that is up for grabs by whomever has the hands and the arm strength big enough. And someone with the hand and arm strength big enough to pick up and mold and design and direct something as organic as the Internet is a scary character indeed. Be it state or marketplace.

Chanel Rion (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (EST)



Hi everyone!

This week´s readings is a lot about the free market vs. the government. In the texts about connectivity, the different authors discuss whether the government should interfere with the market concerning improving access to high speed internet, or if that is up to the market to handle. Like Oliviabrinich said very well here in the class discussion; ”What this comes down to is that the Internet is not just a marketplace matter. The Internet is not just another consumer good that people can take or leave, it’s something they must have access to or they will be left behind in education, status, and income.”, the Internet is not just something that is fun to be connected to but is instead an important part of today´s infrastructure. And in my opinion is the government responsible for supplying the country and it´s citizens with important infrastructure, that means Internet as well as roads and railroads.

I was also very surprised that so few had access to Internet in America, and after I´ve been reading the other comments here in the class discussion, I realize that I´m not the only one who reacted when I read that. What is sad is that there was such a strong correlation between a low income and not having access to the Internet. Since the Internet plays such a huge part in both the private and the commercial communication today, not having access to it is a great handicap.

When it comes to network neutrality, I found the video by the President very interesting. He said that the Internet is a great part of our lives and how we communicate today, and that made me think about not having net neutrality as comparable with not being able to access information and places in the world outside of the Internet. I believe it is just as bad to say ”no you can´t enter this Apple store because you have made a purchase at a Microsoft store and they don´t want you to access Apple´s products”, as for Verizon to limit my access to for example AT&T´s website.

I have a question about Ammori´s article though. I don´t fully understand why the FCC lost the case with network neutrality. He mentioned something about lobbyists in the end of the article, is that the answer to why they lost the case? This might be a silly question, perhaps I missed the answer in the article, but English is not my first language so I thought I´d better ask.

Another question I have is about net neutrality in other countries than the United States. Is this an ongoing debate in many countries? And where in the world (or perhaps more specifically ”in which democracies”) is there net neutrality and where isn´t it? JosefinS (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2015 (EST)



Josefin, to the very specific question about what the FCC "lost," Ammori's article was written after this case that struck the FCC's rulings in place at the time. The past year has been a debate to see what will fill in those shoes. Andy (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2015 (EST)



This week’s readings opened my eyes to the very complicated, and multi-leveled role government plays in the development and regulation of Internet channels. It seems that America faces the two problems in unison as we approach the FCC decision and the ongoing and heated debate of governmental reach for enforcing Title 2. While watching Susan Crawford’s speech, she declared, “Internet access is like oxygen – it’s necessary for life”. I found this to be a very profound statement, and she almost alluded that Internet should be viewed as a right or primary concern the government should be investing in for the American people. The How Do We Connect to The Internet?, showed the advancement of developing easy and faster access to Internet shapes our economy for better results.

Furthermore, it seems to me, that the regulating of the Internet must be done by governmental entities to keep the Internet “free and open”. It is evident from the readings that the role of government must be implemented on all levels of government for any kind of initiatives to be successful. In the White House Report, it states, “these federal and state initiatives are only part of the solution. Local governments also have a critical role to play. In markets where private competition is anemic, whether because of regulatory barriers to entry or the high fixed costs of infrastructure investment, town and cities can build their own middle-mile networks and offer competitive access to the private sector” (p13)

The new clear and enforceable rules proposed by FCC Chairman Wheeler seem very promising, but I am very interested with what will develop leading up to February 26th as some of the rules are viewed as “not strong enough” by millions of people in the public. I think it is the government’s role to enforce harder rules to ensure that the Internet stays principally an open entity that supports innovation and free exchange of ideas. Mhoching (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2015 (EST)



This week’s readings were very stimulating. Susan Crawford’s remarks to the National Conference for Media Reform raise some great points. Actually, I look forward to class helping to rein in and focus my somewhat runaway reflections on these issues. At the time of this presentation, Professor Crawford was mentioned as a possible appointee to Chair of the FCC. Understandably, this political opportunity shaped the form of her remarks. Still, I found the fundamental ideas underlying here call to action to be clear and well formulated, although I would contend that she might have stepped over the logical line arguing that government intervention is what makes free speech possible.

Professor Crawford opines that with respect to high speed Internet connectivity the United States has no plan for the future, no competition, and no oversight. She observes that the cable industry has won the connectivity market by building the physical networks that allow individuals and businesses to connect to the Internet. With a third of the U.S. unable to affordably access high speed Internet, and millions unable to access it at any price, she points out that the cable companies have achieved a monopolistic “quiet life,” presumably meaning without government intervention.

For me, the professor’s argument was won with these facts. In my view, the lack of competition and the existence of unregulated private monopolies are more than sufficient reasons to consider some form of government action. But, she goes on to add a point that opens the door to criticism of her reasoning. Professor Crawford contends that “we need to recapture the regulatory ideal. That ideal is that regulation of infrastructure, government intervention, makes free markets and free speech possible.” Here, I part company with her. Not that she is incorrect that there can be a connection between regulation and the quality of infrastructure. Positive, professional, uniform regulation may bring better connectivity, perhaps net neutrality, and this will assist in our having the ability to speak without great barriers. But, it is the Internet itself, not the regulation of the companies providing it, that makes global speech and global markets possible. It is free Americans and our counterparts around the globe doing business with each other and communicating with each other that makes markets and free speech. It is not regulation per se, government intervention, that makes these freedoms possible.

While I quibble with this single point in Professor Crawford’s remarks, I take from her argument that the anti-competitive efforts of connectivity goliaths at the local and state levels of government suggest a national solution. I am persuaded that the best way to meet the many fronts of local regulatory disruption by the cable industry is with federal preemption. This is a strategically sound plan to control abuses of the free market, but it is not what makes free markets possible. Gary Brown (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2015 (EST)

External link to Susan Crawford's remarks at the 2013 National Conference for Media Reform:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9Ss3SI2v8

External link to transcript of Crawford’s video remarks:

http://conference.freepress.net/ncmr-resource/susan-crawfords-remarks-national-conference-media-reform



Perhaps I have somewhat Orwellian views on the Net Neutrality debate, but a world without open internet and a permanent absence of net neutrality feels incredibly frightening. I found the Slate article by Marvin Ammori to be particularly enlightening in that a problem with the view opposing net neutrality is that it fails to account for future iterations of what the Internet and related technologies could look like. Ammori writes about the ways in which start ups could be shut out and innovation could be stifled. Furthermore, the ability of providers to block specific sites or slow them down is a direct affront to free speech. What if providers found loopholes in which they could speed up sites for a specific candidate and thus make that information more readily available? Furthermore, I find the argument about blocking porn and videos of Afghanistan to be a bit misinformed and the solution not narrowly tailored to the issue. Schools, workplaces, and individual parents at home can already block certain sites and content. Products and services regarding malware protect against viruses, and these are things individuals can decide to purchase or not. Using these arguments in relation to net neutrality sounds a lot like the imposition of a moral code to me… The state should not be a parent. Neither should an internet provider. (Amchugh (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2015 (EST))


I think that the use of the internet in our lives is very important it gives us common citizens the power to be inform, to communicate faster, and to perform transactions in a like manner. I think that now since it has been many years since we have got accustomed to the use of the internet since its creation it would be very problematic to be without it.

The second question about neutrality, I think that it should be enforced by law, to avoid discrimination, and even if there has been a great effort, I think that the enforcement of it can only do good, because it would allow everyone to be treated in the same way, for a powerful tool.

Edwin Duque (17:12, 17 February 2015 (EST))

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=A_Series_of_Tubes:_The_Internet%27s_Backbone_and_Network_Neutrality&oldid=3729"