Citations for Neutrality vs. Deregulation

• (To see the referral location for each citation, click on the numbered links on the left side.)

• 01. Pacific Telegraph Act of 1860 “An Act to Facilitate Communication between the Atlantic and Pacific States by Electric Telegraph” Chapter 137, U.S. Statutes 36th Congress, 1st Session June 16, 1860. Excerpt from Section 3: “And Provided further, That messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority: And provided further, That Congress shall at any time have the right to alter or amend this act.”
• 02. “Carterfone Changes Our World.” Communications News, Sept. 1984.
• 03. United States Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part I, § 201(A): Communications Act of 1934: “It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor; and, in accordance with the orders of the Commission, in cases where the Commission, after opportunity for hearing, finds such action necessary or desirable in the public interest, to establish physical connections with other carriers, to establish through routes and charges applicable thereto and the divisions of such charges, and to establish and provide facilities and regulations for operating such through routes.”
• 04. Ibid., § 201(B): “All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful: Provided, That communications by wire or radio subject to this chapter may be classified into day, night, repeated, unrepeated, letter, commercial, press, Government, and such other classes as the Commission may decide to be just and reasonable, and different charges may be made for the different classes of communications: Provided further, That nothing in this chapter or in any other provision of law shall be construed to prevent a common carrier subject to this chapter from entering into or operating under any contract with any common carrier not subject to this chapter, for the exchange of their services, if the Commission is of the opinion that such contract is not contrary to the public interest: Provided further, That nothing in this chapter or in any other provision of law shall prevent a common carrier subject to this chapter from furnishing reports of positions of ships at sea to newspapers of general circulation, either at a nominal charge or without charge, provided the name of such common carrier is displayed along with such ship position reports. The Commission may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this chapter.”
• 05. “In the Matter of USE OF THE CARTERFONE DEVICE IN MESSAGE TOLL TELEPHONE SERVICE; In the Matter of Thomas F. Carter, et. al. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., et al.” Carterfone, 13 F.C.C.2d 420, 13 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 597, 77 Pub. Util. Rep. 3d 417 (1968) (Commission opinion) June 26, 1968.
• 06. United States Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part II, § 251(3)(2): Telecommunications Act of 1996: “In determining what network elements should be made available for purposes of subsection (c)(3) of this section, the Commission shall consider, at a minimum, whether— (A) access to such network elements as are proprietary in nature is necessary; and (B) the failure to provide access to such network elements would impair the ability of the telecommunications carrier seeking access to provide the services that it seeks to offer.
• 07. “About Abilene, Abilene Network Goals, & History” Abilene, Available at URL: abilene.internet2.edu. Excerpt: "On April 14, 1998, Vice President Al Gore announced the Abilene network during a ceremony at the White House. Initial operation began in February 1999 and full deployment of a 2.5 gigabits per second backbone was completed by the end of 1999. Abilene underwent an upgrade to 10 gigabits per second and includes native IPv6 capabilities. The upgrade was completed in 2003."
• 08. Tim Wu, Columbia Law School “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination.” Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 2, p. 141-179, 2003.
• 09. John Conyers Jr., “U.S. Shouldn't Meddle in Running Internet Economy,” Detroit News, June 17, 2003.
• 10. “In the Matter of Madison River Communications, LLC and affiliated companies.” Before the Federal Communications Commission, File No. EB-05-IH-0110
• 11. “Telus cuts subscriber access to pro-union website.” CBC News Last Updated: Sunday, July 24, 2005. Available at URL: www.cbc.ca
• 12. Stephanie Olsen. “AOL charged with blocking opponents' e-mail” ZDNet News April 13, 2006. Available at URL: news.zdnet.com
• 13. Pacific Telegraph Act of 1860. See footnote 01
• 14. Daniel Berninger. Why Even Bells Need Net Neutrality. GigaOM. May 9, 2006. Available at URL: gigaom.com. Excerpt: “Cable companies do not enjoy the same no cost access to right-of-way and pay franchise fees that typically equal 5% of gross revenues or $30 billion over the last ten years. The assertion that property rights convey an ability to leverage any business model regarding the Internet seems ironic given the telephone companies own less than 2% of the property where they deploy infrastructure. The real estate Verizon owns directly represents less than 3% of the value claimed for equipment and infrastructure.”
• 15. Testimony of Gary R. Bachula, Vice President, Internet2 Before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Hearing on Net Neutrality February 7, 2006. Excerpt:”Internet2 is a not-for-profit partnership of 208 universities, 70 companies, and 51 affiliated organizations, including some federal agencies and laboratories. Our mission is to advance the state of the Internet, and we do that primarily by operating for our members a very advanced, private, ultra-high-speed research and education network called Abilene that enables millions of researchers, faculty, students and staff to “live in the future” of advanced broadband. By providing very high speed pipes - 10,000 times faster than home broadband, in our backbone - we enable our members to try new uses of the network, develop new applications, experiment with new forms of communications, experiencing today what we hope the rest of America will be able to have and use in just a few years.”
• 16. Ibid., Excerpt: “When we first began to deploy our Abilene network, our engineers started with the assumption that we should find technical ways of prioritizing certain kinds of bits, such as streaming video, or video conferencing, in order to assure that they arrive without delay. For a number of years, we seriously explored various “quality of service” schemes, including having our engineers convene a Quality of Service Working Group. As it developed, though, all of our research and practical experience supported the conclusion that it was far more cost effective to simply provide more bandwidth. With enough bandwidth in the network, there is no congestion and video bits do not need preferential treatment. All of the bits arrive fast enough, even if intermingled.”
• 17. Ibid., Excerpt:"We also understand that the “net neutrality” issue goes deeper than just blocking a web page or a Voice over IP application. If a network operator starts to give preference to packets from one source (that perhaps pays the operator for preference), what happens to all of the other, ordinary packets? We know that when an ambulance or fire truck comes down a congested highway, everybody else has to pull over and stop. For emergencies, and for public safety, that is accepted, but what if UPS trucks had the same preference? Giving a preference to the packets of some potentially degrades the transport for everyone else.”

• This site is under construction. Please stay updated!
  
  last updated on 2007-04-24 EST 23:04:28-0500
•  
• www.alizarian.com is a partial collaboration with the Web Design Services division of the Apple Sanity Collective at Applesanity.com: an article-based, online service for the exploration of both the beauty and depravity of humanity, as well as the research and development of webpage design, usability, and search engine optimization. Usability testing for Alizarian.com was designed with considerable help from L. Princop. This domain and all its pages are express property of Alizarian Web Design, Inc. - “Innovative, usable solutions for competitive webpage development”