The Yale Journal on Law and Technology has recently published my article entitled Rationales for and Against Regulatory Involvement in Resolving Internet Interconnection Disputes (14 Yale J.L. & Tech 266 (2012); available at: http://yjolt.org/rationales-and-against-regulatory-involvement-resolving-internet-interconnection-disputes.
Here's the abstract:
This Article will examine the terms and conditions under which Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) switch and route traffic for each of several links between a source of content and consumers. The Article concludes that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) may lack direct statutory authority even to resolve disputes based on its determination that Internet access constitutes an unregulated information service. Additionally the FCC may appropriately forebear from regulating, because sufficient competition favors industry self-regulation.
Despite
substantial reasons not to intervene, the FCC nevertheless might have to clarify its
understanding of what subscribers of retail ISP services can expect to
receive. Under truth in billing and other consumer safeguards the
Commission might require ISPs to explain what an Internet
subscription guarantees not only in terms of transmission speed
and downloading capacity, but also what subscribers
can expect their ISPs to do when receiving content requiring
downstream termination.
The
Article concludes that both customers of content services, such as Netflix, and retail ISP
subscribers expect their service providers to guarantee delivery of movies
and all sorts of Internet traffic respectively. For physical
delivery of DVDs Netflix must pay the U.S. Postal Service and for delivery
of streaming bits Netflix must pay one or more ISPs. But for
Internet traffic involving two or more ISPs, the Article examines
whether other retail ISPs providing last mile delivery of
content violate their service commitments to subscribers by demanding
additional payment from upstream carriers.
Here's the abstract:
This Article will examine the terms and conditions under which Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) switch and route traffic for each of several links between a source of content and consumers. The Article concludes that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) may lack direct statutory authority even to resolve disputes based on its determination that Internet access constitutes an unregulated information service. Additionally the FCC may appropriately forebear from regulating, because sufficient competition favors industry self-regulation.
No comments:
Post a Comment