To answer your question, based on my research, I think all of the telecommunication companies and service providers are looking to the United States to see what the next step will be.

I think the issue could gain some more momentum depending on who is president and how he or she decides to handle the FFC.

Barack Obama has said he would push the FCC to upload the spirit of Network neutrality. So we shall see!

Thanks for a good look at net neutrality, an issue that I don’t often think about when I think of the ever expanding web. You’ve done a good job of clearly explaining what’s happening that make this such an important component of future commerce and trade laws. Net neutrality is a key issue that bridges the philosophical and ethical importance of web access alongside the fiscal and economic implications. Public policy in one very important realm.

The paper “The State of the Debate on Network Neutrality” is a very good overview of the issue. And the bibliography also provides links to other federal commission reports.

I’m glad you’ve included information on what’s happening elsewhere around the world. But, I’m curious, how are these different countries working together (or in opposition) to establish regulations on bandwidth that’s spanning the globe? Or, is the U.S. in the driver’s seat on this issue? Also, what is the middle ground here? Are there ways to take the best of both open networks and open business practices? (I do suppose that if you or I had the answer to that question, we should run for office or jump up and down until the big companies notice)

I’ve learned a lot from your research, Boris. And, I’m reminded why regulatory bodies are still important pieces of our economy.

Thanks for reading and thanks for your comments. With a vote delayed once on adding federal Network neutrality laws into the books, I think the next big fight will be aimed at the Federal Communications Commission.

The idea being the FCC would be receive extra power to regulate broadband providers that might want to charge providers extra for providing content at higher speeds.

I think the presidential election will go a long way toward deciding if a wide-sweeping Network Neutrality law will ever go into effect.

So far, presidential hopefuls like John Edwards and Barack Obama have publicly stated their support.

In my view, the wrong ideas are presented in the ideas of the Strategy Group. This is the argument about “too many freeways and not enough on-ramps, connecting roads, and traffic lights.” This is big telecom’s argument – it seems fairly obvious who will control the on-ramps and traffic lights.

For me, the better argument is contained in the Public Knowledge statement about what the argument is, and what it is not, and what action should be taken – specifically, that legislation to preserve Internet freedom and prohibit discrimination be adopted, potential discrimination being at the hand of big broadband providers.

In particular, the data discrimination and content censorship (the second, by Verison, having very wisely been withdrawn) mentioned in your piece are special areas of concern.

It requires either a subscription to the journal or access through a library data base, but Information Outlook [Information Outlook Vol.11 No.10, October 2007; from the Special Libraries Association] has a good summary of the issue (from my perspective, at least): “SLA to FTC: Don’t Take a Shortsighted Approach to Internet Neutrality.”

And, I’m not on your blog roll.