LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Wong, R; Garrie, DB; Loewenherz, DW (2008)
Publisher: Inderscience
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
The paper discusses the topical subject of network neutrality, from a US and European legal perspective. The article will begin by first defining network neutrality before addressing the underpinning technology and will then compare the legal approaches adopted by Europe and the US. In Europe, there is an existing electronic communications regulatory framework which can be used to address the network neutrality problem rendering any further legislation unnecessary and perhaps, detrimental to the current framework. In the US, however, the main concern arising is a potential for a 'fragmented' internet, which leads to our conclusion that network neutrality legislation is necessary on multiple levels. The article will conclude that the US' stance on network neutrality legislation will cause a seismic shift in the way we view technology and the way that networks are accessed and utilised.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [15] , M.J. Culnan, Protecting privacy online: is self-regulation working? Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 19 (1), 2000, pp. 20-26.
    • [16] 47 US.C.S. §§ 151 et seq.
    • [17] 545 US 967 P[21] Ibid.
    • [18] One indirect consequence of this was that companies such as Google, Microsoft, Earthlink and Intel began pouring money into wireless broadband and Broadband Over Powerline (BPL).
    • [19] 540 US 398.
    • [20] Ibid.
    • [22] Amy Schatz & Anne Marie Squeo, As Web Providers' Clout Grows, Fears Over Access Take Focus: FCC's [25] Daniel oB.Garrie, Matthew J. Armstrong, Donald P. Harris, Voice Over Internet Protocol and the Wiretap Act: Is Ruling Fuels Debate Between Broadband Firms and Producers of Content, WALL ST. J., Aug. 8, 2005, at A1 [23]Tripp Blatz, Three Carriers Have Now Blocked Access to Ports for VoIP, Vonage Chairman Alleges, TELECOMM. MONITOR, Aug. 23, 2005.
    • [24] 389 US 347 (1967) [28] Ibid. s Your Conversation Protected?, 29 Seattle U. L. Rev. 97 (2005).
    • [26] Ibid
    • [27] Daniel B. Garrie, Matthew J. Armstrong, Donald P. Harris, Voice Over Internet Protocol and the Wiretap Act: Is Your Conversation Protected?, 29 Seattle Univ. L. Rev. 97 (2005). [32] Katz, 389 US at 351. t
    • [29] Frierson v. Goetz, 227 F. Supp. 2d 889, 896-97 (M.D. Tenn. 2002) (describing a two-part test for determining qualified immunity).
    • [30] 389 US 347, 350 (1967).
    • 1968 US Code & Admin. News 2110, 2-153-2159.
    • [31] 18 US.C. §§ 2510-2521 (2004).
    • [33] United States v. Andonian, 735 F. Supp. 1469, 1471 (C.D. Cal. 1990); S. REP. NO. 90-1097, at 66-72 (1968); [36] Edwards v. Bardwell, 632 F. Supp. 584, 589 PLa.),aff'd, (M.D. 808 F.2d 54 (5th Cir. 1986)
    • [34] Pub. L. No. 90-351, tit. III, § 802, 82 Stat. 212 (1968).
    • [35] United States v. McKinnon, 985 F.2d 525, 527 (11th Cir. 1993) [37] Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848 (1986) (codified at 18 US.C. §§ 2510-2521, 2701-S2710, 3117, 3121-3126 (1986)).
    • [41] Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 353 (1967) r
    • [38] S. REP. NO. 99-541 (1986), reprinted in 1986 US.C.C.A.N. 3555, 3555-3557.
    • [39] 18 US.C. § 2518 (2004).
    • [40] Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994) (amending 18 US.C. § 2510 (2004)). Feb 19, 2004); Dyer v. Northwest Airlines Corporations, 334 F. Supp. i2d1196, 1198 (D.N.D. Sep 08, 2004); [42] Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 290 F. Supp. 2d 993, 994 (D. Minn. 2003) [45] Vonage, 290 F. Supp. 2d at 1000-03. n
    • [43] In re DoubleClick, Inc. Privacy Litig.
    • [44] In re Pharmatrak, Inc., 329 F.3d 9, 19-22 (2003); Directv, Inc. v. Spokish, 2004 WL 741369, at *3, 17 (M.D.Fla. Freedman v. America Online, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 638, 643 (E.D.Va. Jul 12, 2004).
    • [46] FROST & SULLIVAN, VOIP EQUIPMENT 2003 WORLD MARKET UPDATE (2003)
    • [47] CARL SHAPIRO & HAL R. VARIAN, INFORMATION RULES: A STRATEGIC GUIDE TO THE NETWORK ECONOMY (1999).
    • [48] Compare Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 353 (1967)
    • [49] Stan Gibson, VoIP Passes Nissan Road Test, EWEEK, Jan. 24, 2005, at 33.
    • [50] Paul Taylor & Peter Thal Larsen, Time Warner Cable Plans Big Push Into Internet-Based Phone Services, FIN. TIMES, Dec. 9, 2003, at A1.
    • [51] Internet Engineering Steering Group, Internet Architecture Board, IETF Policy on Wiretapping, RFC 2804, INTERNET ENG'G TASK FORCE (May 2000) (discussing how VoIP uses the Internet's open network architecture and stating that VoIP and Internet communications transmit on a single interconnected digital network).
    • [52] By the end of 2006, more than half of all 110 million-odd households in the US will likely have the option of P[54] Congress's decisions to tax and regulate VoIP technology are beyond the scope of this paper. getting phone service from their cable companies. By 2008, cable companies will be selling phone service to 17.5 million subscribers, compared with 2.8 million at the end of 2003, according to an estimate by research firm Yankee Group. Peter Grant, Here Comes Cable.., WALL ST. J. Sept. 13, 2004 at R4.
    • [53] Sheff, David, Betting on Bandwidth, WIRED, Feb. 2001, at 144-56.
    • [55] Declan McCullagh, Congress Proposes Tax on All Net, Data Connections, Jan. 28, 2005, available at [58] Boartnickiv. Voppe, 532 US 514 (2001) http://news.com.com/Congress+proposes+tax+on+all+Net,+data+connections/2100-1028_3-5555385.html (last visited July 20, 2005).
    • [56] Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 353 (1967)
    • [57] United States v. Karo, 710 F.2d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir.1983)
    • [59] FTC Staff Report, at 29-31.
    • http://www.newmilslenniumresearch.org/archive/wifireport2305.pdf
    • [60] NEW MILLENNIUM RESEARCH COUNCIL, `NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST - THE MYTH OF MUNICIPAL WI-FI NETWORKS': WHY MUNICIPAL SCHEMES TO PROVIDE WI-FI BROADBAND SERVICE WITH PUBLIC FUNDS ARE ILL-ADVISED (Feb. 2005), .
    • [61] Contribution by Kaushik Rath.
    • [62] Boos v. Barry, 485 US 312 (1988)
    • [63] Id.
    • [64] Richards, Jonathan. Web TV demands high-power broadband. August 15, 2007
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article