1. Lessig says that access-tiering would be like auctioning off quality to the highest bidder. Isn't this a little like the debate asking whether or not knowledge/discoveries can be "owned" by a private company or the public? Source: Easton, Thomas, A. Taking Sides. Pg. 51, 52
2. Can a neutral internet stop illegal things? like downloading and viruses. Source: Easton, Thomas, A. Taking Sides. Pg. 54, 56,62
3. Would the neutral internet help the free market? Source: Easton, Thomas, A. Taking Sides. Pg. 54, 55, 56, 66

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Emily Ayotte
Question Formation 2
Science Writing
February 26, 2009

1. By not supporting a neutrality, wouldn’t some people (the less fortunate) be at a disadvantage and debilitated by the fact that they do not have as great amount of access etc. because they cannot afford it? The internet is a strong and active part of our society that almost every citizen, whether they have a PC or not, uses. (Taking Sides, pg.57)
2. In Lessig’s argument he discusses how the lack of competition that a non-neutral internet would cause, would slow down the innovation and expansion of the technology. This would, in theory, provide us with more control over the growth of the internet. Besides the fact that the “big guys” would be making more money, would more control over the internet and its growth be an aspect that some analysts are considering? Is that control helpful in anyway?
(Taking Sides, pg.52)
3. Would making an “anticipatory” law or mandate about neutrality really harm the internet and the system? Why not fix a potential problem, before it becomes a real problem? (Taking Sides, pg. 65)

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

1. If network neutrality is ever completely struck down as possible policy, how would this change competition between network owners? Would consumers and developers be more attracted to networks that attempted to maintain neutrality in their own business plans?

2. In his testimony before Congress, Lessig argued for network neutrality based on economic effects, saying, "My argument is not about the social justice of Internet access" (Taking Sides, pg. 51). When forming an opinion, is it reasonable to ignore the aspects of the debate that revolve around Internet morality or fairness and focus solely on the practical?

3. In his testimony before Congress, Dixon states that, "...there is reason to expect that a network neutrality mandate actually might weaken the competitive vibrancy of the content, applications and device components of the Internet" (Taking Sides, pg. 61) and argues that refusing to allow developers to pay for priority access prevents the development of certain high-quality content (such as streaming HD video). Conversely, Lessig argues that allowing developers to purchase priority skews the market unreasonably towards established companies and makes it much more difficult for developers to start new companies. When it comes to the Internet, is quality or innovation more important?

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

1. How has the end-to-end design helped to make the internet neutral? (52)

2. How have the four FCC principles established "internet freedoms"? (53, 54)

3. How does free use of the internet create economic competition? (55)

4. How has broadband internet changed the argument on network neutrality? (61, 62 63)

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

1) On page 57, Lawrence Lessig states that "if insiders are given technological and legal control over innovation on the internet, innovation will be stifled". Do you believe technological development could effectively be slowed at this point in the history of the internet?

2) Kyle Dixon describes the internet as" constantly changing and growing". Because of this constant innovation, could regulation attempts at neutrality could be obsolete by the time they are written as users or developers will have already found a way to sidestep the regulation?

3)Kyle Dixon believes there should be prerequisites in in order for any congressional mandates to take effect. These prerequisites must be vetted by someone; effectively creating a lengthy process and essentially...another problem. Is the internet truly too large to regulate?

3)

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

1. If you are working for a company such as Google, does the company have the right to block you from using sites such as Yahoo while at work?

2. If companies could blocout others from searching on the internet using competitors sites, would this ultimately stop the "growth" of the internet?

3. "Taking Sides" clims that there is o single dominent broadband network provide. If companies could regulate or stop employees rom going on competitor's sites, do you think a dominate provider would emerge that offers total freedom to everything?

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

#1- Lawerence Lessig talks about the diversity of innovaters in the Internet world and the original Internet design "end-to-end" which encouraged innovation. What is the "end-to-end" design? Do you think it's encouraged a wide range of innovation like Lessig says? Why or why not?
Source: Thomas A. Easton, Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society, pgs. 51-52

#2 - Lessig also talks about access-tiering and how that can stunt the growth and innovation of the internet; however, to oppose access-tiering is not to oppose all tiering, thus arguing that consumer-tiering could provide more incentives for networks. Do you agree with his opinion? Is "tiering" good or bad? Would consumer-tiering be better? Why or why not?
Source: Thomas A. Easton, Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society, pgs. 55-56

#3 - Kyle D. Dixon states that "The touchstone for resolving network neutrality or any other regulatory debate is consumer welfare. Specifically, policymakers must balance many (and inevitably, competing) interests to maximize benefits to consumer sin the form of competition, investment, and innovation." Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
Source: Thomas A. Easton, Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society, pg.59

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?