Law and the Open Internet
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to issue a new set of internet access regulations and policies. These would prohibit broadband service providers, such as AT&T or Comcast, from “discriminating” against unaffiliated content providers. The FCC’s proceedings, and the network neutrality debate, concentrate on two economic questions (i) whether to broadband service providers can or will steer traffic to affiliated content limiting consumer access and (ii) how to preserve the Internet’s capacity for creativity and innovation. Despite economics’ prominence in the debate, economic theory cannot answer these questions. Theoretical models of vertical foreclosure are ambiguous and inconclusive and empirical data nonexistent. And, the debate misapplies normative, legal concepts of “discrimination” and “equal treatment” onto internet traffic management engineering. These concepts worked in a circuit switched telephone network in which “equality” can exist at switch points, but make little sense in the packet-switched internet in which “equality of outcomes” of internet experience is what matters.With its narrow focus, the debate has also missed that actual internet disputes, such as the BitTorrent-Comcast Order, involve many legal concerns, such as privacy, that have little to do with “discrimination” as such. Policymakers lack theoretical understanding and empirical knowledge concerning internet industrial organization. We, therefore, argue for a “bottom up” approach to regulation, analogous to fair use in copyright law, with case-specific adjudications creating a common law of acceptable network practice.
New Models and Conflicts in the Interconnection and Delivery of Internet-Mediated Content
This paper examines the dramatic changes in interconnection and compensation agreements between content providers and carriers resulting from increasing use of the Internet for bandwidth intensive carriage of video. It identifies two emerging models: (1) interconnection and compensation arrangements that increase the total payments to Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") from end users, upstream ISPs and content providers; and (2) strategies by content creators and distributors to achieve congestion-free delivery at the lowest cost.While supportive of commercially negotiated agreements, the paper suggests that the two emerging models will trigger more disputes as interconnecting parties increasingly lack motivation to cooperate in finding ways to balance traffic flows and instead seek ever increasing compensation. The paper recommends that National Regulatory Authorities require ISPs to engage in transparent network management practices, backed up with reporting requirements that can help identify the causes of congestion and degraded service.The paper also suggests ways for regulators to resolve disputes between ISPs and content providers that could harm consumers, particularly when retail ISPs, providing the first and last kilometer of service, seek to leverage access to end users by demanding surcharges from upstream carriers and content providers. By creating such a bottleneck, retail ISPs may reduce the value of Internet access subscriptions, or increase costs even when congestion remedies do not require more broadband network capacity. Reporting requirements can provide empirical data for necessary forensic investigations that can determine whether a massive increase in traffic volume has caused congestion, or a carrier has artificially created it by strategic allocation of existing bandwidth and switching capacity. The Internet increasingly offers access to bandwidth intensive video content.Some ISPs impose paid peering or transit charges on high volume upstream carriers and content sourcesDemands for higher interconnection compensation have triggered disputes.Consumers risk degraded service when interconnection disputes become protracted.Regulators should impose reporting requirements on ISPs coupled with a complaint resolution process.
Chapter 1 – Nanotechnology: A Toolkit for Cell Behavior
Tissue engineering seeks to effectively manipulate cellular populations to improve the function of damaged or diseased tissues and organs. Many techniques can affect cell behavior; however, in order to maintain desirable function, scientists and engineers design solutions that are as biomimetic as possible. True biomimeticity is very challenging without the incorporation of nanotechnology. Since cells in human tissues are surrounded by a 3D hierarchical tissue extracellular matrix containing numerous nano components, a revolutionary change in tissue engineering is to explore biomimetic nanobiomaterials and advanced 3D nano/microfabrication techniques for creating novel tissue constructs and regulating cell behavior. This chapter will provide an overview of recent nanotechnology in tissue engineering applications. We will put special emphasis on integrating cutting-edge 3D nano/microfabrication techniques with nanobiomaterials for complex tissue and organ regeneration.