Last updated February 2007.

Scenarios of current Internet usage

The following scenarios represent a small sample of the many ways in which consumers currently employ the Internet, the Web, and associated technologies. Each scenario has a link to a diagram that shows IP packet flow, data flow, information flow from the user’s perspective, and the flow of network fees involved in the scenario. The first four scenarios contain an Internet cloud component that represents the Internet backbone, and the internals of the cloud are shown in Scenario E.

• Scenario A: Web-based commerce is a basic e-commerce scenario involving a user who connects to a Web server in order to browse the site’s offerings and make purchases. The end user and the e-commerce site each connect to their own ISP independently without knowledge of the other’s connection arrangement. Load balancing of the IP packet flow is handled inside the Internet cloud.
• Scenario B: Cached news publication is a slightly more complex example of a news Web site that provides multimedia content to visitors and uses caching servers in order to achieve better performance in content delivery. The news site pays the caching service and the caching service pays its ISP; thus, the news site pays more than a standard web server in order to deliver a better experience to its visitors. The caching is completely transparent to the end user—from the user’s point of view, all of the news site’s content comes from the same location.
• Scenario C1: VoIP within IP Network and Scenario C2: VoIP into PSTN represent a new service (VoIP) built on top of the general purpose Internet platform. VoIP service has the same architecture as any other Internet service; there are no special arrangements between any of the ISPs shown, and none of the ISPs need to be aware that VoIP packets are being transferred through the network.
• Scenario D: Decentralized information flow shows a blog that aggregates data from several other web services. To the end user all the data on the page appears to be located at the same URL, but it is actually drawn from a number of different sites. These independent sites have no prior connection arrangements—the linkage of all the sites is made possible by the creativity and coordination of the blog host.
• Scenario E: The Internet cloud serves to illuminate the internals of the Internet backbone that are not shown in the previous four scenarios. The two large Tier 1 ISPs in the cloud’s center peer with each other; that is, they agree to pass traffic back and forth but neither one pays the other. The Tier 1 ISPs are paid by smaller ISPs that wish to be connected and pass traffic to the peers; these smaller ISPs are in turn paid by even smaller ISPs that want to pass traffic up the chain. Small ISPs are also able to peer with each other by paying and connecting to a Metropolitain Area Exchange (MAE) or Network Access Point (NAP).

Consumer groups, public policy organizations, and think tanks

• Atkinson, Robert D. and Philip J. Weiser. A "Third Way" on Network Neutrality [pdf]. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. May 30, 2006.
• Blocking VoIP Calls: Foreboding Harbinger or Benign Fluke? Internet Caucus Advisory Committee panel discussion. April 19, 2005.
• Net Neutrality and Net Neutering in a Post-Brand X World: Self Regulation, Policy, Principles and Legal Mandates in the Broadband Marketplace [pdf]. Transcript of policy briefing hosted by the Policy & Freedom Foundation. December 29, 2005.
• Preserve the Internet Standards for Network Neutrality. Dynamic Platform Standards Project for Real Network Neutrality.
• Preserving the Essential Internet [pdf]. Center for Democracy & Technology. June 2006.
• Principles of an Open Broadband Future: A Public Knowledge White Paper [pdf]. Public Knowledge. July 6, 2005.
• The Assault on Network Neutrality. Center for Digital Democracy.
• Windhausen, John. Good Fences Make Bad Broadband: Preserving an Open Internet through Net Neutrality. Public Knowledge. February 6, 2006.

Academic and research

• Aronson, Jonathan and Simon Wilkie. The Annenberg Center Principles for Network Neutrality. USC Annenberg Center. March 27, 2006.
• Farrell, Joseph and Phil Weiser. Modularity, Vertical Integration, and Open Access Policies: Towards a Convergence of Antitrust and Regulation in the Internet Age. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 17, No. 1, Fall 2003.
• Felten, Edward W. Nuts and Bolts of Network Neutrality [pdf]. Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University. July 6, 2006.
• Frieden, Rob. Internet 3.0: Identifying Problems and Solutions to the Network Neutrality Debate. Pennsylvania State University. February 2007.
• Frieden, Rob. Network Neutrality or Bias? - Handicapping the Odds for a Tiered and Branded Internet. Pennsylvania State University. September 2006.
• Goldfarb, Charles B. Access to Broadband Networks. CRS Report for Congress. June 29, 2006.
• Lehr, William, Marvin Sirbu, Jon Peha and Sharon Gillette. Scenarios for the Network Neutrality Arms Race. Conference on Communication, Information, and Internet Policy. October 2006.
• Peha, Jon M. The Benefits and Risks of Mandating Network Neutrality, and the Quest for a Balanced Policy [pdf]. Carnegie Mellon University. September 2006.
• Sidak, J. Gregory. A Consumer-Welfare Approach to Network Neutrality Regulation of the Internet. Georgetown University Law Center. September 2006.
• Thierer, Adam D. 'Net Neutrality': Digital Discrimination or Regulatory Gamesmanship in Cyberspace? [pdf]. CATO Institute. January 12, 2004.
• van Schewick, Barbara. Towards an Economic Framework for Network Neutrality Regulation [pdf]. October 20, 2005.
• Weitzner, Daniel J. The Neutral Internet: An Information Architecture for Open Societies. Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. June 2006.
• Wu, Tim and Lawrence Lessig. Letter to the FCC, Ex Parte Submission in CS Docket No. 02-52 [pdf]. August 22, 2003
• Wu, Tim. Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination [pdf]. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 2, p. 141, 2005.
• Wu, Tim. The Broadband Debate: A User's Guide [pdf]. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 3, No. 69, 2004.
• Wu, Tim. Wireless Net Neutrality: Cellular Carterfone and Consumer Choice in Mobile Broadband. New America Foundation Wireless Future Program Working Paper #17. February 2007.
• Yoo, Christopher S. Beyond Network Neutrality [pdf]. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 19, Fall 2005.
• Yoo, Christopher S. Network Neutrality and the Economics of Congestion (forthcoming). Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 94, June 2006.
• Yoo, Christopher S. Would Mandating Broadband Network Neutrality Help or Hurt Competition? A Comment on the End-to-End Debate [pdf]. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 3, 2004.

Government

• AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2000). June 22, 2000.
• National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 125 S. Ct. 2688; 162 L. Ed. 2d 820. June 27, 2005
• Brand X Internet Servs. v. FCC, 345 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) [pdf]. October 6, 2003
• FCC Policy Statement, CC Docket No. 02-33, Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities [pdf] September 23, 2005
• Hearing to consider H.R. ____, a Committee Print on the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. March 30, 2006
• High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2006 [pdf]. Federal Communications Commission. January 2007.
• Majoras, Deborah Platt. The Federal Trade Commission in the Online World: Promoting Competition and Protecting Consumers [pdf]. August 21, 2006.
• Net Neutrality Full Committee Hearing. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation. February 7, 2006.
• New Principles Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet [pdf]. FCC Press release. August 5, 2005
• Powell, Michael K. Preserving Internet Freedom: Guiding Principles for the Industry [pdf]. February 8, 2004
• S. 2686, Communications Reform Bill (as revised) Hearing III. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation. June 13, 2006.
• S. 2686, Communications Reform Bill Hearing II. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation. May 25, 2006.
• Video Franchising Full Committee Hearing. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation. February 15, 2006.

Corporations

• Cerf, Vinton. Letter to Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell on Behalf of Google [pdf]. November 8, 2005.
• High Tech Broadband Coalition Letter to the FCC on Connectivity Principles [pdf]. August 2, 2005