<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Steve<br>
<br>
Thanks for supporting the 'publicness of the Internet' advocacy plank.
One of the fliers of your save-our-internet campaign captures it just
right - 'they may own the networks, but the Internet is <i>ours</i>'. <br>
<br>
I agree that it is a crucial and a difficult time for global public
interest advocates interested in 'saving the Internet' in its original
open, public and egalitarian conception. For this purpose we need to be
strategic in our advocacy plans and make all necessary alliances. It is
for this reason that I mentioned in my original email in this thread
that though I/ we have some problems with the way the term Network
Neutrality is being used by many, it is still one of the most
appropriate 'umbrella' for us to to be working under. <br>
<br>
However, after the recent Wall Street Journal article attracted our
attention towards important nuances (though, as will be argued, they
are hardly 'nuances') in the network neutrality (NN) debates and
advocacy, we think that greater conceptual clarity on 'what is NN' is
required before we can move forward in this
area.. Lawrence Lessig, who is credited with co-inventing the term NN,
sees NN as something that many others do not see NN as. I surfed the
net on this issue a bit in the last few days and I am quite sure that
an overwhelming number
of people who support NN, and are rather passionate about it, are
supporting something which is very different from what some leaders of
NN movement (like Lessig) seem to be (now?) fighting for. In the
circumstances, people need to know what they are supporting before they
support it. This will foreclose what increasingly looks to me to be an
impending eventuality - some leaders of the campaign coming back and
reporting - we have won NN (for you!), and a celebration goes around,
when what they would have gotten would still be enough to kill the
Internet. <br>
<br>
Which is why, since you lead an important NN campaign in Canada -
save-our-internet - (and from what I have read about this campaign it
appears to me that
it, unlike the US's save-the-internet campaign, is much clearer about
what it wants) I wonder if you can help clarify which one of the
following two situations meet your criterion of NN, and whether the two
are not considerably different positions for people who are NN
followers and foot-soldiers to be clear about what is what. <br>
<br>
Option 1. Telecoms are constrained from doing any ad-hoc and
discriminatory
interferences with traffic based on their business interests and
arrangements with
different providers of content and applications. However, this does not
mean that they may not charge content providers differently for quality
and speed for transmitting their content, as long as this special
treatment
is available to all for the same price and conditions. <br>
<br>
Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content
providers for
any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a tiered
Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content as
per different charges. <br>
<br>
It is my view that the situation described in the option 1 above while
very important, is
relatively easy to ensure. (I do agree that we still need to fight for
getting even this level of fairness.) However, casting NN advocacy and
struggle narrowly in these terms, in my view, may turn out to be even
more dangerous that having
no advocacy around NN, because it deludes most people who seem to think
that
they are fighting for a really equal, non-tiered, Internet when they
join the NN brigade. In the end - as has been the experience of many
an advocacy campaigns - it is likely that this confusion on what
exactly is NN, and what different groups may be seeking and may be
against, is most likely to damage the interests of those who have
certain
ideas about what Internet was meant to be, what it should be and what
it can be, in terms of its potential for equity and social justice, or
even as a democratic media and a 'public sphere' etc. <br>
<br>
While I agree on being strategic in joining forces on this key issue, I
think greater clarity on the NN concept, and more discussion among
civil society actors on what are we fighting for, and to what avail,
including if needed building scenarios, is very important at this
stage. <br>
<br>
Thanks, and best regards. Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
Steve Anderson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:dbc829030812300133v148587f9o38e75f1e0aa09e53@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi all, I agree with overall vision concerning the publicness of the
Internet, and less so with the laissez faire stuff.
But this underlines a key element of Net Neutrality. There is a very
broad and diverse constituency supporting Net Neutrality. This is
important because the other side, while small in number, is very well
financed and organized. Hence we can't afford lose anyone willing to
work toward net neutrality. So I think keeping the principles simple
and focused on net neutrality is key to this battle. I want the
laissez faire people and public ownership people to work together on
this - it's essential.
I also support working on broader issues and forming coalitions for
these. Some in Canada might be interested in the Campaign for
Democratic Media Network:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://democraticmedia.ca/organizations-campaign-for-democratic-media-network">http://democraticmedia.ca/organizations-campaign-for-democratic-media-network</a>
Principles:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://democraticmedia.ca/our-principles">http://democraticmedia.ca/our-principles</a>
-let me know if you're org wants to join the network.
But for Net Neutrality I think the principles of the SaveOurNet.ca
coalition are specific yet open enough to appeal most everyone who
supports Net Neutrality. Namely it mentions both access issues and
neutrality. Those who want to focus on the free market stuff can do
work under these principles, as can those who support the public
interest side of thing. For example, I'm working with several public
internet groups in the coalition to make a coordinated public interest
effort with the upcomming traffic management hearing. And I know
Google and others are doing the same on the business side. This
approach allows different groups and sub-sets to articulate their
vision for the Internet, while also providing common ground for a
broad coalition to operate. I think this is essential if we are to win
this and broader digital divide issues.
SON Description:
SaveOurNet.ca is a coalition of citizens, businesses, and public
interest groups fighting to protect our Internet's level playing
field. We're calling on lawmakers and industry to protect openness,
choice, and access for ALL Canadians — and stopping lobbyists and
special interests from ruining Canada's Internet.
Principles:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://saveournet.ca/content/saveournetca-principles">http://saveournet.ca/content/saveournetca-principles</a>
If you support these I hope all of you will consider signing on as
individuals and organizations here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://saveournet.ca/members">http://saveournet.ca/members</a>
Bryan, is K-Net going to sign on?
cheers,
Steve
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Parminder <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We need to develop and anchor such basic principles that maximize the
possibilities of the Internet as a new revolutionary network – whose central
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">characteristics (mentioned in social rather than technical terms) should
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">be that
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">1. In terms of ownership – it is public
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As I have explained numerous times, the essential characteristic of the
internet is NOT that it is public; the networks and most of the investment
are private........ >So >the critical feature of the internet is in many
ways precisely the opposite of what you are asserting.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Milton
First of all, it is clear from my usage above, and the background of this
issue in the 'publicness of the Internet' concept, that I speak of Internet
being public not in strict legal ownership terms, but in socio-political
terms. So you think the essential characteristic of the Internet is that it
is private ?? I do suspect so from your views on network neutrality, but I
will come to that in a seperate email.
Your counter-arguments to my propositions are a bit slippery, and shifting.
When confronting the 'ownership' issue (not legalistic-ally, but as everyone
having in principle full and equal right to) you speak of the Internet as
the physical networks. And when I speak of the 'purpose' of the Internet,
you switch to speaking of the Internet as its essential protocols. Thats a
bit, shall I say, disingenuous :-). Because if we speak of Internet as its
essential protocols it is easy to agree about the publicness of the
Internet. On the other hand, if we speak of it as physical networks built
with private investments it is easier to speak of its purpose - which is
private gain, with no guarantee of public interest and gains.
This brings us to the essential issue which my email dealt with - trying to
figure out the essential nature of the Internet, as we would like to have,
and from their possibly derive the basic public policy principles for it.
Would you not agree that this will be the logical way to go about it. I know
you too are quite interested in developing the basic public policy
principles for the Internet. Would you then state what you think are the
essential characteristics of the Internet, and then we can debate it.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The STANDARDS are open and nonproprietary, but they are useful only because
they allow any and all private networks and privately owned equipment to be
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">interconnected.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Any public system - roads, infrastructure of the market, laws, etc - are
useful only because they facilitate private individuals. Everyone knows
that. This does not obliterate the difference between the public and the
private, does it!
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">However, because the TCP/IP protocol suite's ability to connect networks
initially outstripped the understanding and capacity of governments to
regulate....
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">and the understanding and the capacity of the corporates to appropriate.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">one could say that its effect was more libertarian than egalitarian. But
its uniform, open nature did indeed level the playing field and afford those
interested in >communicating more equal rights than they have ever had
before.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">This is interesting. You say that the socio-political impact of the Internet
was incidental. Fine, I may accept that, but you also seem to be
non-committal about how it should be, hereon. Don't you want the Internet to
have any (socio-political) directions and purpose. If you do want to it to
have any, would you please state it. The whole debate is about that. That is
what we all are where about.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">more libertarian than egalitarian.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Now, this is fair turf. This is really what we are discussing, the above was
mostly avoidable red-herring. (Though the term 'libertarian' is used by so
many different types, that it often confuses me. I understand you are
professing views more of what may be called as right-libertarian kind.
Please correct me if I am wrong, in India we are still not very used to
these terms). Since we want to keep our discussion practical, and
purposeful, I think a very good instantiation of the above political
difference is in our views on network neutrality. Will discuss in another
email.
parminder
Milton L Mueller wrote:
Parminder:
Happy holidays, all. Sorry for the slow response.
It seems that we have had this conversation before, and you always have to
agree that I am right but it never seems to make an impression on your
political rhetoric. So I will try again (because
I am just as persistent as you, and will not allow policies or principles
that are incorrect to be established simply because someone keeps repeating
them.
We need to develop and anchor such basic principles that maximize the
possibilities of the Internet as a new revolutionary network – whose central
characteristics (mentioned in social rather than technical terms) should be
that
1. In terms of ownership – it is public
As I have explained numerous times, the essential characteristic of the
internet is NOT that it is public; the networks and most of the investment
are private. The STANDARDS are open and nonproprietary, but they are useful
only because they allow any and all private networks and privately owned
equipment to be interconnected. It is, in other words, the correct mixture
of private and public elements, in their respective roles (to quote the TA)
that makes it a success. The open protocols allow private initiative to
flourish, and enable people to offer content and services without asking the
public for permission. So the critical feature of the internet is in many
ways precisely the opposite of what you are asserting.
I know that this does not conform to your ideology, but it's a fact.
2. and in terms of its key purpose, and orientation – it is egalitarian
(definition of 'egalitarian' from The American Heritage Dictionary –
"Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political,
economic, social, and civil rights for all people")
Again I think you've got it wrong.
Strictly speaking, the internet protocols do not have a "purpose" other than
to establish compatible data communications among any and all networks.
However, because the TCP/IP protocol suite's ability to connect networks
initially outstripped the understanding and capacity of governments to
regulate, one could say that its effect was more libertarian than
egalitarian. But its uniform, open nature did indeed level the playing field
and afford those interested in communicating more equal rights than they
have ever had before.
Once we agree to these highest level principles as those most essential to
what we call as the Internet – their contextual elaborations can always be
done, in different circumstances and as related to different issues and
aspects. No doubts, such elaboration will itself be a political process,
subject to political trade-offs. The question is, are we as a world
community – and to start with as a group of progressive civil society – able
to agree to these (or any other) social and political principles to be the
highest constitutive principles for the Internet.
I can agree on principles when they are articulated with a full, exacting
respect for the technical and historical facts.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>