<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
<small>>>they may own the networks, but the Internet is ours'.</small><br>
</font></big>
<pre wrap=""><!----><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">>It's more like "I own my network, you own yours, they own theirs, but
>collectively, the Internet is greater than the sum of it's constituent
>parts"
McTim
You are saying the same thing, just much less elegantly :-).
We may own 'our' networks, but what is 'essentially' the Internet is not what anyone of us privately owns, but outside and beyond it. That is why we are saying that 'publicness' is Internet's essential character.
</font></big>
<big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">But we need not stay in vague theoretical areas, and should strive to connect the above to real issues at hand. </font></big>
<big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">>>..we think that greater conceptual clarity on 'what is NN' is required before we
>>can move forward in this area..</font></big> .
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081228_meanings_of_network_neutrality/">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081228_meanings_of_network_neutrality/</a>
</pre>
Thanks a lot for posting this link that starts with a link to Prof Ed
Felten's article on 'three flavours of NN' <br>
(
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/three-flavors-net-neutrality">http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/three-flavors-net-neutrality</a>
) . I am very pleased to note that Ed describes the two main current
conceptions of NN almost exactly as I did. (the third ' flavour' is the
narrow technical principle which as i mentioned i have deliberately
ignored).<br>
<br>
(Milton, since you said my NN typology is ' framed poorly', you may
want to take notice)<br>
<br>
McTim, since you forwarded this link to me, I would like to know
whether you see NN as - using Ed's terms - an economic principle of non
exclusive deals, or a free speech principle implying no content
discrimination. Thats the real issue here. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:f65fb55e0901060842s31b68b6by45ab280cabb4d433@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Parminder <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
<snip>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">'they may own the networks, but the Internet is ours'.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
It's more like "I own my network, you own yours, they own theirs, but
collectively, the Internet is greater than the sum of it's constituent
parts"
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
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..
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081228_meanings_of_network_neutrality/">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081228_meanings_of_network_neutrality/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>