<!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">
Milton<br>
<br>
><span class="218121620-06012009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2">you have framed these options poorly.<br>
<br>
<font color="#000000"><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">McTim
has been very helpful in forwarding an article which has a senior
professor and commentator in this area framing the options almost
exactly as I did. However, if is doesnt suit your idealogical taste, I
can hardly help it. <br>
<br>
</font></big></font></font></span><span class="218121620-06012009"><font
color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">>Define better what you mean
by different "quality and speed" in Option 1. Does it mean that a
telecom can't sell me DSL because someone else can only afford dial up?
If> not, how is the effect of such economic differentiation any
different than nondiscriminatory offerings of faster treatment?</font></span><br>
<br>
You know very well the difference between charging differently for
levels of access (pipe size, but without discriminating among different
content) and charging for different speed and quality of relay of some
content over other. Milton, do you seriously believe that the two
things are the same, or even similar. The structural impact of the
latter on the Internet will be devastatingly different from merely
costing access differently, as happens already. And you know it very
well. <br>
<br>
<span class="218121620-06012009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2">> Does Option 2 mean Akamai becomes an illegal business?
(do you know what Akamai does?) Does it mean that edge caching becomes
illegal? if no, how is the effect > different from what you purport
to oppose?<br>
<font color="#000000"><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
If a content provider is free to put his servers anywhere, the same can
also be done through a third party. That is very different. Any such
private service to enhance content in any way is just a outsourced
private service. (Though the regulators will need to watch all such
activities - especially of the systemic variety - closely to see where
the line is crossed.) But
anyone involved with the 'publicness' of the Internet, like a common
carrier, should not provide such discriminatory services. That should
be the condition that the 'collective ownership of the Internet'
imposes on anyone who wants to use / leverage the 'public Internet'.
Else
the concerend telecom company can in any case use IP or any other
technology for a
'private network' that can do whatever (within a different, less
intrusive regulatory regime, if required, dealing with private
networks).<br>
<br>
</font></big></font></font></span><span class="218121620-06012009"></span><font
color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span class="218121620-06012009">>please
don't impose your own egalitarian fantasies on the internet. imposed
equality has nothing to do with what the internet is, what it was, or
what made it successful.</span></font><br>
<br>
'imposed equality'! Well, everything 'rights' is in a way an 'imposed
equality', isnt it. And the IGC has been adopting statements on rights
based approach to IG. Citizenship is also 'imposed equality'. If we
dont impose any equality at all dont know where the world will be. In
fact 'imposed equality' also sounds like something of a 'social
contract', which is an interesting idea and concept to explore. Since
we mostly agree that the Internet underpins a new global social order
(the information society) with new political basis and requirements, is
there to be a 'social contract' vis a vis the Internet!<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
Milton L Mueller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF0A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3492" name="GENERATOR">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote dir="ltr"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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>
<span class="218121620-06012009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"
size="2"> </font></span></font></div>
<div><span class="218121620-06012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">you have framed these options poorly.</font></span></div>
<div><span class="218121620-06012009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="218121620-06012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">Define better what you mean by different
"quality and speed" in Option 1. Does it mean that a telecom can't sell
me DSL because someone else can only afford dial up? If not, how is the
effect of such economic differentiation any different than
nondiscriminatory offerings of faster treatment? </font></span></div>
<div><span class="218121620-06012009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="218121620-06012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">Have you considered that end users might benefit
from such anarragnement? it is clear you olny see the benefit for the
suppliers. </font></span></div>
<div><span class="218121620-06012009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="218121620-06012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">Does Option 2 mean Akamai becomes an illegal
business? (do you know what Akamai does?) Does it mean that edge
caching becomes illegal? if no, how is the effect different from what
you purport to oppose? </font></span></div>
<div><span class="218121620-06012009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="218121620-06012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">Who gets classified as "telecoms"? (don't think
the answer to that one is simpe, my friend. i can point you to decades
of regulatory debate with millions or billions hanging on the answer). </font></span></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span
class="218121620-06012009"></span></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span
class="218121620-06012009">please don't impose your own egalitarian
fantasies on the internet. imposed equality has nothing to do with what
the internet is, what it was, or what made it successful. </span></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><span
class="218121620-06012009"> </span><br>
</font><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span
class="218121620-06012009"><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<p><font size="2">Milton Mueller<br>
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology<br>
------------------------------<br>
Internet Governance Project:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://internetgovernance.org/">http://internetgovernance.org</a><br>
</font></p>
</span></font></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>