<!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">
Shiva<br>
<br>
><i> does not discriminate between a computer with Windows and a
computer with Fedora or Solaris.<br>
<br>
</i>This is an important aspect of neutrality or non-discrimination in
all digital systems, as also on and regarding the Internet. But it is
most likely that in the same way that IBM and later Microsoft has been
forced to unbundle its offerings and be neutral and non-discriminating
to other digital products, regular pro-competition regulation and
policies will ensure this as well. Not that we would not need to fight
for it at all, but what I am asserting here is that this danger is not
peculiar to the Internet. <br>
<br>
Conflating this above issue with NN completely, or even largely, has
the problem of taking attention away from what I see is the the main
problem associated with NN, which is unique and structural to the
Internet, and which if ignored will forever structurally deform the
Internet into something that will belie the democratic potential of the
Internet. This is the issue of tiered Internet, where content providers
are charged differentially for different treatment vis a vis delivery
and transmission, and not merely access.<br>
<br>
<i>>If a Virginia uses the Internet for business email and essential
surfing, and Robert
[co-panelist] is using it to download movies 24/7, what is wrong if
>Virginia is
charged $10 and Robert a $100?<br>
</i><br>
As Meryem pointed out, charging access, whether flat rate or per-use,
has nothing to do with the concept of Network neutrality. Cost of pipe
size is not the issue here, cost of differential speed and quality of
transmission is. The impact of these two things is structurally very
(hugely!) different on what the Internet will get shaped into. The
distinction between the two lies at the base of NN concept, as it is
being advocated. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:fecfce260901082219p752a4e02o3c68b4eb4374c2f5@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Hello Ian,<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Ian Peter <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I
hear the call that net neutrality needs to be an ongoing discussion with<br>
IGF and we should include it in our submissions in February.<br>
<br>
But I have the same trouble with net neutrality </blockquote>
<div><br>
I said something as an intervention at the Net Neutrality session
during IGF, paneled by participants from the Diplo Foundation, which I
with to bring up in the list in this context.<br>
<br>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"><i>It is important to ensure that the
Internet does not discriminate between traffic from out of India and
traffic from Pakistan, or does not discriminate between a computer with
Windows and a computer with Fedora or Solaris. There are several other
aspects of Net Neutrality that combine together to make this an
important cause but I want to bring up an observation that Network
Neutrality debates are emotional.<br>
<br>
As an emotional topic, the phrase Network Neutrality tends to stretch
as a broader and broader theme to include just about everything. And
everything is opposed in the name of Net Neutrality. </i><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">as
I do with end to end.<br>
Both are being used as some sort of architectural principle that
guarantees<br>
the public good, when their inclusion in network architecture was more a<br>
feature of the simple dumb network than some sort of intelligent design
to<br>
protect future generations of internet users from a range of abuses
foreseen<br>
decades ago.<br>
<br>
Both architectural principles are subject to distortions and the future<br>
Internet will be neither fully end to end nor fully neutral. In fact, as<br>
dogmatic network architectures they have already disappeared and it's
of no<br>
use to us to argue against internal corporate networks (a breach of end
to<br>
end)or traffic shaping (a breach of network neutrality) and all such.
It's<br>
not what it's all about.<br>
<br>
The purpose of both end to end and net neutrality discussions from our<br>
perspective should be to guarantee that a future Internet possesses
certain<br>
qualities which have made the Internet the valuable facility it is. I
think<br>
we confuse these fundamental requirements by making them absolute<br>
architectural principles that lead to these being discussed as carrier
and<br>
network management issues rather than user issues.</blockquote>
<div><br>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"><i>Wouldn't there be a balance if we
seriously begin to be open to the
concerns expressed by the business sector to SOME aspects of the
'discrimination' - a bad word, but may have to be permissible [in a
certain context]. If a Virginia uses the Internet for business email
and essential surfing, and Robert
[co-panelist] is using it to download movies 24/7, what is wrong if
Virginia is
charged $10 and Robert a $100? The emotional point of view would
assert that both Virginia and Robert are
charged equally, with the result that Virginia subsidizes Robert by $40
which is unfair. This aspect of Net Neutrality could be unfair to the
user, for example. [ Robert responded by saying that he would like to
pay a $100 ]<br>
<br>
I have a background in business and I am a businessman, with a total
commitment for Civil Society values. I will put on the businessman's
hat and ask you how I would survive as an ISP or Infrastructure
provider if you insist on me charging $10 each for Virginia and Robert?
I don't have $80 to subsidize Robert. How will I recoup my investments?
How will I survive? More important, how will I prosper? </i><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
So to me the questions are - what are the desirable network qualities
that<br>
we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?<br>
<br>
Some better language might help us to get better results. Governments
will<br>
tend to understand some basic principles, but when vague terms are
thrown at<br>
them such as end to end or network neutrality that have a range of
meanings<br>
there are more likely to just bow to commercial interests who can point
out<br>
in plain English to them their problems with the concepts.<br>
<br>
So I think I am agreeing with Carlos and George, but trying to point out<br>
there might be a problem in the way we are addressing the subject. But I<br>
don't expect to win that one for a while yet.....</blockquote>
<div><br>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"><i>[Is there] a business model to
show me if I were a telecom or an ISP
that is convincing as a sort of Google-like business model that would
work to help [a business] make billions as a Net Neutral business
corporation?
Why don't we write a universal business plan for telecoms and ISPs
and other network players to show alternate and innovative business
models that would help corporations to survive and grow as Network
Neutral enterprises? </i></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Ian Peter<br>
PO Box 429<br>
Bangalow NSW 2479<br>
Australia<br>
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.ianpeter.com"
target="_blank">www.ianpeter.com</a><br>
</font>
<div>
<div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net">george.sadowsky@attglobal.net</a>]<br>
> Sent: 09 January 2009 02:02<br>
> To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>;
Carlos Afonso; Parminder<br>
> Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein;
Brian<br>
> Beaton; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality<br>
><br>
> All,<br>
><br>
> I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net<br>
> neutrality. In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by<br>
> ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a<br>
> government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up
in<br>
> the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);<br>
> and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying
to<br>
> do spam control or other damage control of some kind. Note that
this<br>
> would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply<br>
> inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)<br>
><br>
> There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and<br>
> there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the<br>
> subject. It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting<br>
> definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for<br>
> users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy. I<br>
> agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not
concentrate<br>
> upon implications for the user.<br>
><br>
> I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what
the<br>
> ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I<br>
> would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a
framework<br>
> that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or<br>
> languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and<br>
> delivery. This is most necessary and useful at the local level,<br>
> where there is one path to the user's computer. Although higher
tier<br>
> ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not<br>
> useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are
likely<br>
> to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet
by<br>
> packet.<br>
><br>
> This is a REAL Internet governance topic.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
><br>
> George<br>
><br>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>
> ~<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:<br>
> >Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex
analyses under<br>
> >the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's
article<br>
> >(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at<br>
> ><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art0"
target="_blank">http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art0</a><br>
> 0012),<br>
> >which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine
poliTICs<br>
> >(<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.politics.org.br"
target="_blank">www.politics.org.br</a>). If you can manage
Portuguese, please download the<br>
> >PDF version under a CC licence from the site.<br>
> ><br>
> >In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I
feel most<br>
> >if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in
consideration.<br>
> >I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z
country using<br>
> >XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to
reveal packet<br>
> >manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator is
happening.<br>
> >How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory handles
(or lack<br>
> >thereof) I can use to protect myself against such
manipulation, what<br>
> >political involvement I should consider to change this
(thinking of the<br>
> >brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.<br>
> ><br>
> >However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in
considering<br>
> >NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic
for IGF.<br>
> ><br>
> >frt rgds<br>
> ><br>
> >--c.a.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> -----------------<<snip>>-----------------------<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>
> George Sadowsky <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a><br>
> 2182 Birch Way <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net">george.sadowsky@attglobal.net</a><br>
> Woodstock, VT 05091-8155 <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.georgesadowsky.org/" target="_blank">http://www.georgesadowsky.org/</a><br>
> tel: +1.802.457.3370 GSM mobile:
+1.202.415.1933<br>
> Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 Grand Central:<br>
> +1.202.370.7734<br>
> SKYPE: sadowsky<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="Wj3C7c">>
____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
><br>
> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://twitter.com/isocchennai">http://twitter.com/isocchennai</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com">http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/">http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>