Hello Ian,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Ian Peter <span dir="ltr"><<a 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 href="http://www.ianpeter.com" target="_blank">www.ianpeter.com</a><br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net">george.sadowsky@attglobal.net</a>]<br>
> Sent: 09 January 2009 02:02<br>
> To: <a 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 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 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 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 href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a><br>
> 2182 Birch Way <a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net">george.sadowsky@attglobal.net</a><br>
> Woodstock, VT 05091-8155 <a 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></div><div class="Wj3C7c">> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
><br>
> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a 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 href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a 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 href="http://twitter.com/isocchennai">http://twitter.com/isocchennai</a><br><a href="http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com">http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/">http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/</a><br><br>