<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Ralf,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the clarification, what you say is clearer now.<br>
<br>
</font>
<pre wrap=""><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">>Don't confuse upstream and downstream.
No, I dont see them differently in terms of network neutrality (NN). NN applies to both. Neither do I see Obama's comment as specifically referring only to the 'downstream' part and Lessig's to the 'upstream' part. Obama's speaks of no special favour to any content - upstream or downstream; Lessig accepts favors if they are priced in a non-discriminatory manner, ie are available at the same price and conditions to all who are ready to pay.
<big>
</big></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">>whoever rents a faster pipe can get faster upstream for his
>service, even based on different qualities (latency, jitter, pingback,
>maybe even number of hops, ...). </font></big>
<big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">That is a violation of NN, as long as we are talking about transmission over the (public) Internet. A private IP based service - VPN - for transmitting some content from a provider to the ISP premises is a different matter though.
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">>We may see more price differentiation in the last mile market and a
>movement away from flat fees</font></big>
<big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">As mentioned a few times earlier I do not consider access pricing (for the size of the pipe) as an NN issue. I am fine with non-flat, slab-based rates, and it is already so in India in most places. </font></big>
<big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">
<big>> </big></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">fuzzy terms like a "tiered internet" don't help clarifying
much, I am afraid.
The term two-tier Internet figures in Obama's </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">pre-election technology policy document. I quote the whole part on NN. See especially " Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others."</font></big></pre>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Parminder <br>
<br>
Quote from Obama's technology policy doc. <br>
<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><b>Protect the
Openness of the Internet:</b> A key reason the Internet has been such a
success is because it is the<br>
most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama
strongly supports the principle of<br>
network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the
Internet. Users must be free to access<br>
content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have
a right to receive accurate and honest<br>
information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to
prevent network providers from<br>
discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the
Internet. Because most Americans only have<br>
a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to
impose a toll charge on content and<br>
services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for
equal treatment. This could create a twotier<br>
Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network
providers can get the fastest access to<br>
consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a
result would threaten innovation, the<br>
open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among
content and backbone providers. It would<br>
also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has
begun to transform American political and<br>
cultural discourse. Barack Obama supports the basic principle that
network providers should not be allowed to<br>
charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites
and Internet applications over others. This<br>
principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or
non-profit speakers, have the same<br>
opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach
large audiences. Obama will protect the<br>
Internet's traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure
that it remains a platform for free speech<br>
and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy.<br>
</font><br>
Ralf Bendrath wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:496895AB.2000405@zedat.fu-berlin.de" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder schrieb:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Ralf
I am very confused about your email, and so request some clarifications.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Hope I can help.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You seem to say that there is *no* (or little) difference between
positions of Obama and Lessig as shows from their recent statements that
I quoted.
" (no one) should be able to ...... charge different rates to different
Web sites" (Obama)
"network providers should be free to charge different rates for
different services long as the faster service at a higher price is
available to anyone willing to pay it." (Lessig)
Arent the two manifestly opposing positions ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Don't confuse upstream and downstream.
Obama was speaking about access providers at the downstream end, who
should not discriminate different websites. As Milton said, this is one of
the core issues of NN, and it is also related to the various "filtering"
efforts with regard to "offensive" or "illegal" content. (For the question
if this debate is over, or which part of it, see below.)
Lessig was speaking about "services", which is the upstream end. Of
course, whoever rents a faster pipe can get faster upstream for his
service, even based on different qualities (latency, jitter, pingback,
maybe even number of hops, ...). His point is that this should be
available to anyone willing to pay the same price for the same service
quality, therefore preventing tying and discrimination of content from
competitors in case a network provider is also offering his own content.
It does not contradict Obama's statement, but is orthogonal to it.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">At another place in your email, however, you seem to agree that Obama
speaks against a tiered internet,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Define "tiered internet", please. I did not use this term.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">but your position here is that this is
no longer a relevant issue.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->I was referring to the debate around two years ago, when some big ISPs
said they want extra money from e.g. Youtube, "because they are
responsible for so much of our last mile traffic". This is what Obama
referred to, and this is dead IMHO. No-one has figured out how the exact
business model would look like, how e.g. Version would be able to force
Youtube into such a contract, etc. And of course the last mile customers
are already paying for that part of the network and bandwidth. (A nice
win-win approach here is edge caching, which of course should be available
under the same conditions to anyone willing to pay for it.)
The underlying issue of course has not gone away, it is last mile
bandwidth restrictions, over-subscription etc. Now the ISPs have started
throttling specific services like bittorrent, but have also been beaten up
for this (see the Comcast case). This part of the "battle" is far from
over. We may see more price differentiation in the last mile market and a
movement away from flat fees (as we already see in the mobile market),
which may be a good thing for less heavy users (I could get faster
pingbacks if I paid my ISP 1,50 Euros more a month. But since I don't play
online games, I can save this money). We may also see that users want to
keep flat fees and move to ISPs that are investing in more bandwidth. But
I am not sure what a progressive and human-rights-friendly approach would
be like around these issues, except that I should always be able to get a
fully unfiltered internet access if I pay for it.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Lessig wrote in 2006 "Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet
content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the
network." (
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html</a>
).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->I don't think this was one of the best publications Lessig wrote. Packets
never have moved at the same speed over the whole internet. It always
depends on uplink and downlink bandwidth, but also on the peering
agreements the different autonomous systems have with each other, on the
number of hops, on where intercontinental cables exist etc. I *guess* what
Lessig meant (or at least what is relevant here today imho) is that at any
given point in the network, packets passing through it should be treated
equally. This is the "good old best effort" internet, and this is under
heavy attack by recent technological innovations like deep packet
inspection, layer-7 switches, application-based routing etc. But again,
this is not easy black or white. This stuff can be used for malware
filtering or for more efficient network operation, but also for
discriminating specific applications and content. Again, this is all very
technical, so fuzzy terms like a "tiered internet" don't help claifying
much, I am afraid. In any case, this technology will not go away, and I
fully support discussing a progressive and human-rights based approach
towards it. But is is a radically different approach from the model
"Youtube pays my ISP extra money, so I can still watch online videos in
the future" which Obama referred to.
Best, Ralf
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>