<!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">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Ralf<br>
<br>
I am very confused about your email, and so request some
clarifications. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
" (no one)</font> should be able to ...... charge different rates to
different Web sites" (Obama)<br>
<br>
"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)<br>
<br>
Arent the two manifestly opposing positions ? I may be missing
something here in which case pl enlighten me. <br>
<br>
At another place in your email, however, you seem to agree that Obama
speaks against a tiered internet, but your position here is that this
is no longer a relevant issue. <br>
<br>
> This angle is pretty much over as far as I can see.<br>
<br>
I state with all sincerity that if I can be persuaded that this angle -
of the possibility of a tiered Internet - is 'pretty much over' I
will leave this discussion, and save both the IGC's and my time. For
instance, can we have Milton, who seems to be on your side of the
debate at this point, say that 'this angle is pretty much over'. It
will be simple if it were over - we are all, in any case, against
anti-competitive practices, we are all for transparency, and we are all
against censorship. No dispute here. Problem solved. <br>
<br>
But, why Lessig, a known social activist, and someone who is
politically quite astute, and rumored to have some political ambitions,
will want to publicly state this above position accepting a 'tiered
Internet' - especially when his word seems to be valued by the
incoming US administration ??<br>
<br>
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>
). I cannot at all see how his 2006 position (also expressed in his
2006 testimony to FCC) is not different from his above 2008 position.
Why do you think he changed his position in this manner, when as you
say 'this angle is pretty much over...". <br>
<br>
Simple, because 'this angle' (of a tiered Internet) is *now* even more
in. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
Ralf Bendrath wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:49678DC2.6070106@zedat.fu-berlin.de" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder schrieb:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the real task/
question is as you put it "what are the desirable network qualities that
we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?"
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Very much so.
But:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I have neither a technical background, nor much interest in technical
issues, and am myself looking it from a political and advocacy angle,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->I am afraid we can't distinguish these two. This is a clear example of
geeky technicalities making huge differences in political terms and vice
versa.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In this context, I am really bothered whether NN would get understood as
how Obama himself put it
""What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers
and the various portals through which you're getting information over
the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different
rates to different Web sites...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->This angle is pretty much over as far as I can see (except for the fact
that Fox of course can rent a faster server and uplink than mom and pop,
but this is beyond discussion). The recent "Google breaking NN"
irritations stirred by the poor media coverage were about edge caching,
which has nothing to do with this.
As has been discussed here, the real NN debate and non-NN practices as far
as I can tell are now more about the ISPs as access providers for
end-users throttling or fast-tracking special content such as p2p or voip,
and of course about "filtering" etc. But again, there have always been QoS
protocols and related things, so it is all a bit more complicated.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">or as Lawrence Lessig, who is tipped to become in some way or the other
a close adviser to Obama on this issue, sees it. Lessig says that
charging content providers differentially is ok by his definition of NN.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Lessig himself has the correct version:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html"><http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html></a>
It is true, as the Journal reports, that I have stated that network
providers should be free to charge different rates for different service
-- "so long," the Journal quotes, "as the faster service at a higher price
is available to anyone willing to pay it."
-> See above, mom and pop vs. Fox, nothing new.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It is my humble opinion that between these two positions lies a world of
difference,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->There does not seem to be much difference between a misunderstood Obama
and the quoted Lessig. Read the Lessig post above for more.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">and the real battle will be situated in this space.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Well... no. ;-)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think
the Internet as we know - and as we cherish in its egalitarian
qualities - will be history if Lessig's version of NN is adopted by the
new US administration. This in my view is the point in NN debate and
advocacy that requires urgent attention.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->...and understanding, one may want to add. ;-) SCNR
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In this context it is especially important that the IGC makes all effort
to see that NN becomes a central issue on the IGF's agenda this year.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->It seems to me we need much more discussion amongst ourselves first.
But of course, a draft paper would help facilitate that, as Ginger has
suggested.
A good start by the way is Milton's paper from the GigaNet Symposium 2007
(not sure if it has been mentioned so far):
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/NetNeutralityGlobalPrinciple.pdf"><http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/NetNeutralityGlobalPrinciple.pdf></a>
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>