<!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>
</font>
<pre wrap=""><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.
</font></big></pre>
<pre wrap=""><!----><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">>I was talking about access.</font></big></pre>
This distinction lies at the bottom of much of confusion in this debate
on this list, and it will be useful to have some conceptual clarity
around this. We can still disagree on issues, but we can try to agree
on meaning of concepts and basic analytical categories. The pipe-width
to access the Internet is something very different from nature of
transmission of traffic/ content over the Internet. I am fine, for the
present purpose, with any method of pricing pipe width, or as you say
access. But I am against any kind of pricing of nature of transmission
of traffic/ content. In case of pricing of pipe-width or access, the
control is still in the hands of the user. She can (at least
theoretically, assuming she has the money) pay more or less and get
corresponding access. However, and this is most important point to
note, when content transmission is paid for by the content provider
for differential treatment, the control is *not* with the user. The
control is with the network operator. User can do nothing to switch
between different options, even if ready to pay differently for doing
so. Certain kind of content will be more overwhelming than other, and
the problem is that once this line is crossed conceptually, and the
principle of user control and right of equal access to all Internet
content is lost, market's known ways of dominance cascading into ever
increasing domination (on digital platforms we know this phenomenon is
even more magnified) will ensure that Internet looks like something
much closer to cable TV today that we can perhaps imagine. <br>
<br>
Sure, other content will not (be allowed to) entirely disappear but all
such (non-commercial) content that the provider has not paid for (which
include so much of what we value most on the Internet) may become
something akin to those obscure, difficult to get and difficult to
read, pamphlets of social and community campaigns, that we may
occasionally pick up in order to indulge our morality and social/
community conscience. The all-around glitz of the paid-for commercial
content will be too over-powering for it to be any other way. This is
the structural difference between paying for 'pulling content' form the
Internet and paying for 'pushing content' into it. This distinction
defines the very nature of the Internet as we know it, and especially
its role and potential as a democratic media.<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
></font>this debate is over, as also McTim has confirmed.<br>
<br>
I will like to take your word and McTim's that is no current or future
danger at all that there will be price based differentiated Quality of
Service (QoS) and speed of transmission of content ever on the
Internet. (Pl correct me if I havent worded it right.) That will solve
my original problem.<br>
<br>
However, just is case that this danger is not entirely gone , can you
(and McTim) accept it as a NN principle - that we should advocate that
there should not any differentiated *price* based QoS/ speed content
discrimination on the Internet. <br>
<br>
We are already all agreed that<br>
<br>
(1) Vertical tying/ bundling services by a company and/or
discriminatory exclusive business deals that make for QoS/ speed
differentiation among different content and applications is one of the
most important issues of NN<br>
<br>
(2) ISPs should clearly self declare their content/ traffic management
policies<br>
<br>
(3) Users should have clearly laid out means of redress in case
illegal/ inappropriate traffic/ content practices are found. <br>
<br>
(4) any other ???<br>
<br>
We all also agree that we are against censorship on the Internet.
However, I would think that since the motivations for censorship
(mostly, political/ cultural) are very different from that of
curtailing NN (economic), the two concepts should be kept conceptually
separate. This will help to deal with both kinds of problem much better.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
Ralf Bendrath wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4968E6A6.9060608@zedat.fu-berlin.de" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder schrieb:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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, ...).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">That is a violation of NN, as long as we are talking about transmission
over the (public) Internet.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->I was talking about access.
The transmission over the backbones depends on which peering agreements my
ISP has etc. There is no thing such as the "public" internet in this sense
- it's all private contracts between different autonomous systems and with
the owners of the "tubes". Of course, one can debate which kinds of
principles we would like to establish to ensure the backbone traffic is
not discriminating against specific content etc.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We may see more price differentiation in the last mile market and a
movement away from flat fees
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">As mentioned a few times earlier I do not consider access pricing (for
the size of the pipe) as an NN issue.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->And why would this not apply to the backbones as you mention above? Now
you confuse me.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Quote from Obama's technology policy doc.
(...) carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on
content and services, discriminating against websites that are
unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a twotier
Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network
providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing
websites remain in a slower lane.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->As I said, this debate is over, as also McTim has confirmed. Maybe someone
here wants to apply for an advisory position in the Obama adminstration? ;-)
But before we go too deep into the fuzzy and potentially outdated
formulations of a specific candidate who won an election in one specific
country, can I ask the million Euro question?
"What are the global public policy implications of all this?"
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>