<!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">
<br>
Milton<br>
<br>
<big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font color="#000000"><span
class="957330417-09012009"><font size="2"><big>>Your turn. Please
tell me, how does the ordinary user benefit from an egalitarian
ideologue telling them and everyone else that if they want to pay more
for a higher speed >or better service they can't do it, even if it
is offered on a nondiscriminatory basis? </big></font></span></font><br>
</font></big><br>
That is closer to a real honest discussion. I will deal with the 'red
herrings' in your email later, below. <br>
<br>
I see Internet's primary value and its basic characteristic, as a
revolutionary democratic media, in the fact that unlike say interactive
cable TV it can accommodate unlimited content, in a manner that all of
it is accessible to the user at exactly the same level and ease, which
puts the control and choice of what she wants to access completely in
the
user's hand. However, if one can pay to push ones content extra hard at
the user, at the cost of other competing content, it compromises user's
choice, and thus harms her interests. In case of traditional media
platforms, like print or TV, where the interface-space is constrained,
some way needs to be found to squeeze some content in this limited
space
rather than the other. However, the essential and the defining feature
of the Internet is that there is no such constraint of how much and
what all content one can access at the same one-remove, at the same
level. This is how the Internet fundamentally revolutionizes users
choice. Now, if some content providers are able to pay and line their
content up closer to the user relative to other content, without her
exercise of such a choice, it obviously constraints her freedom and
choice. And, consequently, it turns the basic logic of the Internet on
its head. <br>
<br>
I am not able to see what benefit it gives to the user, to put some
content closer to her than other, in a way that has *not* been chosen
by her. Can you please tell me what benefit the user gets? The loss, on
the other hand, is obvious; it interferes with free exercise of her
choice.<br>
<br>
Milton, the underlying difference is that you are using an exclusively
marketplace framework for the Internet and forget the democratic media
aspect of the Internet, which is at least as important. (Though you
do deal with FoE; but everyone knows that democratic media issues
extend quite a lot beyond FoE). I prioritize the democratic media or
public sphere (as in Habermass) aspect in looking at the Internet. To
the extent both are important, let us try to include basic
principles of both in framing the essential characteristics of the
Internet. <br>
<br>
Now for some fun :-).<br>
<br>
<font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>></big><span
class="957330417-09012009"><font size="2"><big> am repeatedly
surprised at how you dismiss the relevance of nondiscrimination and
universal access to content and applications<br>
<br>
You are needlessly putting words in my mouth. I have never dismissed
its relevance. <br>
<br>
<big>></big></big></font></span></font><big><span
class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><big><font
color="#000000" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">You say that the
content and application discrimination issues "are easy to achieve" and
"dont matter much." <br>
<br>
Can you show where I said they "dont matter much". Yes, I did say that
between the two situation (1) there is no content and application
discrimination at all, even with open-offer differential prices (what I
have called for) and (2) no discrimination other than based on price
differentials that are equally open to all, (which you call for), the
later is relatively easier to achieve. Do you disagree with this
proposition? <br>
<br>
The VoIP issue detailed by you is very important, and I have always
been cognizant of its importance. But thanks anyway, it does highlight
the importance of the NN issue. <br>
<br>
</font></big></font></span><font color="#000000"
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><span class="957330417-09012009"><font
size="2"><big>>You blithely dismiss the idea of ISPs or governments
being able to say, "we don't like this web site or that service, we are
just going to block it." Doesn't matter? >Wow.</big></font></span></font></big><br>
<br>
Milton, you are being especially difficult. When did I say the above
????? <br>
<br>
<big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font color="#000000"><span
class="957330417-09012009"></span></font></font></big>Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
Milton L Mueller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7086BAF11@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3492" name="GENERATOR">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="957330417-09012009"><font
color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">Parminder:</font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">> </font></span>It is my humble opinion that
between these two positions <span class="957330417-09012009"><font
color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"> </font></span></div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">></font> </span>lies a world of difference,
and the real battle will be situated <span class="957330417-09012009"><font
color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"> </font></span></div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">></font> </span>in this space. I think the
Internet as we know - and as we <span class="957330417-09012009"><font
color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"> </font></span></div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">></font> </span>cherish in its egalitarian
qualities - will be history if Lessig's <span class="957330417-09012009"><font
color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"> </font></span></div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">></font> </span>version of NN is adopted by
the new US administration. <span class="957330417-09012009"><font
color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"> </font></span></div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">></font> </span>This in my view is the point
in NN debate and advocacy that <span class="957330417-09012009"><font
color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"> </font></span></div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">></font> </span>requires urgent attention. <span
class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"> </font></span></div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">I am repeatedly surprised at how you dismiss the
relevance of nondiscrimination and universal access to content and
applications, which is the _only_ thing important about NN, and elevate
the economic equality argument (no one should be able to pay more for
better service), which is unimportant to ordinary people and ultimately
is impossible to achieve. </font></span></div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">You say that the content and application
discrimination issues "are easy to achieve" and "dont matter much." Let
me give you a very simple example of why you are mistaken: VoIP.</font></span></div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">In many developing countries, and in quite a few
developing countries, the telco has monopoly power and can use it to
prevent Internet users from using voice over IP as a substitute for
their overpriced telephone service. Imagine then two mobile phone
providers. One is NN compliant - you can use VoIP as a substitute for
traditional mobile voice service. The other is not, it forces you to
use _their_ service and accordingly charges high prices for regular,
and especially international and roaming service. We are talking
dollars per minute rather than pennies per minute. The amount of
surplus profit or revenue generated by the second mobile ISP is,
cumulatively, enormous, billions of dollars across the globe. It
affects the affordability of service, and the consumers ability to
choose qualities, modes and applications that they want. It affects the
ability of new companies to enter the market, with all that that
implies for innovation and competition.</font></span></div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">I have made a simple case for large benefits
caused by the correct conception of NN. Your turn. Please tell me, how
does the ordinary user benefit from an egalitarian ideologue telling
them and everyone else that if they want to pay more for a higher speed
or better service they can't do it, even if it is offered on a
nondiscriminatory basis? Tell us all how leveling down the market to
the lowest common denominator enhances the public good. </font></span></div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">Take the same logic to content discrimination.
You blithely dismiss the idea of ISPs or governments being able to say,
"we don't like this web site or that service, we are just going to
block it." Doesn't matter? Wow. That need for liberty of choice and
openness is fundamental to the value the internet delivers. By
comparison, the equality of price and service you propose is
meaningless. Who cares whether i get the same price and service as
everyone else, when the content and applications delivered are
censorsed and strangled and suppressed? </font></span></div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"></span> </div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">Do you argue that no one should be able to buy
DSL service because there are people who have dial up and can't afford
DSL? sounds to me like that's the basis of your argument. absurd. this
is not an NN argument it's an economic egalitarian argument. NN isn;t
about that. </font></span></div>
<div><span class="957330417-09012009"></span> </div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>