<!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">>></font>Telecoms are
absolutely barred from charging content providers for
<br>
> any special treatment of their content<br>
<br>
>I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.<br>
<br>
Avri,<br>
<br>
Although your analysis is richer than just based on this 'confusion' I
may mention here that as used by me in the above formulation a 'content
provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms should not
be able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic on the
basis of higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a
public Internet. On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for
private uses, and carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special,
and more privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services,
subject to a different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding
private IP based services. But just don't name them Internet, this is
the 'global public' claim on the Internet - that we all know in a
particular way, and cherish.<br>
<br>
Obama's technology agenda speaks of 'renewing Public Media' and 'To
foster "the next generation of public media'. Such a new public media
can hardly be fostered on an Internet with
pay-to-be-first-to-reach-the-audience models. It requires a fully open
and public Internet as described above, with an equal treatment of all
content and traffic on it. <br>
<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
PS: Before anyone jumps again on the mention of 'public Internet' it
may be useful to note that Milton uses the term 'public internet' in
his paper on 'network neutrality', though he came down heavily on my
using even the relatively lighter term 'publicness' (of the Internet)
which is deliberately more nuanced, and should therefore have been more
acceptable. <br>
<br>
<br>
Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:5224D1EA-4D19-4481-92F4-8B28D55E97FA@acm.org"
type="cite"><br>
On 13 Jan 2009, at 01:48, Parminder wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">>
<br>
> Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content
providers for
<br>
> any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a
tiered
<br>
> Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content
as per
<br>
> different charges.
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
</blockquote>
I have gotten a little confused in this discussion. So this email is
as much to try and understand the position as to perhaps make a small
point based on my possibl flawed understanding
<br>
<br>
If I read this correctly the prohibition is only against doing this to
content providers.
<br>
<br>
Not included is doing this to other service providers and no
prohibition against doing this to consumers. (perhaps the upstream
downstream distinction someone was making though I do not think it maps
perfectly). I.e. Access providers can provide different service levels
for those who are happy with best effort for their email and occasional
surfing and for those who require high bandwidth with ultra low latency
for playing massive online distributed games.
<br>
<br>
Is that correct?
<br>
<br>
I think that is unavoidable. One complexity with that is if the
premium service they provide starve the best effort pipes. I am not
sure how that fits into the puzzle.
<br>
<br>
Also I wonder how this is handled when a content provider who provides
a small amount of content in a periodic newsletter and only uses a
trickle of uploading bandwidth while a providers of on demand videos
are using large amounts of latency sensitive bandwidth. Should they
be given the same access and be charged the same?
<br>
<br>
It seems to me that there needs to be a line between differentiating
because of the nature of content or the business relationship with a
content provider (NN) and differentiating based on amount and type of
bandwidth used (something else).
<br>
<br>
And while one can reasonably be an activist on content NN, and/or an
activist for 'sufficient' best-effort-access for all at an affordable
price (or even free), they are not the same struggles.
<br>
<br>
<br>
a.
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>