<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>RE: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I was going to object on McTim's grounds - ie we shouldn;t be taking word/phrase definitions from Google.<BR>
<BR>
But then I remembered 'universal service' was invented by AT&T as a marketing slogan about 100 years ago.<BR>
<BR>
So I guess it's Google's turn.<BR>
<BR>
Lee<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: McTim [<A HREF="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Wed 1/14/2009 11:53 AM<BR>
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality<BR>
<BR>
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki@ras.eu.org> wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> Le 14 janv. 09 à 14:08, McTim a écrit :<BR>
><BR>
>> Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work going<BR>
>> forward:<BR>
>><BR>
>> "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in<BR>
>> control of what content they view and what applications they use on<BR>
>> the Internet."<BR>
><BR>
> I'm wondering why would we even bother stating such an obvious "definition",<BR>
<BR>
It seemed to be a starting point of defining an issue.. a point that<BR>
we can all agree on.<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
>> This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and what is<BR>
>> not), as Google does here:<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>> <A HREF="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html">http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html</A><BR>
><BR>
> One might agree or disagree with the behavior classification as defined by<BR>
> Google (which ones are "okay" and which "not okay") and with the<BR>
> completeness of the identified options. However, the identified behaviors<BR>
> are good starting points for discussion, and I don't see why this would<BR>
> constitute a "can of worms".<BR>
<BR>
Well, once we start identifying behaviors, where do we stop? Do we<BR>
describe every single case of potential traffic discrimination?<BR>
<BR>
Delimiting what's ok and what's not is something we will likely NOT<BR>
get consensus on.<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> Even without entering this - minimal - specification level, the whole<BR>
> definition offered by Google says at least a bit more than the sentence you<BR>
> excerpted:<BR>
<BR>
it does:<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in<BR>
> control of what content they view and what applications they use on the<BR>
> Internet.<BR>
<BR>
but the below is background and their stance, which I purposefully<BR>
excluded (I didn't want to be put in the situation where would be<BR>
accused of proposing that we accept the policy stance of the webs<BR>
wealthiest corporation on this issue ;-)<BR>
<BR>
The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle<BR>
> since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many<BR>
> companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally,<BR>
> net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet.<BR>
In our view, the<BR>
> broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to<BR>
> discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone<BR>
> companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they<BR>
> can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power<BR>
> to control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at<BR>
> stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what<BR>
> content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally<BR>
> alter the openness of the Internet."<BR>
><BR>
> Note that, consistent with its definition above, Google identifies as "okay<BR>
> behavior" two of those we already agreed on:<BR>
> - Employing certain upgrades, such as the use of local caching or private<BR>
> network backbone links;<BR>
> - Charging consumers extra to receive higher speed or performance capacity<BR>
> broadband service.<BR>
><BR>
> So, do you disagree with any sentence in the above Google definition?<BR>
<BR>
Well, In a global context, I'd have to disagree that "net neutrality<BR>
is about equal access to the Internet." What they seem to mean is<BR>
that everyone who already has access to the Internet should have equal<BR>
access.<BR>
<BR>
Which<BR>
> can of "worms" do you identify from its classification of okay/not okay<BR>
> behavior?<BR>
<BR>
Well their list is mostly about "their" issue. They don't address the<BR>
responsibilities of governments, or users for that matter. With<BR>
rights come responsibilities, everyone in this debate has both, often<BR>
competing.<BR>
<BR>
Ralf has already identified some potential in earlier mails, here are<BR>
some more (as many as I can type in 60 seconds):<BR>
<BR>
port blocking<BR>
cutting off "bandwidth hogs"<BR>
not allowing servers to be run on individual connections (what kinds<BR>
of equipment that may be attached)<BR>
what is allowed re: network management/data discrimination<BR>
censorship (not only by ISps but by governments)<BR>
blocking Skype/Vonage, etc<BR>
pricing models in an era of growing bandwidth consumption<BR>
<BR>
now my fingers are tired, and there are many dozens or hundreds more.<BR>
Are we going to enumerate every activity that is possible by<BR>
users/CS/PS and governments and than try to reach a consensus about<BR>
whether or not each is a NN violation? I would hope not. Let's stick<BR>
to high level principles in our statement.<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
<BR>
McTim<BR>
<A HREF="http://stateoftheinternetin.ug">http://stateoftheinternetin.ug</A><BR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
<BR>
For all list information and functions, see:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>