<!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>Hi,<BR>
<BR>
Curious timing for a regulatory action to be taken on a Sunday; perhaps that was because main man (ex-) FCC Chair Kevin Martin was but a small footnote in history by Tuesday afternoon. <BR>
<BR>
I am cross-posting from David Farber's IP list info on 2 forthcoming articles (in ACM) below for IGCers info, on net neutrality:<BR>
<BR>
A copy of just the point/counterpoint article on Net Neutrality is in<BR>
the directory<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://idisk.mac.com/dfarber-Public">http://idisk.mac.com/dfarber-Public</A><BR>
<BR>
Lee<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: kabani.asif@gmail.com on behalf of Kabani<BR>
Sent: Sat 1/24/2009 1:57 PM<BR>
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; Parminder<BR>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality<BR>
<BR>
Thank you for the updates, keep us posted.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
With Best regards<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Sincerely Yours<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Asif Kabani<BR>
<BR>
2009/1/24 Parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>:<BR>
> Dear All<BR>
><BR>
> See a new item about Comcast's Phone/ Internet practises, given below<BR>
> (<BR>
> <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/20/technology/AP-FCC-Comcast.html?partner=rss&emc=rss">http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/20/technology/AP-FCC-Comcast.html?partner=rss&emc=rss</A><BR>
> )<BR>
><BR>
> to quote "Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed over<BR>
> a separate network instead of the public Internet and won't be affected by<BR>
> its new network management practices."<BR>
><BR>
> This has great relevance to some issues which were raised in this discussion<BR>
> a few days back. Excuse me to quote from my email to Avri<BR>
><BR>
> "a 'content provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms<BR>
> should not be able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic on<BR>
> the basis of higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a<BR>
> public Internet. On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for<BR>
> private uses, and carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special, and<BR>
> more privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services, subject to a<BR>
> different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding private IP based<BR>
> services. But just don't name them Internet, this is the 'global public'<BR>
> claim on the Internet - that we all know in a particular way, and cherish."<BR>
><BR>
> Interesting, the quoted news item further says that such managed IP based<BR>
> services should have a different regulatory regime.<BR>
><BR>
>>The FCC said that if Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband<BR>
>> network, the phone service could be classified as a telecommunications<BR>
>> service subject to >regulation and intercarrier fees that phone companies<BR>
>> currently pay.<BR>
><BR>
> Extending the above argument it is possible to have<BR>
><BR>
> (1) a (public) Internet, based on a conception of network neutrality (NN)<BR>
> that is guided by democratic media principles - this means absolutely no<BR>
> content discrimination - ie no fast lanes for different content, no tiered<BR>
> Internet etc<BR>
><BR>
> (2) Seperate IP based networks that can carry QoS sensitive commercial<BR>
> applications, that can (an open issue ?) be priced in an open market on a<BR>
> non-exclusionary basis. These networks should be subject to anti-trust based<BR>
> NN principles, which will be especially stringent because telecom is a<BR>
> oligopolistic business. These networks may also be required to keep a<BR>
> tier/channel free to application providers to use, which is paid for only by<BR>
> consumers on bandwidth cost basis.<BR>
><BR>
> The above is a bare sketch of a possible new framework to look at the NN<BR>
> issue that comes to my mind. There are of course many issues and<BR>
> complications here that will need to be further worked on in this respect.<BR>
><BR>
> Parminder<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> FCC Probes Comcast's Phone Practices<BR>
><BR>
> PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Comcast Corp., the nation's biggest cable TV operator,<BR>
> is being investigated by the Federal Communications Commission over concerns<BR>
> that it is giving preferential treatment to its phone service at the expense<BR>
> of similar services from competitors.<BR>
><BR>
> In a letter to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked Comcast to justify this<BR>
> ''disparate treatment.''<BR>
><BR>
> Philadelphia-based Comcast said it is reviewing the FCC's letter. It has<BR>
> until Jan. 30 to respond.<BR>
><BR>
> Comcast last year changed the way it handles Internet traffic after the FCC<BR>
> cracked down on its practice of delaying peer-to-peer file sharing, an issue<BR>
> that outraged supporters of ''network neutrality,'' which is the idea that<BR>
> Internet service providers should not give certain types of online data<BR>
> better treatment than others. Now, Comcast is slowing down traffic for heavy<BR>
> users if there is Internet congestion in their area, regardless of what type<BR>
> of data they are consuming.<BR>
><BR>
> Comcast indicated in a regulatory filing that an Internet phone call placed<BR>
> when the network is congested could sound ''choppy.'' But the FCC noted that<BR>
> Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed over a separate<BR>
> network instead of the public Internet and won't be affected by its new<BR>
> network management practices.<BR>
><BR>
> The FCC said that if Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband network,<BR>
> the phone service could be classified as a telecommunications service<BR>
> subject to regulation and intercarrier fees that phone companies currently<BR>
> pay.<BR>
><BR>
> Ben Scott, policy director of consumer advocacy group Free Press, said his<BR>
> group is pleased that the FCC's past sanction on Comcast over its network<BR>
> management practices wasn't a ''one-and-done action.''<BR>
><BR>
> Comcast must submit a response by Jan. 30.<BR>
><BR>
> Shares of Comcast fell $1.31, or 8.6 percent, to close at $14.02.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Parminder wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>>>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<BR>
> mention here that as used by me in the above formulation a 'content<BR>
> provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms should not be<BR>
> able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic on the basis of<BR>
> higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a public Internet.<BR>
> On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for private uses, and<BR>
> carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special, and more<BR>
> privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services, subject to a<BR>
> different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding private IP based<BR>
> services. But just don't name them Internet, this is the 'global public'<BR>
> 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<BR>
> "the next generation of public media'. Such a new public media can hardly be<BR>
> fostered on an Internet with pay-to-be-first-to-reach-the-audience models.<BR>
> It requires a fully open and public Internet as described above, with an<BR>
> 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<BR>
> useful to note that Milton uses the term 'public internet' in his paper on<BR>
> 'network neutrality', though he came down heavily on my using even the<BR>
> relatively lighter term 'publicness' (of the Internet) which is deliberately<BR>
> more nuanced, and should therefore have been more acceptable.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Avri Doria wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> On 13 Jan 2009, at 01:48, Parminder wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>><BR>
>> Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers<BR>
>> 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>
><BR>
> I have gotten a little confused in this discussion. So this email is as<BR>
> much to try and understand the position as to perhaps make a small point<BR>
> based on my possibl flawed understanding<BR>
><BR>
> If I read this correctly the prohibition is only against doing this to<BR>
> content providers.<BR>
><BR>
> Not included is doing this to other service providers and no prohibition<BR>
> against doing this to consumers. (perhaps the upstream downstream<BR>
> distinction someone was making though I do not think it maps perfectly).<BR>
> I.e. Access providers can provide different service levels for those who are<BR>
> happy with best effort for their email and occasional surfing and for those<BR>
> who require high bandwidth with ultra low latency for playing massive online<BR>
> distributed games.<BR>
><BR>
> Is that correct?<BR>
><BR>
> I think that is unavoidable. One complexity with that is if the premium<BR>
> service they provide starve the best effort pipes. I am not sure how that<BR>
> fits into the puzzle.<BR>
><BR>
> Also I wonder how this is handled when a content provider who provides a<BR>
> small amount of content in a periodic newsletter and only uses a trickle of<BR>
> uploading bandwidth while a providers of on demand videos are using large<BR>
> amounts of latency sensitive bandwidth. Should they be given the same<BR>
> access and be charged the same?<BR>
><BR>
> It seems to me that there needs to be a line between differentiating because<BR>
> of the nature of content or the business relationship with a content<BR>
> provider (NN) and differentiating based on amount and type of bandwidth used<BR>
> (something else).<BR>
><BR>
> And while one can reasonably be an activist on content NN, and/or an<BR>
> activist for 'sufficient' best-effort-access for all at an affordable price<BR>
> (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>
> 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>
><BR>
><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>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk<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>