<br>Net neutrality burns hot on the EU telecoms agenda at <<a href="http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=232&Itemid=9">http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=232&Itemid=9</a>><br>
<br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Lee W McKnight <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lmcknigh@syr.edu">lmcknigh@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<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" target="_blank">http://idisk.mac.com/dfarber-Public</a><br><font color="#888888">
<br>
Lee</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:kabani.asif@gmail.com" target="_blank">kabani.asif@gmail.com</a> on behalf of Kabani<br>
Sent: Sat 1/24/2009 1:57 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; 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 <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>:<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" target="_blank">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>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
><br>
> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
><br>
> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Visit: <a href="http://www.kabani.co.uk" target="_blank">www.kabani.co.uk</a><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></font>
</p>
</div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>