<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Here is the Google Verizon announcement<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000EE"><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><a href="http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/742/JointPolicyProposalforanOpenInternet.aspx">http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/742/JointPolicyProposalforanOpenInternet.aspx</a></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><FONT COLOR="#0001FF"> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>Much will be said about this, but note that the agreement separates wireless internet as being out of scope for net neutrality (proposing different rules for tethered access).<BR>
<BR>
Lee, not only is there a problem with defining what net neutrality is, there now seems to be a parallel problem defining what the internet is!<BR>
<BR>
This wired/non wired policy divide is very problematic – a nice commercial distinction but very unusual for determining good public policy<FONT COLOR="#0001FF">.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"><B>From: </B>parminder <<a href="parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:21:23 +0530<BR>
<B>To: </B>"Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <<a href="tracyhackshaw@gmail.com">tracyhackshaw@gmail.com</a>><BR>
<B>Cc: </B><<a href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>, Ian Peter <<a href="ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>>, David Goldstein <<a href="goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au">goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au</a>>, <<a href="ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net">ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net</a>><BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles<BR>
<BR>
Tracey<BR>
<BR>
To explain what is happening I will try to build a bad case scenario towards which we may be headed. And there is no reason to suggest that we are not.<BR>
<BR>
First Facebook is free, then it would be Google then Twitter and then a couple of more big Internet businesses. They of course pay the telecom carrier for this. Meanwhile all of these big internet businesses make deals with a good number of partners. So that finally in this 'free' 'non net neutral' part of the Internet - lets call it the Internet Mall - an ordinary consumer (with sufficient purchasing power) can find most of the services he wants - travel, information, books, online shopping , you name it (till there is a commercial value to it). The services and options will be so abundant that one may not even realise - even if one did, certainly not appear to miss much - that all services that are available to him are those which come through (of course, non-transparent) partnership deals with a few Internet businesses fronts which pay for one's 'free internet'. The 'Internet Mall', being free and apparently so abundantly providing, would become the principal 'Internet' space' (if we can still call it 'Internet', and this is a very debatable question) for most, especially those with sufficient purchasing power. <BR>
<BR>
Now, it should not be difficult to see that there is almost everything wrong with this scheme, and everything will work towards existing market power capturing more market power. Consumers overall will be quite worse off, and barriers to entry for new business entrants in this 'Internet Mall' quite formidable. <BR>
<BR>
On the other hand, the really 'public Internet' (the true Internet) will be paid for. A couple of structural reasons will work to make it perhaps ever more expensive, as well as poorer in quality. One, more expensive and poorer in quality it is, less attraction it would hold for 'consumers' who could as well go to the 'free entry' high-attraction 'Internet Mall'. Secondly, as fewer activities remain on the public Internet increasingly lesser money, and lesser inclination, there would be keep it going at any level of qaulity comparable to the 'Internet Mall'. <BR>
<BR>
This shriveled-off Public Internet, if we loosely take the example of the preceding ICT revolution, that of the printing press, will be something like the 'print based public sphere based on those cheap pamphlets' that counter-cultural groups, marginal political activists or representatives of small businesses sometime push into our hands, and which we read with some amusement. It would exist as a weak counter-space to the mainstream 'Internet Mall', usable at times for some counter discourses, maybe for political activism as well, but largely ignored by the large majority in normal times. <BR>
<BR>
One can go on and on giving examples of what it could mean, but let me just give one. If you search for 'Avian flu', you still get Wikipedia and WHO as the first two sites from which you can get information. However, on the free 'Internet Mall' unless Wikipedia and WHO pay up enough, which they may not be able to as much Pfizer for instance will, the sources of information that you will be directed to will be drug companies, or possibly corporate social responsiblity fronts set up by them which subtly filter information towards serving the companies' interests. <BR>
<BR>
Not a great world we may be moving towards. <BR>
<BR>
Like with Ian, it bothers me why we are not as active as we should be in picking up this issue.<BR>
<BR>
Parminder <BR>
<BR>
On Monday 09 August 2010 05:37 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those which violate the NN principle.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Is <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130">http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130</a>, for example, (available in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other developing countries) and example of a violation of NN?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and clear up some of the grey about the issue in my mind.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Thanks,<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Tracy<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter <<a href="ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>David,<BR>
<BR>
The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non<BR>
traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and<BR>
includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social<BR>
networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds -<BR>
we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new<BR>
search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To<BR>
me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network<BR>
neutrality. .<BR>
<BR>
I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product<BR>
buyndling.<BR>
<BR>
Ian<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> From: David Goldstein <<a href="goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au">goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au</a>><BR>
> Reply-To: <<a href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>, David Goldstein<BR>
<BR>
> <<a href="goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au">goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au</a>><BR>
<BR>
> Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT)<BR>
> To: <<a href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>, Ian Peter <<a href="ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>>, parminder<BR>
<BR>
> <<a href="parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>, <<a href="ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net">ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net</a>><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles<BR>
><BR>
> I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines<BR>
> for<BR>
> giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the<BR>
> benefits<BR>
> Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services.<BR>
><BR>
> There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never<BR>
> addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue?<BR>
><BR>
> Regards,<BR>
> David<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> ----- Original Message ----<BR>
> From: Ian Peter <<a href="ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>><BR>
> To: <a href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; parminder <<a href="parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>;<BR>
> <a href="ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net">ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net</a><BR>
> Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM<BR>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles<BR>
><BR>
> Hi Parminder,<BR>
><BR>
> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common<BR>
> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free<BR>
> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or<BR>
> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to<BR>
> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free<BR>
> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot<BR>
> more attention.<BR>
><BR>
> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and<BR>
> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces)<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> I agree - we should discuss.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Ian Peter<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>> From: parminder <<a href="parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><BR>
>> Reply-To: <<a href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>, parminder <<a href="parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><BR>
>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530<BR>
>> To: <<a href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>, <<a href="ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net">ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net</a>><BR>
>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles<BR>
>><BR>
>> Hi All<BR>
>><BR>
>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free<BR>
>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I<BR>
>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about<BR>
>> something similar in Russia.<BR>
>><BR>
>> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN).<BR>
>><BR>
>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like<BR>
>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and<BR>
>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as<BR>
>> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes.<BR>
>><BR>
>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of<BR>
>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start<BR>
>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities,<BR>
>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies.<BR>
>><BR>
>> Parminder<BR>
>><BR>
>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their></a>><BR>
-<BR>
>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based<BR>
>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet.<BR>
>><BR>
>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to<BR>
>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party<BR>
>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely<BR>
>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned,<BR>
>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and<BR>
>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder<BR>
>> upon.<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>> ____________________________________________________________<BR>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
>> <a href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><BR>
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>
>> <a href="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">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><BR>
>><BR>
>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> ____________________________________________________________<BR>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
> <a href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><BR>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>
> <a href="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">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><BR>
><BR>
> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> ____________________________________________________________<BR>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
> <a href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><BR>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>
> <a href="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">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><BR>
><BR>
> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
<a href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><BR>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>
<a href="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">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><BR>
<BR>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>