<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Karl,<br>
<br>
> But finally, this whole thread started when someone said that the
phrase "public internet" was the whole internet. <br>
<br>
This goes back to definitions, that we started to attempt.<br>
<br>
One can call any traffic carried over IP as Internet, and to me you
seem to think so. (Please correct me if I am wrong).<br>
<br>
Verizon- Google uses the term non-Internet for IP traffic which is
carried through entirely private agreements, and public Internet for IP
traffic which is subject to certain levels/ kinds of universal access,
transmission etc - which we may call as bound by a 'public contract',
or by some degree of publicness. <br>
<br>
I agree with this separation of meanings between non-Internet and the
Internet as a public space/ entity. However, as argued earlier, degrees
or manners of publicness characterizing a public space/ entity is
different in different contexts - like public parks, public roads,
public schools, public utility, public universities etc. Not all - for
instance, in many cases public utilities - are owned or operated by a
public agency. Such different
uses of the term 'public' does not take away its meaning. <br>
<br>
There can be private enclaves within a public space, or the latter can
be
connecting private spaces. For instance, a private conversation in a
public park and a road connecting houses respectively. In the case of
the Internet, similarly, the publicness of the Internet does not
overrule the privateness of an email carried by it, and also Internet
of course does connect private networks, including those using IP. <br>
<br>
In this context, like those who wrote the Verizon-Google agreement,
I am completely able to understand the meaning of Internet as a 'public
Internet'.<br>
<br>
However, the agreement makes distinction between the levels of (or
nature of) publicness of the wired Internet and wireless and I do not
agree with this distinction.<br>
<br>
You yourself speak of, what i see as, a public Internet in your email.
<br>
<br>
>I suggest that absent some sort of expropriation that the best you
could possibly achieve is some sort of >non-discriminatory
common-carriage regime to defined classes of service but that different
classes of service would >come at different prices.
<br>
<br>
Such a common carriage network has traditionally been called as a
public network as in '<span style="visibility: visible;" id="main"><span
style="visibility: visible;" id="search"><em>public switched telephone
network', even when operated by private operators. </em></span></span><br>
<br>
The real problem is with a narrow way of looking at the meaning of
public, which simply does not hold in the present discussion, and is
IMHO only succeeding in making the discussion on public interest
regulation
of the Internet even more confusing . <br>
<br>
Quoting from one of your earlier emails<br>
<br>
>However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term
"public internet" to describe only that portion of the net >that is
owned or operated by a public entity.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tuesday 17 August 2010 01:51 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com" type="cite">On
08/16/2010 08:21 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 8/16/10, Karl
Auerbach<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:karl@cavebear.com"><karl@cavebear.com></a>
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Given that, at least in the USA, well over
90% of the net, and perhaps <br>
closer to 99%, is owned by private entities, a policy that defines net <br>
neutrality on a non-privately owned/operated "public internet" would be
<br>
a policy of very limited scope. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Your focus on ownership to the exclusion of other factors is <br>
misplaced. IN the last few days, I attended a "county fair" held on <br>
private land ... <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am intrigued by your attempt to equate use of private land by
invitation or contract with the conveyance of packets over a privately
owned and operated wire and through privately owned and operated
routers. <br>
<br>
I don't find it a compelling analogy. <br>
<br>
Let's begin with the ultimate private right, the right to refuse. <br>
<br>
Are you saying that a provider *must* carry your packets? That the
carrier must remain in existence, even to its bankruptcy to convey your
packets? That would be absurd. And, if it were required, it would
mean the speedy end of the internet. <br>
<br>
Or are you saying that a provider must give non-paying non-customers
the same access to its facilities as paying customers? That would seem
to be a quick road to provider insolvency. <br>
<br>
I have routine blocks against certain people reading my privately
constructed, privately operated, and privately hosted websites. And I
have similar blocks against certain sources of undesired email. If I
blocked you you are suggesting that somehow I would be violating
denying your rights on the internet. Needless to say, absent some
special relationship or contract, neither I nor anyone else has any
such duty to you. <br>
<br>
You seem to feel that just because I may have a website or other
service up on the net that you have unfettered rights to access it.
That is not true. I can limit or even revoke your access at any time
without notice. So can every other operators, except perhaps certain
governmental ("public") operators. Moreover, if you persist and pound
on my servers to excess or try to penetrate the security barriers then
you could be find that you've stepped into somewhat deep waters. <br>
<br>
But that's websites. Let's get back to the carriage of packets over
the net: <br>
<br>
ISP's tend to have peering and transit contracts with one another to
which you have neither privity nor third party beneficiary rights with
regard to those agreements. <br>
<br>
At best you have an agreement with your local first hop provider/ISP,
nothing more. <br>
<br>
You can not demand that third party providers carry packets to and from
your ISP. Even less do you have standing to demand that those third
party providers give your packets equal or premier treatment. <br>
<br>
I get the sense that you are also attempting to equate the carriage of
IP packets over privately owned links and routers in the net as if
those were some sort of public place, along the lines of the cases in
which private shopping malls were equated to public streets for
purposes of things like gathering signatures on petitions. <br>
<br>
If that's what you are attempting, I find the analogy flat. A provider
that doesn't carry your packets with equity or even at all, is not
stopping you from publishing your material. There are almost as many
web hosting providers as there are Starbucks coffee stores - so if one
can't publish your stuff there's always a willing and able provider
coming around on the merry-go-round. Perhaps if there were some sort
of collusion among all the providers there might possibly be something
actionable. <br>
<br>
But finally, this whole thread started when someone said that the
phrase "public internet" was the whole internet. You can pound your
keyboard against the cold iron of the perception of those who are
spending the money that they own and thus control the assets they paid
for. <br>
<br>
I suggest that absent some sort of expropriation that the best you
could possibly achieve is some sort of non-discriminatory
common-carriage regime to defined classes of service but that different
classes of service would come at different prices. <br>
<br>
That regime is not going to arise out of some local "common law"
principle (particularly as most of the world isn't based on English
"common law" at all). It might arise at a national level via national
legislation, but as we well know the net is international and
supranational and that national law in that context is nothing more
than "mere domestic law". <br>
<br>
--karl-- <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>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>