<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Jeremy, very good summary of the main issues under the
three themes.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">While I agree with your approach that makes A2K a
transversal issue, I believe it is very important that we go beyond words and
really mainstream it on the debates.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">I have just returned from the A2K Global Academy in Cape
Town and one of the topics discussed, particularly in the presentation delivered
by Laura De Nardis, was the interplay between infrastructure issues (such as
peering agreements, interconnection costs and network neutrality) and A2K. The
theme is also important if we consider that one of the main transboder issues
under debate is IP enforcement and ISP liability. <br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">In sum, the regimes of “governance of knowledge” and
of Internet governance are very much interconnected. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
It is regrettable to notice that the space that A2K has had in IGF agenda has continuously
diminished over the years. Last year A2K was placed under "Security,
openness and privacy" main session, which already embodies a lot of
controversial and important topics. As predicted, A2K had no space for
discussion. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Marilia</p>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:13 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333"><div class="im"> <font face="sans-serif">"</font>If your network delivers content mainly to mobile users, it makes sense to try to gather some of the necessary extra revenue at the inbound edge (and leave the publisher to offset that by the income generation in his own business plan), rather than handing out an indefinite "free lunch". "<br>
<br></div> Pay-for-priority distorts the very nature of the Internet, and over time the Internet will just not look the same. (Charging different fees for download volumes is a very different thing. ) It changes the level playing field nature of this new and revolutionary communication paradigm of the Internet. It thus impacts freedom of expression, economic competitiveness for new players, and egalitarian possibilities that Internet offer. A simple cost-profit and economic feasibility framework is not the best way to understand the implications of the NN issue, as it is not for media and other constructions of the public sphere, and as it not for many other social and cultural issues. Happy to discuss this issue further - quite close to my heart. <br>
<font color="#888888"> <br> parminder <br></font><div class="im"> <br> Roland Perry wrote: <blockquote type="cite">In message <a href="mailto:E09009D3-015C-44D5-9761-F897BF39CE8E@ciroap.org" target="_blank"><E09009D3-015C-44D5-9761-F897BF39CE8E@ciroap.org></a>, at 19:14:11 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm <a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org" target="_blank"><jeremy@ciroap.org></a> writes <br>
<br> <blockquote type="cite">Should different rules apply for mobile and wired Internet networks? If so, how can communications rights and Access to Knowledge be preserved for those users, in order to avoid an ongoing information divide <br>
</blockquote> <br> I recall debates (in the UK) about fifteen years ago where the theme was wanting "freephone" or "800" access to ISP modem banks on the grounds that paying around five dollars[1] an hour for a regular phone call was some kind of infringement of a right to free expression. <br>
<br> No-one was able to explain how the dial-up telephone infrastructure which is required to support [what eventually became at some times of day the biggest user of the telephone network] was to be paid for. <br> <br>
Eventually a compromise of paying at "local call" cost of perhaps 2 cents a minute, despite the calls often being long distance, was arrived at. Then ten years ago cable and ADSL happened, and people forgot the charging aspects of dial-up Internet, along with forgetting the restricted bandwidth. <br>
<br> Now history is repeating itself with 3G data (very few people even expected to use 2/2.5G data for more than email). Carriers who over-generously offered "unlimited" plans of perhaps one to three Gigabytes a month for thirty dollars (which includes handset rental and voice calls) find their networks choked by people downloading streaming video, and try to invoke caps [limits] typically in the region of half a Gigabyte a month. Which would be several year's worth of email, even for a prolific user such as myself. <br>
<br> For those using 3G 'dongles' rather than phones, a cost of around fifteen dollars per Gigabyte is typical (there are no "unlimited" plans that I'm aware of). But that's a lot of money to watch a movie (one Gigabyte is a quarter of a DVD), when it's been estimated that mainstream ADSL costs the ISPs about 20 cents per hour for TV-quality movies. <br>
<br> So this is not about Network Neutrality, but "Local Loop neutrality", where end users are in denial about the varying costs of telecoms provision *of that last mile*, be it by GSM, ADSL or whatever. The previous thousand miles will cost much the same irrespective of the technology of the local loop. <br>
<br> If your network delivers content mainly to mobile users, it makes sense to try to gather some of the necessary extra revenue at the inbound edge (and leave the publisher to offset that by the income generation in his own business plan), rather than handing out an indefinite "free lunch". <br>
<br> Of course, if users are happy to express their freedom in ways other than downloading movies all day, there isn't a problem. <br> <br> [1] I use USA money as it's more recognisable. <br> </blockquote>
<br> <pre cols="72">-- </pre> </div></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, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other 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>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade<br>FGV Direito Rio<br><br>Center for Technology and Society<br>Getulio Vargas Foundation<br>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil<br>