<!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 bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<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>
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>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
Roland Perry wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:s04LyeHqXsONFAp9@internetpolicyagency.com"
type="cite">In message
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:E09009D3-015C-44D5-9761-F897BF39CE8E@ciroap.org"><E09009D3-015C-44D5-9761-F897BF39CE8E@ciroap.org></a>, at 19:14:11 on
Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Jeremy Malcolm <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org"><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 class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
PK</pre>
</body>
</html>