<div>Page 7 of this link is quite interesting:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/FactsFigures2010.pdf">https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/FactsFigures2010.pdf</a><br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:35 AM, JFC Morfin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="im">At 11:10 19/03/2011, Roland Perry wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">If you want to watch a TV show at the same resolution as broadcast (especially on a wide-screen TV) then it does require 1 Megabit or more. That's quite an achievement, actually, because they use 4+ megabits for standard broadcast quality.<br>
</blockquote><br></div>And your eye has 40 slow channels to your brain. The margin left to better technology is huge. Read my definition back: it does call for innovation. Neutrality is first for everyone to have the best avaialble technology. RFC 3869 says (end of page 2): "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet."<br>
<br>The network neutrality is in trouble. But the solution is not in managing what commercial funding led to, but in demanding public funding to at last respond to the IAB. And in heping grassoroots research. Europe decided not to do so at the WSIS, and to drop the hopes of developping countries in Tunis, with Martin Boyle representing us and playing the US card. We must reform that. To reform that is easy enough: to acknowledge the three areas involved (operance, governance, adminance) and to disqualify the absentees as stakeholders. For example, the non-participation of the IETF to the WSIS is proprely scandalous: this is the real source of the netneutrality issue. But Brian Carpenter, the Chair at the time, wrote me the less IETF is involved, the better.<br>
<br>We have a chance now, which is to use the current architectural evolution, and the IUse tiny community emergence, to change this. But it will take time and apostoles.<br><br>Best<br><font color="#888888">jfc</font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><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, 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></div></div></blockquote></div><br>