<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I will not nitpick arguments, but MMs position is something
Libertarian and/or New Institutionalist (seems not to me like that
of Galbraith or Richard Ely or Thorstein Veblen, but I may be
wrong). On this basis, the argument put forth by MM are not
convincing, aside from my libertarian critique or New Institutional
critique, which relates to assuming that contracts signed between
two consenting parties is just that, a bilateral arrangement made
under conditions of 'freedom' or liberty. The presumption here is
that there are no externalities generated by such a contract. There
can be many externalities to such arrangements (to pre-empt I am not
against the private sector when it delivers the 'goods'). There are
external effects, such as the net neutrality position put forward
below, i.e. the arrangement generates an externality. In this case
it simply happens to relate to Net Neutrality, but externalities can
be of many forms, for example as Curran posted the action taken
against a website that was found to be legal in Spain but not in the
US, justifying take down. <br>
<br>
Cognisant of the fact that there are positive and negative
externalities, and that circumstances are novel, some Darwinian
selection is needed (increase fecundity), and so some leeway is
needed. However I simply cannot start off from the presumption that
bilateral arrangements are liberty or freedom (it is a particular
type of freedom with a particular kind of voluntrism, everyone is
free to sleep under bridges, as Louis put it) and interference with
it is presumptively bad. We can see what this light touch freedom
has done to Americans in finance - the conservative system was
broken down, innovation in finance occurred because of free
contracts in the name of efficiency, consequently the US is back to
home ownership levels pre-1995. If this can happen in finance, it
can happen in any sector. Therefore, from just one vantage, that of
externalities much more will need to be adduced to be convincing on
this point.<br>
<br>
And since it also boils down to law in the end. One cannot
understand the law except with the exception - the totality - or Das
Ganz. So from this vantage the private only has meaning if we
articulate what we mean by public. One without the other is like,
one hand clapping...<br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/04/29 09:03 PM, Milton L
Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.95pt;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I can't say
if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile
Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis
here in Malaysia) that give you free or cheaper access to
Facebook than to other social networking websites. <span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">OK,
so this is at least a substantive issue, but this is a
classic nondiscrimination issue that is typically debated
in the context of network neutrality. It has absolutely
nothing to do with the "public goods" character of the
internet or with "the commons." You do not get any
traction on that debate by slinging those words around. If
you want to make a net neutrality statement, make a net
neutrality statement, at least people will know what you
are talking about.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Also,
devices such as phones and game consoles typically allow a
gatekeeper to approve what apps you can use to access the
Internet. For example I have an iPhone, and I want to use a
Bitcoin client on it - but I can't, because Apple decided I
can't; and I want to install a Bittorrent app on my PS3, but
I can't, because Sony decided I can't. I presume that you
have read Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", which
although becoming dated now gives many other examples.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Again,
this is a matter of the benefits or costs of the platform
operator having the authority to internalize the
externalities of the internet by making decisions about
which apps/services can be excluded and which cannot.
There are two sides to that debate. The platform operators
argue that they should have editorial discretion; some
consumer groups actually _<i>want</i>_ platform operators
to make those decisions; many economists and regulators
feel that competition among platform operators is enough
to keep abuses in check. There are various examples of
where public pressure has ended some arbitrary incidents
of discrimination. My purpose here is not to take either
of those sides, it is to point out that that debate has
little to do with the "public goods" character of the
internet. Nor do I see what we contribute to that debate
with a vague invocation of "the commons."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">An
app platform operated as a "public good" or "commons"
would mean what, exactly? That it is run by the
government/public sector? Or that there was no management
at all, anyone could put anything on it, including
malware, phishing exploits, advertising driven stuff, and
no one would have any right to remove it, even if
thousands of consumers complain about it? But if there is
selection, then who decides what is selected and under
what criteria? The government? Think that'll be better?
Which government?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In
sum, the policy prescription implied by such
characterization is not clear. This is still a meaningless
statement.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Also,
we are still lacking evidence that this is a growing
problem. 6 years ago, when I first started studying mobile
network neutrality, mobile walled gardens were the NORM.
Most mobile operators confined you to a restricted set of
special services they had deals with. The advent of the
iPhone completed eliminated that model. The mobile
internet is far more open now than it was then. Where is
the evidence of a "growing trend?"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>