<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 07 October 2015 11:58 PM,
Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DM2PR07MB589B6C979DEF3789D6B20ECAC360@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{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"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The
problem and differences stem from a higher level. Let me
see if I can explain. You, and evidently the author of
this paper, sees Internet merely in terms of a market,
competition and consumer viewpoint - as is applicable to
most economic good and services that we consume.</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;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">MM:
I reject the distinction. Unless you believe in magic,
every good or service of every type that exists in society
exists in an economic context, and thus must have a
budget, must consume labor and capital resources as
inputs, must be sustained in some way economically. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Milton, You are arguing what you want to argue and not against
anything I said - normally called the strawman strategy... Labouring
to tell me that Internet services takes resources to make them
available is something quite besides the point . Of course they do.
See above, I *did not* say that Internet is not an issue of market,
competition and consumers, but that it is not *merely* that, and in
the view of most people it is something much more - and I gave the
example of some areas closely allied to the Internet like media,
education and knowledge, which are typically looked at from a larger
than 'merely a market point of view'.. For that reason the Internet
as these other areas will be subject to policies and regulations
beyond those that concern markets. <br>
<br>
If you were to take a vote even just on this list, I bet more than
80 percent people will agree that the Internet is quite more than
just a market phenomenon, and should be treated as such. That is all
I am saying. <br>
<br>
Below, you have tried many irrelevant arguments, like about an
international treaty on the Internet. That was never being discussed
- but net neutrality *regulation* is being duscussed. And so,
instead of saying how "<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">most
of the European and American civil society groups have opposed
regulating the internet"</span> , why dont you just speak about
what you think is the view of most EU and US CS groups *on net
neutrality regulation*. Are you saying they are against it? Please
do let me know. Replying to this question would be sticking to what
we are actually discussing and not defensively shifting to
irrelevant issues. BTW, you can also let us know what you think of
net neutrality regulation. (Instead of telling think about an inter
gov treaty or Internet regulation in general)<br>
<br>
Meanwhile I do note your aversion to public provisioning of
education, and the of course then you'd be against such provisioning
of health services as well. People here need to know your such
positions. <br>
<br>
Answering your direct question, whether I would want any effort to
give Internet for 50 percent time interspersed with advertisement
for the rest of the 50 percent time dis-allowed through regulation;
yes, I would. In a similar way that TV broadcasters in India are
allowed no more that I think it is 12mins of ad in an hour or
broadcast. <br>
<br>
As for your contention that I do not even know what zero rating is
about, I can clearly see that you have no idea what zero rating
issue really is about in developing countries, <br>
<br>
Lastly, about your statement <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">"you
really know shit about the “communicative thinking and design that
is behind the internet</span>" I will just advice you to mind
your language...<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DM2PR07MB589B6C979DEF3789D6B20ECAC360@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">You
can remove services from certain forms of competitive
market pressures, e.g., by regulating and subsidizing
them, but that does not exempt them from basic forms of
supply and demand, or from the budget constraint (the
subsidies must come from somewhere), or from economic
choice behavior by consumers (e.g., if the regulated or
government-supplied service is bad people will find
alternatives, which may even be formally illegal). <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">This
rhetorical ploy (oh, this is a SPECIAL kind of service and
thus basic facts about demand, supply and economic
behavior suddenly don’t apply, and we can make up a whole
new set of rules) isn’t going to work. Sorry.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I, and
many others, In fact I think most, see the Internet
foremost as more of a media, as an essential communication
service and as a knowledge space (aligned to fields like
education, etc). The latter areas have always had public
interest regulation standards which were different and
much higher than for any normal market good or service.
</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;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">MM:
Again, your worldview is so defined by your ideology it
is often blinding you to basic facts. Print media in much
of the world are specifically exempted from “public
interest regulation” precisely because they are seen as
public media that must be shielded from control by the
state. Education is indeed taken over by the state in most
contemporary societies, and run as a compulsory monopoly,
although prior to the 18 and 19<sup>th</sup> century it
was not. (Your definition of “always” is rather
ahistorical.) A growing number of people in the US, by the
way, are fleeing that education monopoly and its biggest
victims are poorer areas but that is another story. The
classical post, telephone and telegraph monopoly was
institutionalized by nation-states from the 17<sup>th</sup>
century not because of public interest standards but so
the state could retain control of its territory by
controlling communications and surveillance; the “public
interest” rationalization came much, much later (early 20<sup>th</sup>
century). And that public interest regulatory system was
systematically dismantled – to everyone’s benefit – in the
80s and 90s, as information and telecom liberalization
took hold, and that is why we have a global, free
internet.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Now, we
have to first agree to what should be the basic social,
and thus political (meaning, relating to policy,
regulation, etc). conception of the Internet. And I dont
think we agree here. I know you have for decades been
advocating the Internet as a bold new frontier which
unlike earlier communications services need no special
regulation at all. The problem is that I think most civil
society people and groups, including here, do not see the
Internet like that, and connect well to its basic, media,
essential communication services, and knowledge sharing
side.
</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;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">MM:
Why don’t you speak for Parminder and not for global civil
society? If these groups are actually here (most of them
are not) they can speak for themselves. If they are not
here you probably don’t know much about what they want or
what they like. I do know that most of the European and
American civil society groups have opposed regulating the
internet and e.g., would not look kindly upon an
intergovernmental treaty asserting control of it, whether
in the name of public interest or some other claimed
standard. I also know that most NN advocates tend to view
NN as a form of retaining the freedom of the Internet
(from control by ISPs) and not as a form of open-ended
“public interest regulation” by the state. Indeed, the
claim that NN would open the door to that kind of
regulation was one of the strongest arguments against it.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">But
since the two arguments, 'how can we deny something to
those who have nothing' and 'can we deny the poor their
choices' carry huge rhetoric value, and could even be
quite persuasive if not inspected well, I must respond to
them.</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;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">MM:
These are rather simple, straightforward questions, not
rhetoric. It will be interesting to see how you avoid
answering them.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">In most
countries, media is regulated much beyond normal economic
regulation. For instance, in India, there are regulations
vis a vis clearly demarcating editorial content from
paid-for one, even proportions of time/ space between the
two kind of content, and so on...
</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;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">MM:
This is not “beyond normal economic regulation.” Compared
to the panoply of regulations the Indian license Raj
imposes on many many other businesses, it sounds typical.
So there goes your exceptionalism argument. Or put
differently, every industry is “exceptional” and people
can come up with some reason to regulate it.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Now let</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">’</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">s say,
a media house proposes that it will supply free or very
cheap media especially for and to the poor if it is
allowed to remain unbound by such regulatory 'burden'. My
direct question is: would you recommend that such a thing
be allowed, whether in the name of (argument 1), 'giving
something to those who have nothing', or (argument 2)
'allowing them to exercise their free choice' (they are
responsible adults after all)? I expect you, but if not
you most other people here, to say 'no' to any such offer.
</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;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">MM:
Let’s be more specific. I am going to offer free
“Internet” service to the entire population of the Mumbai
slums, but 50% of their time would be nothing but ads, and
the other 50% would be whatever they wanted (Presumably,
the 50/50 ratio violates current media regulations).
<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">I
would say, let it happen. I know you tend to believe that
people are stupid and they need elite civil society
leaders to tell them what is good for them, but I tend to
support letting them decide for themselves whether the
value proposition is worth it. I suspect not many people
would go for that 50/50 proposition, and those who did
would find ways to let the useless ads run by them while
they did something else. And the offerer of such a service
would have economic constraints, too: if the ads were so
burdensome no one would take the service and no
advertisers would pay them to be on it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The
problem with zero rating is that while it offers some
immediate benefits, it takes the Internet ecology towards
long term structural deformation and destruction...
</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;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">MM:
The paper I cited, while far from conclusive, at least
offers a bit of evidence regarding this assertion. You
offer nothing but assertion. Oh, and some dose of
self-righteousness. This is an empirical question. Give me
some evidence.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The
issue is of crossing that sacred line regarding the
Internet being that which at once connects us to everyone
and everything - and a zero rated service does not... </span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;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">MM:
Ah, I see you do not even know what zero-rating is. Zero
rating does not involve access restrictions. It involves
not counting particular services against a data
consumption limit. Sorry we didn’t get this definition out
of the way first.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Once we
cross this line, we lose one of the true building blocks
of a different communicative thinking and design that is
behind the Internet that we know, and accept a new kind of
a building block and design, handing it over to the
commercial interests that hate the levelling tendency of
the Internet, and want to build an alternative kind of
communicative space which</span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;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">MM:
There are many commercial, as well as noncommercial
interests who value the so-called levelling tendency of
the internet, and insofar as the public demands this they
will (and are) paying for it. The NN movement was backed
by the OTT service providers (including Facebook and
Google). Further, I don’t see any evidence that you really
know shit about the “communicative thinking and design
that is behind the internet.” But perhaps you can explain
the end to end argument to me and how it meshes with your
idea about centralized regulation.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>