[bestbits] ! Marco Civil vote posponed !

[JFC Morfin]

At 20:07 29/10/2013, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>The main "trouble" issue is net neutrality. We are in a very crucial
>moment and we can lose on that front. We need Brazilians in Brasilia,
>but it would be good to have material out there from you all
>supporting NN. Lets think about what can help. But telcos are massed
>in Brasilia right now....
>
>http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2013/10/29/camara-adia-mais-mais-uma-vez-a-votacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet.htm

Louis is right, the terms "net" and "neutrality" are not defined. 
Therefore, their concatenation in "net neutrality" might seem doubly 
undefined and subjective. However,  "neutral" means "indifferent to". 
This logically makes "net neutrality" to mean "for the net (whatever 
it may be) to be indifferent to". Now, there are the two points of 
view of the user and of the provider, two entities that are 
independent from the net (whatever it may be). Semantically, this 
therefore means there are two "net neutrality" principles:

1. on the provider side: he should provide a service (whatever it may 
be) that is independent from the kind of user. This takes care of the 
disparities between customers and traffic levels.
2. on the user side: he should receive a service (whatever it may be) 
that is independent from the provider. This takes care of the 
advantages to the "most favored partner" .

Now, what is targeted is a fair commercial relation that both sides 
can trust. The proposition of each provider and the competition among 
providers to satisfy the users should solve most of the problem as 
far as the two "net neutralities" can be openly compared. This is not 
the case if:

1. the provider may provide a form of monopolistic (i.e. non 
commercial) advantage (whatever the nature and degree) to partners or 
to its own services. This is an abuse of a dominant position in its 
delegated management of the user's catenet within the global interneting.
2. the user is purposedly put at disadvantage in his choices by a 
lack of information. This is an abuse of a trust in the delegated 
management of the user's catenet within the global interneting.

 From the above, one sees that one can rephrase the whole issue from 
an OpenUse point of view. An ISP is not actually someone who provides 
you an internet link 
that 
he could manage to his advantage. This is someone you entrust with 
the best management of your internet. In this case, net neutrality is 
a part of his best effort, and net partiality is a breach of your trust.

The interest of this approach is that it does not call for a special 
complicate law and is open to adaptative subsidiary legislation.

In most of the cases, the confusion we suffer from, as being the 
users, is the one Louis has clarified a long ago: the internet is NOT 
a network, but "a network of networks". It includes the network of 
each user. We are not the users of an "internet": we intelligently 
use (IUse) network tools to concatenate our personal network with the 
rest of the networks of the world. ICANN, RIRs, Government, etc. do 
not control in part the "internet network": they provide elements 
(computer, lines, programs, hosts, rules, electric power, education, 
etc.) we use to design, build, use and manage better our own personal 
or corporate relational spaces within the digital international 
networking space (InterNet).