[bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....

Mon Mar 17 04:19:26 EDT 2014

On 15 Mar 2014, at 12:11 am, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> On Monday 10 March 2014 08:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> I think there is a basic misunderstanding related to the role of
>> private, free, non-mandatory services versus, for example, the required,
>> paid for, connectivity services we need to be on the Internet.
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> We may differ on issues and principles here, but I assure you that there is no misunderstanding. Our position is based on considerable thinking.
> 
> What is entirely left to the private sector, what gets provided as a public or social good, and what gets closely regulated even though provided privately are decisions that societies taken on the basis of many considerations. What was earlier a private good can become a public good as times change.

	Parminder, the use of economic terms with quite specific definitions in an informal way that has no connection to the real definition like this is not helpful. You use here the terms public good and social good as if they are synonyms, and they are not. 

> Prior to the industrial revolution, education was considered a rather private good - it was either a matter of some very exclusive privilege of the highest classes, or consisted of skills transferred within occupational groups like guilds. With the industrial revolution, many changes took place in social structures, in structure of family, work force and so on.... Soon later, education begun to see as seen as a kind of public good, and then as  a human right in the UN Declaration of Human Rights...
> 
> Sorry for the detour but, similar basic changes are taking place vis a vis the ongoing information/Internet revolution. One important element of this transformation are some new kinds of socio-technical platforms that mediated a huge swathe of social activities, which could span a whole sector - like global knowledge organising, instant media, general social networking, and so on. Such platforms have the character of natural monopolies - a fact that is proven.

	I know of no such proof. I'd be interested to see it. None of the areas you describe seem to be monopolies - there are certainly multiple services for knowledge organising, instant media, social networking etc. 
	Power law style concentration among a few major players, yes, but natural monopolies is a different story. 

> All this present a very new situation, and accordingly an assessment has to be made in public interest of the need and degree of regulation of such platforms.

	Certainly it is reasonable to assess the need and degree of regulation of a category of services. It is, of course, possible that the result of that consideration may be 'no' or 'not much needed'. 
	Though, FWIW, I'm not in that camp - I welcome the increased involvement of regulators in changes to major services that might substantially effect privacy, for example. That is very different from considering them a public good (which I think is just sloppy terminology) or a social good (which would imply public provision of the service). 

> Also, whether some of these services also need to be provided as public goods, or at least proactive public support (including with funds)  given for building local and/ or non-profit alternatives.

	Sure. But that is a matter for individual states to provide, not a matter for global regulatory bodies. 

> But the least that can certainly be said is that a completely unregulated commercial offering of these platforms, as huge global monopolies, and largely escaping regulation because of their global nature, coupled with extra-ordinary economic (and increasingly, political) might, is not not a sustainable situation. We can accept it now and take remedial measures, or do it after considerable social damage is done.
> 
> (In fact, as you say, since these services are free, they do not even constitute a commercial service agreement since no payment is made for them. Whereby we can also say that there can be no consumer rights vis a vis these services. Would you agree to such a proposition? )
> 
> All of which simply points to the fact that we are facing very new and unique situation in an increasingly Internet-mediated world. We may have to visit our policy and regulatory paradigms anew, and we should show the political openness to do so.

	Certainly new types of services invite us to consider their public policy implications. 

> Now, we may still disagree on which layers of the Internet requirer regulation and which not, but I just wanted to clarify that our position is well thought out and not a result as a mis- understanding.

	You are currently convincing me that your position is couched in the language of economics, but the argument is a poor one economically and  uses those terms too imprecisely or incorrectly to be very coherent. 

	I'm also very much convinced that Guru's call for making public all algorithms used is certainly not well thought out, and if it is an example of the application of a broader theory, it does that theory no credit. 

	Regards 

		David
> 
> regards
> 
> parminder
> 
>> 
>> Services such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, are opt-in, not required
>> for the user to be on the Internet. And they are free to use, regardless
>> of what they do or don't with your visit to them. You visit at your own
>> risk and will.
>> 
>> Our broadband or mobile connection is paid, required if we wish to be on
>> the Internet, and subject to a provider-user contract regarding which we
>> can demand consumer and other rights.
>> 
>> I do not see how we can just tell Google to do what Guru requests. One
>> can just *not* use Google and still be on the Internet. Or can use just
>> a few components with due care regarding personal privacy configurations
>> if one wishes. Same with any other non-mandatory, free, opt-in service.
>> 
>> IMHO
>> 
>> --c.a.
>> 
>> On 03/10/2014 07:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an
>>> equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that
>>> its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds
>>> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a
>>> commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
>>> privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought
>>> to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can
>>> take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>> 
>>> regards,
>>> Guru
>>> 
>>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>> 
>>>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to
>>> have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing
>>> anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition
>>> Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion
>>> (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of
>>> the country.
>>> 
>>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its
>>> investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust
>>> watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for
>>> competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two
>>> years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its
>>> dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found
>>> violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent
>>> of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its
>>> annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3
>>> billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to
>>> nearly $5 billion.
>>> 
>>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google
>>> spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the
>>> Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed
>>> statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade
>>> Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for
>>> users and good for competition.”
>>> 
>>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint
>>> against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first
>>> filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later.
>>> Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint.
>>> Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the
>>> Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>>> 
>>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will
>>> get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain
>>> order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is the
>>> software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the
>>> investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
>>> 
>>> source -
>>> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140317/0cc0717e/attachment.sig>