[governance] a very grounded and divergent perspective on Net Neutrality

[Parminder]

Michael, 

 

Thanks for sharing this, which is one of the most interesting and insightful
discussions on Network Neutrality (NN) I have been heard. I have always had
a problem with network neutrality principle to the extent that it seems to
attempt a technical solution to a social problem.  Nobody wants neutrality -
whatever it means - for neutrality's sake. We want it for serving the public
interest. And, largely, the public interest is served by an Internet which
treats all the traffic on it equally and indiscriminately. We need to
develop and anchor such basic principles that maximize the possibilities of
the Internet as a new revolutionary network - whose central characteristics
(mentioned in social rather than technical terms) should be that

 

1.      In terms of ownership - it is public

2.      and in terms of its key purpose, and orientation - it is egalitarian
(definition of 'egalitarian' from The American Heritage Dictionary -
"Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political,
economic, social, and civil rights for all people")

 

Once we agree to these highest level principles as those most essential to
what we call as the Internet - their contextual elaborations can always be
done, in different circumstances and as related to different issues and
aspects. No doubts, such elaboration will itself be a political process,
subject to political trade-offs. The question is, are we as a world
community - and to start with as a group of progressive civil society - able
to agree to these (or any other) social and political principles to be the
highest constitutive principles for the Internet. 

 

An Internet architecture which is neutral to the content it carries strongly
follows from the above principles, which can be justified, inter alia, by
the history of, and problems associated with, media monopolies. While the
Internet was touted as a solution to such problems, a non network-neutral
can actually make the problem much worse, in many ways (happy to enter into
further discussion on this). 

 

But the issue of public-ness and egalitarian nature of the Internet goes
much further. Subversion of such nature of the Internet is not done only by
telecom operators - the butt of criticism in NN discussions. It is equally
possible, and likely, to be done, for instance, by Google's (a hero in NN
debates) unimaginable domination of the content and application space on the
Internet. 

 

The way NN is mostly discussed today (and this issue is highlighted by the
email exchange below) one in not sure what does it really mean - and what
social and political purposes does it really stand for. However, if NN
discussions were more rooted in existing social, political and development
discourses 

 

(1)   we will have an easier resolution of the kind of very significant
issues being contested in the email exchange below

(2)   We would know that - just to take an example to show the enormous and
multifarious nature of the challenge and corresponding public policy
imperatives in this area - the monopoly towards which Google is headed is at
least as dangerous as the excesses of the telecoms in contravening NN, for
the same purpose of preserving the publicness and egalitarian nature of the
Internet. 

 

The difference between equality and equity is well established in social and
development policy discourse. But a technically oriented mindset finds it
difficult to see the difference. What we are seeking is greater equity vis a
vis the Internet and not just equality, which distinction can usefully
highlight the gap between NN debate and a socio-political debate that needs
to be anchored around the Internet. 

 

Parminder 

 

PS: I do strongly support NN advocacy, and it is currently still the best
platform for arguing and pursuing key public interest issues vis a vis the
Internet. Everything should be done to strengthen it. In fact if it is
nuanced sufficiently with appropriate socio-political (and developmental)
elements, it may still serve as the main rallying point for struggles for
preserving and promoting the Internet as what many of us dream it can and
should be, which incidentally is also in line with the opening paragraphs of
the Declaration of Principles of the WSIS. 

 

 

 

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]

> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 7:55 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Cc: 'Brian Beaton'; steveinfos at gmail.com

> Subject: [governance] a very grounded and divergent perspective on Net

> Neutrality

> 

> I think this discussion may be of interest in presenting a very grounded

> and

> divergent perspective on Net Neutrality (K-Net is a leading (indigenous

> controlled) provider of Internet and Telecom services to Canadian

> indigenous

> peoples and Steve Anderson is a leading Canadian NN advocate...

> 

> MBG

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Brian Beaton [mailto:brian.beaton at knet.ca]

> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:03 AM

> To: 'Steve Anderson'

> Cc: 'lshade at alcor.concordia.ca'; 'Adi Linden'

> Subject: RE: [Fwd: FW: [Advisors] FW: [APC Forum] Defending the threat to

> the public-ness and the egalitarian nature of the Internet]

> 

> Steve ... Let's hope there are people out there who will listen to you and

> that you remain safe during your NN struggle [smiles]. I can accept and

> support your position in this complicated debate.

> 

> The reason I challenge people who make reference to NN during

> presentations

> and discussions is because too often we are left with the simplistic

> perspective that all things are equal and a NN policy is required that

> will

> protect their existing comfortable existence.

> 

> Our work at K-Net is only one step in a very complicated and complex

> effort

> to level the playing field. It is taking a long time to move things

> forward

> but I believe we are helping to get online services into places where they

> are most needed.

> 

> I do look forward to seeing how the NN efforts work out with the CRTC.

> 

> I am wondering if I might share your message with a few selected people

> who

> are on the discussion thread with me with this other fellow. BTW, he seems

> to have stopped writing back to me so I guess he is agreeing to disagree

> [smiles]. Your presentation is probably the most rational and appropriate

> presentation that I have seen throughout this entire debate.

> 

> Thank you for taking the time to write this one.

> 

> Best wishes for you and those around you during this special time of year.

> 

> Brian Beaton, K-Net Coordinator

> Keewaytinook Okimakanak

> Box 1439, 115 King Street

> Sioux Lookout, ON, P8T 1B9

> T: 807-737-1135 x1251

> F: 807-737-1720

> IP and ISDN video conferencing

> E: brianbeaton at knet.ca

> W: http://knet.ca

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: steveinfos at gmail.com [mailto:steveinfos at gmail.com] On Behalf Of

> Steve

> Anderson

> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:07 AM

> To: brian.beaton at knet.ca

> Cc: lshade at alcor.concordia.ca; Adi Linden

> Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: [Advisors] FW: [APC Forum] Defending the threat to

> the public-ness and the egalitarian nature of the Internet]

> 

> Hi Brain, Adi etc... thanks for passing on your perspective and that

> exchange.

> 

> I am definitely less of a hardliner than the person you had an exchange

> with. I think he might come from a more libertarian perspective, whereas

> mine would be more political-economic. I also think NN advocates have

> learned that the situation is a bit more complicated than initially

> thought.

> 

> First off I completely agree with this:

> 

> > If I may, I would like to suggest that communities should be given the

> > opportunity to determine for themselves what their priorities and

> > needs

> are,

> > the same way institutions such as hospitals, colleges, universities,

> > etc

> are

> > provided with the resources to determine how they manage their

> > networks."

> 

> One of the arguments I have been making to the CRTC is that community and

> municipal Internet provision should be supported and increased as much as

> possible. I think ultimately this what we need.

> 

> However, right now we do have a few big telecoms controlling much of the

> net

> access, so we need to make sure they do not take control of the medium. So

> my work is targeted at these telecom carriers, and I do try to make this

> clear. And for sure I'm am flexible in my definition in that NN is about

> not

> letting telecom carriers tilt the nets level playing field by

> discriminating

> against competitors (creating a slow lane), and giving priority access to

> those who have deep pockets (creating a fast line). Also in the mix is

> that

> big telecom should not be throttling Independent and community ISPs

> services. If anyone should be shapping traffic, it should be the ISPs, not

> the carriers. I'm fine with prioritizing/shaping for health, VOIP, etc..

> as

> long as it's protocal agnostic, and not anti-competitive. For health and

> education I'm even more flexible - this is about public service, which is

> fine. NN is about preventing big telecom from selling preferential service

> for their commercial corporate interest. The two are very different.

> 

> In terms of community net service, I actually agree that when communities

> control their own infrastructure, they can determine themselves how the

> net

> should work. Really there is no commercial or anti-competitive issue here,

> and I think most of what your talking about fits into my definition of net

> neutrality anyway - if a rural community wants to provide priority service

> for a health or educational service, that is not anti-competitive - you

> are

> not discriminating between competing services, you are just prioritizing

> services in the public interest.

> 

> If you look at the SaveOurNet.ca principles you'll see they are more than

> open enough to include the kinds of activities you wish to engage in. It's

> about protecting the open Internet, and supporting community controlled

> infrastructure is part of that in my view. Community controlled

> infrastructure and NN are not mutually exclusive in my view

> - far from it, I'd say they mutually reinforcing. I do think we should be

> pushing for more control by local communities, and I certainly support

> more

> infrastructure investment for K-Net. -and I have and will continue to have

> this point of view in my submissions and conversations with the CRTC.

> 

> I could be wrong, but I think the biggest threat right now is that big

> telcom will be allowed to become the gatekeepers of the Internet. I don't

> think it is likely at all that the CRTC will over regulate Net Neutrality,

> especially as it pertains to projects like K-Net. If they do enforce NN

> and/or add new NN rules, I'm very confident they will be flexible,

> probably

> too flexible for my liking.

> 

> I do appreciate that I am a privileged urban dweller, who likely cannot

> fully appreciate the resource limitations of many rural/remote communities

> in Canada. I do try, but acknowledge, there are limitations in terms of me

> not experiencing directly the conditions on the ground in these

> communities

> etc..

> 

> I do respect that you may have some different opinions based on the

> realities you have to deal with. With that said, I hope we can find common

> ground in terms of NN policies that benefit both rural/remote communities

> and everyone else in Canada.

> 

> Ultimately I think we both want to limit the control big telcom has over

> the

> Internet, while finding ways to advance community/public control over the

> Internet. To me the key is 1) getting good and but reasonably flexible NN

> rules in place with enforcement 2) creating some kind of national

> broadband

> plan that will help close the digital divide and make broadband as

> ubiquitous as possible. To me this last part requires good public interest

> regulation, major public investment

> - preferably directed at community and municipal net

> provision/infrastructure rather than  big telecoms who have shown that

> they

> cannot be trusted

> 

> nice to be in touch with you,

> Steve

> 

> 

> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Brian Beaton <brian.beaton at knet.ca>

> wrote:

> > Steve ... Thanks for your comments about K-Net and our work. I am

> including

> > Adi Linden who works with K-Net to help make online services available

> > in remote and rural First Nations across Canada.

> >

> > I appreciate your perspective that "Net Neutrality is a principle that

> > can be interpreted differently in differing situations". I really do

> > hope that the people involved in policy development understand the

> > complexities related to how this debate is so complex. Unfortunately,

> > I have very

> little

> > faith in most policy makers along with the majority of people who live

> > and work in urban environments where bandwidth and fibre

> > infrastructure exists for their use. I too would be a BIG advocate of

> > NN IF AND ONLY IF all

> things

> > are equal in terms of bandwidth availability AND fibre infrastructure.

> > Unfortunately this requirement is FAR from a reality in the distance

> future

> > so until then I think the debate for NN needs to be VERY CAREFULLY

> developed

> > so the work we are doing in remote and rural communities is not

> > affected

> by

> > developed policies.

> >

> > I recently got into quite the discussion / debate about the merits of

> > NN

> and

> > its challenges for those communities and regions with limited access

> > to bandwidth. The fellow writing about NN works at an urban college

> > with few problems concerning bandwidth and infrastructure ... I am

> > going to share

> our

> > exchange with you so you can understand the issues that I am trying to

> make

> > sure are part of the discussions.

> >

> > ++++++++++

> >

> > Thanks for taking the time to write this lengthy message. I believe we

> share

> > a similar distrust of "network managers / technicians" who

> > unilaterally determine what is right for the rest of us.

> >

> > I believe (I hope) we are coming towards a better understanding of our

> > different positions concerning how this "net neutrality" issue is

> affecting

> > people and communities who unfortunately are not being included in

> > this debate.

> >

> > It seems to me that people, in general, are becoming very complacent

> > when

> it

> > comes to technology and tend to be accepting whatever the corporations

> > are selling them, believing that they are being "taken care of" by

> > these institutions and corporate agents who seem to me to be only

> > interested in their own bottom line. If someone is not happy with

> > their service, it

> seems

> > to me that they simply move to another service provider or level of

> service

> > that meets their needs. Unfortunately this just leaves a lot of people

> > off line or dealing with inadequate service.

> >

> > So who is this NN debate really for and what is it really all about.

> > If it about trying to do what is right for the people, then I guess it

> > will all come down to who will own the infrastructure. In Canada, this

> responsibility

> > is clearly in the hands of the private sector and it seems to me that

> > it will remain that way. So the only people who can influence this

> > debate are the regulatory bodies, ie. the CRTC and the government. But

> > from what I

> see

> > and read, the private sector seems to be continuing to be determining

> > and influencing the rules of the game so ... good luck the this NN

> > struggle

> the

> > way it is presently being delivered by "intellectuals" who care.

> >

> > As far as what the NN debate is all about ... your presentation seems

> > to

> be

> > make it a matter of who should be determining how these private

> > networks

> and

> > infrastructure should be managed and by whom. So unless you are

> > willing to pay for the infrastructure and then putting the management

> > of these

> networks

> > into the hands of people who you think will protect your definition of

> > NN, then I think there is a problem with all this discussion.

> >

> > If I may, I would like to suggest that communities should be given the

> > opportunity to determine for themselves what their priorities and

> > needs

> are,

> > the same way institutions such as hospitals, colleges, universities,

> > etc

> are

> > provided with the resources to determine how they manage their

> > networks. With this type of financial support, communities will be

> > able to determine the provider who can address these issues as best as

> > possible.

> >

> > There are several reasons I am suggesting this approach but maybe the

> > comments I am imbedding in your message might help to clarify some of

> > this ...

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> >

> > Executive summary of my more lengthy reply (below) to Brian Beaton:

> >

> >  - network management policies only apply when bandwidth is scarce

> >

> > OKAY ... this makes sense to me ... so every provider of bandwidth is

> > now able to demonstrate that the bandwidth they have available is

> > scarce and therefore must be managed in some way ... at least I would

> > assume that

> this

> > will be the position of those providers who are trying to support a

> variety

> > of applications on their networks.

> >

> >  - scarce bandwidth must not be metered out according to the type,

> >    origin, or destination of network packets

> >

> > NICE objective but then how is scarce bandwidth going to be managed?

> > In my mind and in the delivery model I am suggesting, the community

> > needs to determine their priorities and needs.

> >

> >  - the content of the public Internet is determined by its end-users,

> >    not by its network managers

> >

> > ANOTHER NICE objective but I am not too sure how practical this one is

> given

> > what we have seen the priorities and needs of end-users who seem to

> > like being sold sex, gambling and whatever other vice they can find to

> > escape their realities. If you are lobbying that these priorities need

> > to be protected then I would suggest you should be lobbying your local

> > drug

> store,

> > casino and other actual vice providers so everyone is able to do

> > whatever they wish.

> >

> >  - central network management that limits an Internet network to

> >    "approved" uses or "authorized" users stifles innovation and is

> >    contrary to how the Internet evolved to where it is today

> >

> > MAYBE ... I guess this might be how universities, colleges, hospitals

> > and other public supported institutions protect their environments by

> > determining who is "approved" to use and participate in their

> > environments and "authorized" to make decisions affecting everyone

> > else. It seems to me that this principle, if applied to NN, then it

> > should be applied equally across all sectors.

> >

> >  - if you need central control over the content on or who can use a

> >    network, you aren't talking about a public Internet network

> >

> > GREAT ... so ... let's get talking about building and sustaining a

> "public"

> > Internet network because I am not aware of any such entity anywhere or

> > at least what I would define as such.

> >

> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:40:54AM -0600, Brian Beaton wrote:

> >> in an ideal world where all things are equal and where there is

> >> unlimited bandwidth (another myth) then NN would be GREAT.

> >

> > No, a net neutrality policy isn't needed if unlimited bandwidth is

> > available.  With unlimited bandwidth, everyone gets the full net

> > access

> that

> > they want and no policies are needed at all.  It's only when things

> > get tight, and you have to start denying access, that you need a

> > policy to decide what (and who) gets denied.

> >

> > If you don't enforce net neutrality, then what gets dropped isn't up

> > to

> the

> > end user, it's up to every network manager, and that kind of central

> control

> > has serious problems.  Without NN, every network manager will

> > determine

> who

> > can use the Internet, and for what purpose.  Some managers will say

> > "pay

> me

> > if you want access", and all the small guys get shut out. Some will

> > say

> "no

> > unauthorized uses", and all the network innovation will stop.  This

> > would

> be

> > a disaster for community nets.

> >

> > The core Internet today doesn't give priority to people who pay more,

> > and changing to a money-talks model or authorized-uses-only model has

> > serious drawbacks for community networks and citizen participation.

> > Crowded roads

> in

> > rush hour don't give priority to those who can pay more or who earn

> > more; everyone is equal. That principle should extend to our core

> > networks, too.

> >

> > The Wikipedia article gives examples of the neutrality concept, dating

> back

> > all the way to the use of telegraph lines.  They consciously chose not

> > to create a tiered system.

> >

> >> Everyone does the best they can but the reality is all summed in your

> >> concluding statement that "I doubt rural communities would be able to

> >> compete with concentrated urban centres in paying high prices for

> >> better network access."  This is exactly what is happening today and

> >> why we have the challenges we have with getting the required

> >> infrastructure and bandwidth in remote and rural communities and

> >> regions.

> >

> > Then you should support net neutrality, not fight it.  If the network

> > managers who run The Internet get to drop packets unless you pay them

> > the big bucks for access, individuals and rural communities just won't

> > be able to afford to get their packets online.  We need rules that say

> > all (or at least most) traffic is treated equally, no matter what it

> > is or where it comes from.

> >

> > BB - Sorry if it seems that I am fighting NN but I think I am arguing

> > with the people who are suggesting that NN is just a simple matter of

> > claiming that all IP traffic needs to be treated equally. I believe we

> > have gotten past that point in this exchange.

> >

> > I am also thinking that this is not just about "network managers" but

> > it

> is

> > something much bigger that can and should involve communities who are

> trying

> > to develop and access equitable services and applications that the

> > folks

> in

> > the cities take for granted.

> >

> >> So people fighting for NN are only going to make it more difficult

> >> for the rest of us to move forward as they work their systems to give

> >> them more and more ... it is all about greed not about equality.

> >

> > I don't understand why you think NN people are against equality. Net

> > neutrality works against greed, at least the kind of greed that says

> > individual network managers get to decide who in a country gets

> > network access.  NN wants a level playing field so that mom's packets

> > and AT&T's packets get equal treatment.

> >

> > BB - Again I am sorry if you read what I write as "NN people are

> > against equality" because I hope that is what they are trying to

> > achieve but again people need to understand the bigger picture so

> > everyone can avoid the "us and them" divide that continues to grow in

> > this country. The simplistic presentations about NN and how these

> > corporate "network managers" are the monsters really is getting old

> > IMHO ...

> >

> > What we need is adequate and equitable resources so communities can

> develop

> > and support the applications and priorities they deem to be important

> > to them.

> >

> >> The analogy of the public roads is an interesting one. To claim that

> >> they are not being carefully managed seems to me to be totally wrong.

> >> They

> have

> >> fast lanes, slow lanes, the rules require people to move over for

> >> certain vehicles, there are paved roads, there are dirt roads

> >

> > All of these roads are usable by everyone.  The roads don't give

> > priority

> to

> > citizens depending on their salary or what they are carrying in their

> cars.

> > Everyone has the same speed limit; everyone has the same lane width to

> drive

> > in.  The roads, all the different lanes and surfaces, are neutral.

> >

> > BB- Again, only those who have access to the resources to be able to

> > use these "neutral roads" are able to use them. And yet, the people

> > who use

> the

> > roads are able to lobby government to ensure they have access to the

> > type

> of

> > roads that they believe they need and want through the use of

> > everyone's taxes. Even the roads analogy can be picked a part to show

> > that even those regions with the larger voting population are getting

> > the paved roads and the rest of us are forced to use dirt road because

> > of greed and certain management decisions that determine who is

> > getting what level of service.

> >

> >> there are toll roads

> >

> > Yes, toll roads go against "road neutrality"; only people with extra

> > money get to use them.  But there aren't many toll roads; most of the

> > roads are neutral and will take any car you want to drive on them,

> > without giving priority to any type of car or any type of content.

> >

> > Of course there are no free roads on The Internet; everything requires

> > a minimal fee.  But once you've paid that fee, NN says your packets

> > should

> be

> > treated the same as everyone else's packets.  Even on a toll road,

> > once you've paid the fee, your car is treated the same as every other

> > car; you can't pay more to drive faster than anyone else or have more

> > space.

> >

> > Imagine if you could buy a special expensive car permit that had

> > priority

> on

> > the roads, such that all cars with cheaper permits had to yield to

> > your

> car

> > with its expensive permit, even to the point of them driving off the

> > road

> if

> > your car needed to drive there.  At rush hour, only the rich people

> > who

> paid

> > the premiums could ever drive to work.  This kind of per-car permit

> > isn't practical on the public roads; but, it is easily done on the

> > Internet if

> you

> > don't enforce NN.  Community networks need NN. I want mom's packets

> treated

> > the same as AT&T packets.

> >

> >> Your definition of the internet is inadequate and tries to make IP

> traffic

> >> all the same by oversimplifying the reality. That is probably fine

> >> for

> you

> >> in your environment but it sure does not work in our environment.

> >

> > It isn't my definition; it's the common definition, and my Internet is

> > the same as yours.  All IP traffic *is* the same; that's the way the

> > Internet works, currently; it's a feature.  It's what has made the

> > Internet so

> useful

> > - money doesn't buy your packets priority, and there are no

> > "unauthorized" or "priority" uses.  (Your expensive car won't get you

> > to work any faster than a cheap car on the public roads, and there no

> > differential treatment for what you carry in your car - everyone has

> > equal access.)

> >

> > BB - Okay the "common definition" that you wish to use is fine for you

> > and everyone who takes this type of position but it sure is not my

> > definition

> of

> > the internet which I have tried to present to you and everyone else.

> > In my world, all IP traffic is NOT the same ... just as some people

> > would argue that a more expensive car might be more dependable to get

> > them work

> instead

> > of the cheap car ... it is all about perception ... I agree that you

> > have yours and I hope you can try to understand that I have a

> > different understanding and definition of what the Internet is about.

> >

> >> There are different protocols for videoconferencing and VOIP that

> >> make it possible to identify these packets. We are operating a

> >> private, managed networks with POPs in over 100 communities and we

> >> have to manage the traffic so patients are able to see a doctor

> >> during a consult. So NN will not help us in our remote and rural

> >> communities ... it will only make it impossible for us to continue to

> >> deliver the applications that the communities need and want ...

> >

> > If you want doctors or videoconferencing to have priority on your

> > network, you can't use the neutral, public Internet network for that.

> > On the

> public

> > Internet, you don't get to choose centrally who gets priority, or what

> gets

> > priority.  Everyone is treated equally, and should continue to be

> > treated equally.  You need to run your own private network if you want

> > to dictate who uses it and for what.

> >

> > BB - RIGHT ON ... thank you for understanding this reality but do

> understand

> > that it is this application that is also supporting these remote and

> > rural communities to have access to what you might consider a limited

> > "public internet" service. Like I said before ... everyone is doing

> > the best they can with the limited resources that are presently being

> > made available to these remote and rural communities.

> >

> > The equality of the current public Internet doesn't work for some

> > types of things, and it may not work if you aren't really looking for

> > everyone to

> be

> > treated equally.  If you want to control what's on your network and

> > over-ride or prioritize what its users want to use it for, you aren't

> > providing a public Internet service.

> >

> > BB - again, everyone does the best they can to access services ...

> > reading between the lines in your message, it seems that you are also

> > suggesting this "public internet service" is something that everyone

> > has available somewhere ... maybe in your world but this is not the

> > world where I live

> and

> > work ...

> >

> > If you want to be able to drive your own car to work and never get

> > stuck

> in

> > traffic, you can't use public roads.  On public roads, you have the

> > same priority as everyone else, no matter whether you're carrying beer

> > or

> babies.

> > Moreover, you cannot ask that all public roads be managed to

> > accommodate your particular private needs.  The roads are neutral.

> >

> > BB - again, this definition is yours and belongs in your world from

> > what I see and read ...

> >

> > We must not replace the neutral, public Internet with a private,

> > managed network that centrally limits or prioritizes what packets get

> > delivered based on content, source, or destination.  Network managers

> > should not be dictating who gets to use the public Internet and for

> > what purposes.

> >

> >> I thank you for your message because I believe it clearly highlights

> >> the effort that people are making to protect their interests. It also

> >> highlights, for me, just how "managed" the networks are and why they

> >> need to be carefully cared for by those people who are able to

> >> protect the public interests.

> >

> > Your "careful care" doesn't protect the public interest if it goes

> > against what the public is choosing to use the network for.  We don't

> > tell people they can't drive their cars on the public roads during

> > rush hour unless

> they

> > are doctors or bankers; everyone is treated equally.

> >

> > The neutral, public Internet carries the traffic of the people who use

> > it. By definition, it delivers the applications that people, the

> > public, its end-users, want, not what its network managers want.  If

> > you want to

> choose

> > "carefully" how certain traffic from your communities should have

> > priority over other traffic, or over what the rest of the Internet

> > wants, you can't use the neutral, public Internet for that.

> >

> > Central management is not how the Internet got to be where it is

> > today.

> The

> > only "careful" care that should apply on the public Internet is care

> > to enforce network neutrality, not care that tries to pick who or what

> > gets priority.  Any central network management that tries to pick what

> > kinds of traffic get priority on the Internet will get it wrong.

> > Things that will

> be

> > important on the Internet years from now haven't even been invented

> > yet. They have to be able to start and grow using the same Internet as

> everything

> > else.

> >

> > Central management stifles innovation, slows progress, and inhibits

> > individual citizen participation when it tries to decide on "approved"

> uses

> > and "authorized" users of the Internet.  We don't allow this kind of

> > discrimination on the public roads; we must not allow it on the public

> > Internet.

> >

> > BB - hopefully you understand when I write that I respectfully

> > disagree

> with

> > your presentation and the use of the road analogy ... it seem obvious

> > to

> me

> > that we are living and working in two different worlds that hopefully

> > will result in some useful policies that will support these different

> realities.

> >

> > Thanks again for taking the time to write all this. But I must add

> > that I

> am

> > afraid of people who are taking these entrenched positions and

> > defending limited definitions that only try to demonstrate that their

> > way is the

> right

> > way. What I am seeing and reading about is a lot of different

> > realities

> and

> > opportunities.

> >

> > +++++++

> >

> > Brian Beaton, K-Net Coordinator

> > Keewaytinook Okimakanak

> > Box 1439, 115 King Street

> > Sioux Lookout, ON, P8T 1B9

> > T: 807-737-1135 x1251

> > F: 807-737-1720

> > IP and ISDN video conferencing

> > E: brianbeaton at knet.ca

> > W: http://knet.ca

> >

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: steveinfos at gmail.com [mailto:steveinfos at gmail.com] On Behalf Of

> Steve

> > Anderson

> > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 10:51 AM

> > To: lshade at alcor.concordia.ca; brian.beaton at knet.ca

> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: [Advisors] FW: [APC Forum] Defending the threat

> > to the public-ness and the egalitarian nature of the Internet]

> >

> > HI Brian, my name is Steve Anderson. I'm the coordinator of the

> > SaveOurNet.ca coalition. I'm a big fan of K-Net so would love if you

> > could elaborate on this note Leslie forwarded to me.

> >

> > How would stopping protocol/content specific throttling hurt K-Net?

> >

> > How would Net Neutrality make it so K-Net could not exist?

> >

> > My understanding is the Net Neutrality is a principle that can be

> > interrpreted differently in differing situations. The ultimate idea in

> > my mind is that the principle put into action would act to maintain

> > the level playing field for online services and applications, and

> > prevent a fast lane/slow lane version of the Internet, prevent

> > anti-competitive activity. Traffic shaping for other purposes like

> > giving priority to traffic needed for telehealth services, VOIP, video

> > conferencing, etc.. would be fine as long as it is not

> > anti-competitive - meaning source agnostic.

> >

> > Let me know your thoughts,

> > Steve

> >

> >

> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:41 AM,  <lshade at alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> ---------------------------- Original Message

> ----------------------------

> >> Subject: FW: [Advisors] FW: [APC Forum] Defending the threat to the

> >> public-ness and the egalitarian nature of the Internet

> >> From:    "Brian Beaton" <brian.beaton at knet.ca>

> >> Date:    Mon, December 1, 2008 11:35 am

> >> To:      "Leslie Regan Shade" <lshade at alcor.concordia.ca>

> >>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >>

> >> Good morning Leslie ... to follow up on this morning question, I am

> > sharing

> >> a message that Michael posted the other day that comes out of India.

> >>

> >> I struggle with the whole concept of Net Neutrality as it is being

> debated

> >> in Canada and the US for many reasons but mainly because in its

> >> present

> > form

> >> it would mean that K-Net could not exist and the remote and rural

> >> communities we serve would not have the access that they have today.

> >>

> >> Brian Beaton, K-Net Coordinator

> >> Keewaytinook Okimakanak

> >> Box 1439, 115 King Street

> >> Sioux Lookout, ON, P8T 1B9

> >> T: 807-737-1135 x1251

> >> F: 807-737-1720

> >> IP and ISDN video conferencing

> >> E: brianbeaton at knet.ca

> >> W: http://knet.ca

> >>

> >>

> >> -----Original Message-----

> >> From: advisors-admin at tc.ca [mailto:advisors-admin at tc.ca] On Behalf Of

> >> Michael Gurstein

> >> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:00 AM

> >> To: 'TC Advisors'

> >> Subject: [Advisors] FW: [APC Forum] Defending the threat to the

> > public-ness

> >> and the egalitarian nature of the Internet

> >>

> >>

> >> TC may wish to sign on to this note...

> >>

> >> MG

> >>

> >> -----Original Message-----

> >> From: apc.forum-bounces at lists.apc.org

> >> [mailto:apc.forum-bounces at lists.apc.org] On Behalf Of Roshni

> >> Nuggehalli

> >> Sent: November-26-08 6:14 PM

> >> To: apc.forum at lists.apc.org

> >> Subject: [APC Forum] Defending the threat to the public-ness and the

> >> egalitarian nature of the Internet

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> Dear All,

> >>

> >> Apologies for cross-posting.

> >>

> >> Most of us tend to take the commons and the public nature of the

> >> Internet for granted. However, increasing corporatisation and control

> >> of the Internet are strongly threatening these fundamental

> >> characteristics of the Internet as we know it. Therefore, six civil

> >> society organisations in India have proposed an open letter to the UN

> >> Internet Governance Forum which meets for its third annual meeting

> >> between 3rd and 6th December in Hyderabad. The letter exhorts urgent

> >> global action to ensure that the public-ness and the egalitarian

> >> nature of the Internet are preserved as its essential features. The

> >> possibilities of democracy, equity and social justice in our

> >> societies will be significantly impacted by the extent to which we

> >> can achieve this objective.

> >>

> >> The proposed letter is pasted below. If you and/or your organization

> >> wish to endorse this letter, please indicate so in response to this

> >> email by the midnight of 1st December(India time). Please respond

> >> offline and not to the entire mailing list.

> >>

> >> The proposed open letter can also be accessed at

> >>

> >

> http://www.itforchange.net/component/content/article/195-igf-open-

> letter.htm

> >> l

> >>

> >> Thanks and Regards,

> >> Roshni.

> >>

> >> ------------------------------------------------------------

> >>

> >> * An Open Letter to the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for its

> >> 3rd Annual Meeting at Hyderabad, India, from 3rd to 6th December,

> >> 2008

> >> *

> >>

> >>        *The IGF must ACT NOW against the threat to the

> >>        public-ness and the egalitarian nature of the Internet

> >>        *

> >>

> >>

> >> The undersigned wish to express their deep concern that the UN

> >> Internet Governance Forum (IGF), created by the World Summit on the

> >> Information Society in 2005 as an Internet 'policy dialogue' forum,

> >> is largely

> failing

> >> to address key public interest and policy issues in global Internet

> >> governance - including that of democratic deficit.

> >>

> >> *Who shapes the Internet, as the Internet shapes our new social

> >> context?

> >>

> >> The Internet represents the single most important technical advance

> >> of our society in a long time, so much so that it defines a new

> >> emerging

> > social

> >> paradigm. The basic characteristics of the Internet determine the

> contours

> >> of the emerging social order in many important ways. The Internet was

> >> conceived as, and still largely is, an extensive communication system

> > which

> >> is democratizing, and has little respect for established social

> > hierarchies.

> >> Interactions and associations built over this new 'techno-social'

> >> system have, therefore, held the promise of a more egalitarian

> >> society. The era

> > of

> >> innocence of the Internet however appears to be fast approaching its

> >> end. Today, the Internet of the future - the very near future - is

> >> being

> shaped

> >> insidiously by dominant forces to further their interests. (See the

> >> fact-sheet on the following page for some illustrations of this.)

> >> Unfortunately, global policy forums have largely failed to

> >> articulate,

> > much

> >> less act on, crucial Internet policy issues, which concern the

> >> democratic possibilities for our societies.

> >>

> >> *The IGF needs to act now!*

> >>

> >> As the Internet Governance Forum convenes for its third annual

> >> meeting, between 3rd and 6th December, 2008, in Hyderabad, India, it

> >> must take immediate steps to anchor and discuss important global

> >> public interest

> and

> >> policy issues involved in Internet governance. If it does not act

> >> now, it may get seen as a space that only provides an illusion of a

> >> public policy dialogue, and, consequently, as being co-opted in

> >> furthering the agenda

> of

> >> dominant forces that are shaping the Internet as per their narrow

> > interests.

> >>

> >>

> >> *We therefore strongly urge the IGF to directly address the following

> >> key global public interest and policy issues:

> >>

> >> 1. Increasing corporatisation of the Internet

> >> 2. Increasing proprietisation of standards and code that go into

> >> building the Internet 3. Increasing points of control being embedded

> >> into the Internet in the

> > name

> >> of security and intellectual property violations 4. Huge democratic

> > deficit

> >> in global Internet governance

> >>

> >> *We exhort the IGF to adopt clear directions for engaging with these

> >> crucial public policy issues. The IGF should come out with a clear

> >> work

> > plan

> >> at its forthcoming meeting in Hyderabad to address the four key areas

> > listed

> >> above. The global community - comprising not only people who

> >> currently

> > have

> >> access to the Internet, but also the un-connected billions who are

> >> being impacted by it nevertheless - will judge the meaningfulness and

> legitimacy

> >> of the IGF in terms of what progress it is able to make on these

> >> issues.

> >>

> >> *Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore Centre for Internet and Society,

> > Bangalore

> >> Delhi Science Forum, New Delhi

> >> Free Software Foundation - India

> >> IT for Change, Bangalore

> >> Knowledge Commons, New Delhi

> >>

> >> *For endorsements and/or more information, please contact Anja Kovacs

> >> email: anja (at) itforchange.net, tel: +91 80 266554134, mobile: +91

> >> 9611747212

> >>

> >> ------------------------------------------------------------

> >> * Information Sheet

> >>

> >> How the Public-ness and Egalitarian Nature of the Internet is

> >> Threatened

> -

> >> Some Examples

> >>

> >> Corporatisation of the Internet*

> >>

> >> Largely unsuspected by most of its users, the Internet is rapidly

> changing

> >> from being a vast 'public sphere', with a fully public ownership and

> >> a non-proprietary nature, to a set of corporatised privately-owned

> networks.

> >> On the one hand, telecom companies are carving out the Internet into

> >> privately-owned networks - controlling the nature of transactions

> >> over

> > these

> >> networks. They seek to differentially charge content providers, while

> also

> >> building wholly private networks offering exclusive content relay

> > services.

> >> Developments like video/TV over Internet Protocol and the provision

> >> of controlled and selective Internet services over mobiles are

> >> contributing

> > to

> >> increasing network-operators' control over the Internet, with a

> >> corresponding erosion of its public-ness.

> >>

> >> On the other hand, the commons of the Internet is also being

> >> overwhelmed

> > and

> >> squeezed out by a complete domination of a few privately owned

> >> mega-applications such as Google, Facebook, Youtube etc.

> >>

> >> *Proprietarisation of standards and code that build the Internet*

> >>

> >> One of the main ways of appropriating the commons of the Internet is

> >> through the increasing use of proprietary and closed standards and

> >> code

> in

> >> building the Internet system. Such appropriation allows the extortion

> >> of illegitimate rent out of the many new forms of commons-based

> >> activities

> > that

> >> are being made possible through the Internet.

> >>

> >> *Embedding control points in the Internet*

> >> A growing confluence of corporatist and statist interests has led to

> >> the embedding of more and more means of control into the Internet in

> >> a manner that greatly compromises citizens' rights and freedoms.

> >> Whether it is the pressure on Internet Service Providers to examine

> >> Internet traffic for 'intellectual property' violations; or

> >> imposition of cultural and

> > political

> >> controls on the Internet by states within their boundaries; or ITU's

> >> work

> > on

> >> IP trace-back mechanisms; or the tightening of US control over the

> >> global Internet infrastructure in the name of securing the root zone

> >> file and

> the

> >> domain name system, these new forms of controlling the Internet are

> >> being negotiated among dominant interests away from public scrutiny

> >> and wider public interest-based engagements.

> >>

> >> *Democratic deficit in global Internet governance*

> >> The current global Internet governance regime - a new-age privatized

> >> governance system professing allegiance mostly to a single country,

> >> the

> US

> > -

> >> has proven to be an active instrument of perpetuation of dominant

> > commercial

> >> and geo-political interests. Lately, OECD countries have begun some

> >> work

> > on

> >> developing public policy principles that, due to the inherently

> >> global nature of the Internet, can be expected to become globally

> >> applicable. It

> > is

> >> quite unacceptable that OECD countries shirk from discussing the same

> > public

> >> policy issues at global public policy forums like the IGF that they

> > discuss

> >> among themselves at OECD meetings. Apparently, developing countries

> >> are expected to focus on finding ways to reach connectivity to their

> >> people, and not burden themselves with higher-level Internet

> >> governance issues! People's and communities' right to

> >> self-determination and participation in governance of issues that

> >> impact their lives should underpin global Internet governance.

> >>

> >> ____________________________________________

> >> Roshni Nuggehalli

> >>

> >> IT for Change

> >> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities

> >> Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

> >> Fax: (00-91-80) 4146 1055

> >>

> >> www.ITforChange.net

> >> www.IS-Watch.net

> >> http://India.IS-Watch.net

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> =======================================

> >> APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC community - people and

> >> institutions who are or have been involved in collaboration with APC,

> >> and share the APC vision - a world in which all people have easy,

> > equal

> >> and affordable access to the creative potential of information and

> >> communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create

> >> more democratic and egalitarian societies.

> >>

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> apc.forum mailing list

> >> apc.forum at lists.apc.org

> >> http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum

> >>

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> Advisors mailing list

> >> Advisors at tc.ca http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> > Find me on Facebook:

> > http://FacebookSteve.com

> >

> > Find me on Twitter:

> > http://SteveOnTwitter.com

> >

> > See my Democratic Media Blog:

> > http://democraticmedia.ca/blog/steve-anderson

> >

> > Canadian Media News:

> > http://democraticmedia.ca/news

> >

> >

> >

> 

> 

> 

> --

> Find me on Facebook:

> http://FacebookSteve.com

> 

> Find me on Twitter:

> http://SteveOnTwitter.com

> 

> See my Democratic Media Blog:

> http://medialinkscolumn.com

> 

> Canadian Media News:

> http://democraticmedia.ca/news

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20081222/4e282dca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance