[governance] What is Network Neutrality
Lee W McKnight
lmcknigh at syr.edu
Thu Jan 8 23:55:00 EST 2009
Ian,
To defend and clarify the historical record: proponents of the end-to-end principle like David Reed, David Clark etc were indeed putting it forward as a design principle to protect future generations of computer system users including the arpanet when that was the prime 'internet' around - reread their 'end to end' paper if you doubt that. Then other folks in the same circle (Bob Frankston says NATs are his fault) who may have agreed theoretically sought to solve specific real problems for local networks with NATs, which violated those 1st principles. Oh well.
So we may agree that theory and practice may have differed from early on, but I give those folks and others full credit for being far sighted.
That doesn't clarify what language works, now, for policy principles to keep the net as open as possible.
I do agree that the Carlos - George dialog is a start in the right direction.
Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Sent: Thu 1/8/2009 11:06 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'George Sadowsky'
Subject: RE: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
I hear the call that net neutrality needs to be an ongoing discussion with
IGF and we should include it in our submissions in February.
But I have the same trouble with net neutrality as I do with end to end.
Both are being used as some sort of architectural principle that guarantees
the public good, when their inclusion in network architecture was more a
feature of the simple dumb network than some sort of intelligent design to
protect future generations of internet users from a range of abuses foreseen
decades ago.
Both architectural principles are subject to distortions and the future
Internet will be neither fully end to end nor fully neutral. In fact, as
dogmatic network architectures they have already disappeared and it's of no
use to us to argue against internal corporate networks (a breach of end to
end)or traffic shaping (a breach of network neutrality) and all such. It's
not what it's all about.
The purpose of both end to end and net neutrality discussions from our
perspective should be to guarantee that a future Internet possesses certain
qualities which have made the Internet the valuable facility it is. I think
we confuse these fundamental requirements by making them absolute
architectural principles that lead to these being discussed as carrier and
network management issues rather than user issues.
So to me the questions are - what are the desirable network qualities that
we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?
Some better language might help us to get better results. Governments will
tend to understand some basic principles, but when vague terms are thrown at
them such as end to end or network neutrality that have a range of meanings
there are more likely to just bow to commercial interests who can point out
in plain English to them their problems with the concepts.
So I think I am agreeing with Carlos and George, but trying to point out
there might be a problem in the way we are addressing the subject. But I
don't expect to win that one for a while yet.....
Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
> Sent: 09 January 2009 02:02
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
> Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian
> Beaton; isolatedn at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
>
> All,
>
> I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
> neutrality. In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
> ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
> government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
> the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
> and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
> do spam control or other damage control of some kind. Note that this
> would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
> inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
>
> There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
> there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
> subject. It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
> definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
> users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy. I
> agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
> upon implications for the user.
>
> I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
> ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
> would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
> that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
> languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
> delivery. This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
> where there is one path to the user's computer. Although higher tier
> ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
> useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
> to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
> packet.
>
> This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
>
> Regards,
>
> George
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~
>
>
>
> At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> >Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
> >the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
> >(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
> >http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art0
> 0012),
> >which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
> >(www.politics.org.br). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the
> >PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
> >
> >In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
> >if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in consideration.
> >I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z country using
> >XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to reveal packet
> >manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator is happening.
> >How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory handles (or lack
> >thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
> >political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
> >brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
> >
> >However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
> >NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
> >
> >frt rgds
> >
> >--c.a.
> >
>
> -----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
>
>
>
> --
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com
> 2182 Birch Way george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
> Woodstock, VT 05091-8155 http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
> tel: +1.802.457.3370 GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
> Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 Grand Central:
> +1.202.370.7734
> SKYPE: sadowsky
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 6880 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090108/8cd36aa1/attachment.bin>
More information about the Governance
mailing list