[governance] What is Network Neutrality
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jan 9 00:59:33 EST 2009
Ian
I don't think any serious actor in the policy space takes NN (network
neutrality) as any kind of absolute technical architectural principle
any longer, because of the reasons you have laid out. So, the real task/
question is as you put it "what are the desirable network qualities that
we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?"
However, as argued earlier, at least provisionally, I would not want to
jettison the NN term and slogan, because it has gathered some brand
image and mass behind it, and I do think that most people advocating NN
do understand it as a socio-political issue and not a technical issue.
I have neither a technical background, nor much interest in technical
issues, and am myself looking it from a political and advocacy angle,
which in my view has taken up some amount of urgency. Obama
administration is likely to take up some legislative work on NN very
soon - in the early messiahnic zeal of a government voted on the pomise
of some real change - and however much I hate a single country
determinine global political issues, what gets decided in the
Washington's corridors of power during this period may have an
irreversible impact on the future of the Internet.
In this context, I am really bothered whether NN would get understood as
how Obama himself put it
""What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers
and the various portals through which you're getting information over
the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different
rates to different Web sites...so you could get much better quality from
the Fox News site and you'd be getting rotten service from the mom and
pop sites," he went on. "And that I think destroys one of the best
things about the Internet--which is that there is this incredible
equality there." ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html )
or as Lawrence Lessig, who is tipped to become in some way or the other
a close adviser to Obama on this issue, sees it. Lessig says that
charging content providers differentially is ok by his definition of NN.
It is my humble opinion that between these two positions lies a world of
difference, and the real battle will be situated in this space. I think
the Internet as we know - and as we cherish in its egalitarian
qualities - will be history if Lessig's version of NN is adopted by the
new US administration. This in my view is the point in NN debate and
advocacy that requires urgent attention.
In this context it is especially important that the IGC makes all effort
to see that NN becomes a central issue on the IGF's agenda this year.
parminder
Ian Peter wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/dae9300d/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list