[governance] What is Network Neutrality
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
isolatedn at gmail.com
Fri Jan 9 01:19:39 EST 2009
Hello Ian,
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 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
I said something as an intervention at the Net Neutrality session during
IGF, paneled by participants from the Diplo Foundation, which I with to
bring up in the list in this context.
*It is important to ensure that the Internet does not discriminate between
traffic from out of India and traffic from Pakistan, or does not
discriminate between a computer with Windows and a computer with Fedora or
Solaris. There are several other aspects of Net Neutrality that combine
together to make this an important cause but I want to bring up an
observation that Network Neutrality debates are emotional.
As an emotional topic, the phrase Network Neutrality tends to stretch as a
broader and broader theme to include just about everything. And everything
is opposed in the name of 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.
*Wouldn't there be a balance if we seriously begin to be open to the
concerns expressed by the business sector to SOME aspects of the
'discrimination' - a bad word, but may have to be permissible [in a certain
context]. If a Virginia uses the Internet for business email and essential
surfing, and Robert [co-panelist] is using it to download movies 24/7, what
is wrong if Virginia is charged $10 and Robert a $100? The emotional point
of view would assert that both Virginia and Robert are charged equally, with
the result that Virginia subsidizes Robert by $40 which is unfair. This
aspect of Net Neutrality could be unfair to the user, for example. [ Robert
responded by saying that he would like to pay a $100 ]
I have a background in business and I am a businessman, with a total
commitment for Civil Society values. I will put on the businessman's hat and
ask you how I would survive as an ISP or Infrastructure provider if you
insist on me charging $10 each for Virginia and Robert? I don't have $80 to
subsidize Robert. How will I recoup my investments? How will I survive? More
important, how will I prosper? *
> 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.....
*[Is there] a business model to show me if I were a telecom or an ISP that
is convincing as a sort of Google-like business model that would work to
help [a business] make billions as a Net Neutral business corporation? Why
don't we write a universal business plan for telecoms and ISPs and other
network players to show alternate and innovative business models that would
help corporations to survive and grow as Network Neutral enterprises? *
>
>
>
> 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
>
--
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://twitter.com/isocchennai
http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com
http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/fa9ad923/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