[governance] What is Network Neutrality
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jan 9 08:13:35 EST 2009
Shiva
>/ does not discriminate between a computer with Windows and a computer
with Fedora or Solaris.
/This is an important aspect of neutrality or non-discrimination in all
digital systems, as also on and regarding the Internet. But it is most
likely that in the same way that IBM and later Microsoft has been forced
to unbundle its offerings and be neutral and non-discriminating to other
digital products, regular pro-competition regulation and policies will
ensure this as well. Not that we would not need to fight for it at all,
but what I am asserting here is that this danger is not peculiar to the
Internet.
Conflating this above issue with NN completely, or even largely, has the
problem of taking attention away from what I see is the the main problem
associated with NN, which is unique and structural to the Internet, and
which if ignored will forever structurally deform the Internet into
something that will belie the democratic potential of the Internet. This
is the issue of tiered Internet, where content providers are charged
differentially for different treatment vis a vis delivery and
transmission, and not merely access.
/>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?
/
As Meryem pointed out, charging access, whether flat rate or per-use,
has nothing to do with the concept of Network neutrality. Cost of pipe
size is not the issue here, cost of differential speed and quality of
transmission is. The impact of these two things is structurally very
(hugely!) different on what the Internet will get shaped into. The
distinction between the two lies at the base of NN concept, as it is
being advocated.
Parminder
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Ian,
>
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> <mailto: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 <http://www.ianpeter.com>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
> <mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net>]
> > Sent: 09 January 2009 02:02
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
> > Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian
> > Beaton; isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto: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 <http://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 <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> > 2182 Birch Way
> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net <mailto: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 <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> <mailto: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/a834d5a2/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