[governance] What is Network Neutrality

[Ian Peter]

I'd like to explore Lee's definition in the context of Ginger's call for us
to define our field -

Can we agree that network neutrality be defined for our purposes as open and
universal Internet access, as Lee suggests? We might have to refine that a
little.....maybe "the debate around open and universal Internet access,
often known as the net neutrality debate" 

Or,

Can we move forward in the context of IGF to suggest inclusion of "net
neutrality, specifically where it addresses questions of open and universal
access" - or something similar?

Or "open and universal access" as the theme, including relevant NN debates?




Ian Peter

PS Just as others have done I would suggest separating pricing debates
altogether from this discussion. In Australia volume based plans have been
around for years, I am sure other countries do so as well. It's not quite a
global issue and its not an NN issue



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: 10 January 2009 06:52
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Ian Peter
> Subject: RE: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
> 
> I've bee biting my tongue for a while now, since as some of you may recall
> I have objected to the incredibly vacuous term 'network neutrality' since
> before it became a buzzword.  (Partially because it was some of my former
> students who popularized the term initially - you see  I taught them too
> well.)
> 
> I do admit that the old 'common carriage' term used to describe non-
> discriminatory treatment of people crossing bridges, using ferries, or
> riding trains has always been a favorite of mine, but may feel a bit
> outdated when speaking of the Internet. But the emotion in the NN debate
> comes partially from folks knowing it is just not right to treat people or
> packets otherwise.
> 
> And I do agree with this quote from one of Milton's messages:
> 
> 'nondiscrimination and universal access to content and applications...is
> the _only_ thing important' (about NN)
> 
> However, as Milton and others note the word 'discrimination' doesn't sound
> particularly appealing since forms other than price discrimination are
> social evils, and even in the pricing case noone like paying a higher
> price. Hence I prefer 'open.' Which is vague too I concede but has the
> right connotation.
> 
> So if we can agree that 'open and universal access' is the real objective,
> then let's focus on specifying what that means in the Carlos/George
> context.
> 
> Lee.
> 
> PS: My big concession: if igc can define NN as 'open and universal
> Internet access,' then I'll try to control my gag reflex every time I hear
> the NN term. Maybe there's something I can take for that...
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
> Sent: Fri 1/9/2009 1:34 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
> 
> Hello Milton Mueller,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
> >  *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?  *
> >
> > Siva, there is nothing wrong, indeed, a pricing regime that charges
> users
> > more based on what bandwidth they actually use is scientifically known
> to be
> > better for smaller users, who end up subsidizing bandwidth hogs under
> many
> > flat-rate regimes. If you care about affordability you want price
> > discrimination in this sense.
> >
> > The main point I want to make is that charging more for more bandwidth
> use
> > is NOT a net neutrality issue at all. This is unfortunately how the
> economic
> > equalitarians have diverted and potentially destroyed the concept. NN
> has to
> > do with anti-competitive or censorial discrimination among applications,
> > services or content based on the origin or destination of the packets.
> Full
> > stop.
> >
> > We need to liberate the NN discussion from the efforts of economic
> > equalitarians to appropriate the term in order to sell Maoist snake oil.
> > Economic equalitarianism of the sort that says Virginia and Robert
> should
> > get the same price for very different services and consumption rates is
> just
> > plain dumb; it isn;t economically sustainable, and won't survive as a
> > political or regulatory movement. So linking NN to this is a sure way to
> > defeat it -- as the IGP paper warned over a year ago.
> >
> >
> Your paper spells out clearly what net neutrality is not. Will take the
> time
> to go through that in detail.  It is important that we at this Caucus
> defines what Net Neutrality is and then steers all discussions of Net
> Neutrality around the core aspects of Net Neutrality.
> 
> I agree with you fully on this. As I said, this is what I set out to say
> at
> the NN debate, and in the context of pointing out a distraction I made an
> observation about permissible commercial practices, which are issues
> beyond
> the purview of NN anyway.
> 
> Thanks.
> --
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> http://twitter.com/isocchennai
> http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com
> http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/
> 
> >
> >
> > Milton Mueller
> > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> > ------------------------------
> > Internet Governance Project:
> > http://internetgovernance.org
> >
> >
> 
> 
> <http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/>
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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