[governance] What is Network Neutrality

[Parminder]

Ralf

I am very confused about your email, and so request some clarifications.

You seem to say that there is *no* (or little) difference between 
positions of Obama and Lessig as shows from their recent statements that 
I quoted.

" (no one) should be able to ...... charge different rates to different 
Web sites" (Obama)

"network providers should be free to charge different rates for 
different services long as the faster service at a higher price is 
available to anyone willing to pay it."  (Lessig)

Arent the two manifestly opposing positions ? I may be missing something 
here in which case pl enlighten me.

At another place in your email, however, you seem to agree that Obama 
speaks against a tiered internet, but your position here is that this is 
no longer a relevant issue.

 > This angle is pretty much over as far as I can see.

I state with all sincerity that if I can be persuaded that this angle - 
of the possibility  of a tiered Internet - is 'pretty much over'  I will 
leave this discussion, and save both the IGC's and my time. For 
instance, can we have Milton, who seems to be on your side of the debate 
at this point, say that  'this angle is pretty much over'. It will be 
simple if it were over - we are all, in any case, against 
anti-competitive practices, we are all for transparency, and we are all 
against censorship. No dispute here. Problem solved.

But, why Lessig, a known social activist, and someone who is politically 
quite astute, and rumored to have some political ambitions, will want to 
publicly state this above position accepting a 'tiered Internet'  - 
especially when his word seems to be valued by the incoming US 
administration ??

Lessig wrote in 2006 "Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet 
content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the 
network." ( 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html 
). I cannot at all see how his 2006 position (also expressed in his 2006 
testimony to FCC) is not different from his above 2008 position. Why do 
you think he changed his position in this manner, when as you say 'this 
angle is pretty much over...".

Simple, because 'this angle' (of a tiered Internet) is *now* even more in.

Parminder

Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> Parminder schrieb:
>   
>> 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?"
>>     
> Very much so.
>
> But:
>
>   
>> I have neither a technical background, nor much interest in technical
>> issues, and am myself looking it from a political and advocacy angle,
>>     
> I am afraid we can't distinguish these two. This is a clear example of
> geeky technicalities making huge differences in political terms and vice
> versa.
>
>   
>> 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...
>>     
> This angle is pretty much over as far as I can see (except for the fact
> that Fox of course can rent a faster server and uplink than mom and pop,
> but this is beyond discussion). The recent "Google breaking NN"
> irritations stirred by the poor media coverage were about edge caching,
> which has nothing to do with this.
>
> As has been discussed here, the real NN debate and non-NN practices as far
> as I can tell are now more about the ISPs as access providers for
> end-users throttling or fast-tracking special content such as p2p or voip,
> and of course about "filtering" etc. But again, there have always been QoS
> protocols and related things, so it is all a bit more complicated.
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
> Lessig himself has the correct version:
>
> <http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html>
> It is true, as the Journal reports, that I have stated that network
> providers should be free to charge different rates for different service
> -- "so long," the Journal quotes, "as the faster service at a higher price
> is available to anyone willing to pay it."
>
> -> See above, mom and pop vs. Fox, nothing new.
>
>   
>> It is my humble opinion that between these two positions lies a world of
>> difference, 
>>     
> There does not seem to be much difference between a misunderstood Obama
> and the quoted Lessig. Read the Lessig post above for more.
>
>   
>> and the real battle will be situated in this space.
>>     
> Well... no. ;-)
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
> ...and understanding, one may want to add. ;-) SCNR
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
> It seems to me we need much more discussion amongst ourselves first.
>
> But of course, a draft paper would help facilitate that, as Ginger has
> suggested.
>
> A good start by the way is Milton's paper from the GigaNet Symposium 2007
> (not sure if it has been mentioned so far):
> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/NetNeutralityGlobalPrinciple.pdf>
>
> Best, Ralf
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20090110/be132d6b/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