[governance] What is Network Neutrality

Sat Jan 10 11:00:13 EST 2009

Ralf,

Thanks for the clarification, what you say is clearer now.

>Don't confuse upstream and downstream.

No, I dont see them differently in terms of network neutrality (NN). NN applies to both. Neither do I see Obama's comment as specifically referring only to the 'downstream' part and Lessig's to the 'upstream' part. Obama's speaks of no special favour to any content - upstream or downstream; Lessig accepts favors if they are priced in a non-discriminatory manner, ie are available at the same price and conditions to all who are ready to pay. 

>whoever rents a faster pipe can get faster upstream for his
>service, even based on different qualities (latency, jitter, pingback,
>maybe even number of hops, ...). 

That is a violation of NN, as long as we are talking about transmission over the (public) Internet. A private IP based service - VPN - for transmitting some content from a provider to the ISP premises is a different matter though.

>We may see more price differentiation in the last mile market and a
>movement away from flat fees

As mentioned a few times earlier I do not consider access pricing (for the size of the pipe) as an NN issue. I am fine with non-flat, slab-based rates, and it is already so in India in most places. 

> fuzzy terms like a "tiered internet" don't help clarifying
much, I am afraid.

The term two-tier Internet figures in Obama's pre-election technology policy document. I quote the whole part on NN. See especially " Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to   charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others."

Parminder

Quote from Obama's technology policy doc.

*Protect the Openness of the Internet:* A key reason the Internet has 
been such a success is because it is the
most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama 
strongly supports the principle of
network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the 
Internet. Users must be free to access
content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have 
a right to receive accurate and honest
information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to 
prevent network providers from
discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the 
Internet. Because most Americans only have
a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to 
impose a toll charge on content and
services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for 
equal treatment. This could create a twotier
Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network 
providers can get the fastest access to
consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a 
result would threaten innovation, the
open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among 
content and backbone providers. It would
also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has 
begun to transform American political and
cultural discourse. Barack Obama supports the basic principle that 
network providers should not be allowed to
charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites 
and Internet applications over others. This
principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or 
non-profit speakers, have the same
opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large 
audiences. Obama will protect the
Internet's traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure 
that it remains a platform for free speech
and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy.

Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> Parminder schrieb:
>   
>> Ralf
>>
>> I am very confused about your email, and so request some clarifications.
>>     
> Hope I can help.
>
>   
>> 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 ? 
>>     
>
> Don't confuse upstream and downstream.
>
> Obama was speaking about access providers at the downstream end, who
> should not discriminate different websites. As Milton said, this is one of
> the core issues of NN, and it is also related to the various "filtering"
> efforts with regard to "offensive" or "illegal" content. (For the question
> if this debate is over, or which part of it, see below.)
>
> Lessig was speaking about "services", which is the upstream end. Of
> course, whoever rents a faster pipe can get faster upstream for his
> service, even based on different qualities (latency, jitter, pingback,
> maybe even number of hops, ...). His point is that this should be
> available to anyone willing to pay the same price for the same service
> quality, therefore preventing tying and discrimination of content from
> competitors in case a network provider is also offering his own content.
> It does not contradict Obama's statement, but is orthogonal to it.
>
>   
>> At another place in your email, however, you seem to agree that Obama
>> speaks against a tiered internet, 
>>     
> Define "tiered internet", please. I did not use this term.
>
>   
>> but your position here is that this is
>> no longer a relevant issue.
>>     
> I was referring to the debate around two years ago, when some big ISPs
> said they want extra money from e.g. Youtube, "because they are
> responsible for so much of our last mile traffic". This is what Obama
> referred to, and this is dead IMHO. No-one has figured out how the exact
> business model would look like, how e.g. Version would be able to force
> Youtube into such a contract, etc. And of course the last mile customers
> are already paying for that part of the network and bandwidth. (A nice
> win-win approach here is edge caching, which of course should be available
> under the same conditions to anyone willing to pay for it.)
>
> The underlying issue of course has not gone away, it is last mile
> bandwidth restrictions, over-subscription etc. Now the ISPs have started
> throttling specific services like bittorrent, but have also been beaten up
> for this (see the Comcast case). This part of the "battle" is far from
> over. We may see more price differentiation in the last mile market and a
> movement away from flat fees (as we already see in the mobile market),
> which may be a good thing for less heavy users (I could get faster
> pingbacks if I paid my ISP 1,50 Euros more a month. But since I don't play
> online games, I can save this money). We may also see that users want to
> keep flat fees and move to ISPs that are investing in more bandwidth. But
> I am not sure what a progressive and human-rights-friendly approach would
> be like around these issues, except that I should always be able to get a
> fully unfiltered internet access if I pay for it.
>
>   
>> 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 don't think this was one of the best publications Lessig wrote. Packets
> never have moved at the same speed over the whole internet. It always
> depends on uplink and downlink bandwidth, but also on the peering
> agreements the different autonomous systems have with each other, on the
> number of hops, on where intercontinental cables exist etc. I *guess* what
> Lessig meant (or at least what is relevant here today imho) is that at any
> given point in the network, packets passing through it should be treated
> equally. This is the "good old best effort" internet, and this is under
> heavy attack by recent technological innovations like deep packet
> inspection, layer-7 switches, application-based routing etc. But again,
> this is not easy black or white. This stuff can be used for malware
> filtering or for more efficient network operation, but also for
> discriminating specific applications and content. Again, this is all very
> technical, so fuzzy terms like a "tiered internet" don't help claifying
> much, I am afraid. In any case, this technology will not go away, and I
> fully support discussing a progressive and human-rights based approach
> towards it. But is is a radically different approach from the model
> "Youtube pays my ISP extra money, so I can still watch online videos in
> the future" which Obama referred to.
>
> 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/20090110/74fc80c7/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