[governance] What is Network Neutrality

[Parminder]

Ralf

>>That is a violation of NN, as long as we are talking about transmission
>>over the (public) Internet.

>I was talking about access.

This distinction lies at the bottom of much of confusion in this debate 
on this list, and it will be useful to have some conceptual clarity 
around this. We can still disagree on issues, but we can try to agree on 
meaning of concepts and basic analytical categories. The pipe-width to 
access the Internet is something very different from nature of 
transmission of traffic/ content over the Internet. I am fine, for the 
present purpose, with any method of pricing pipe width, or as you say 
access. But I am against any kind of pricing of nature of transmission 
of traffic/ content. In case of pricing of pipe-width or access, the 
control is still in the hands of the user. She can (at least 
theoretically, assuming she has the money) pay more or less and get 
corresponding access. However, and this is most important point to note, 
when content transmission  is paid for by the content provider for 
differential treatment, the control is *not* with the user. The control 
is with the network operator. User can do nothing to switch between 
different options, even if ready to pay differently for doing so. 
Certain kind of content will be more overwhelming than other, and the 
problem is that once this line is crossed conceptually, and the 
principle of user control and right of equal access to all Internet 
content is lost, market's known ways of dominance cascading into ever 
increasing domination (on digital platforms we know this phenomenon is 
even more magnified) will ensure that Internet looks like something much 
closer to cable TV today that we can perhaps imagine.

Sure, other content will not (be allowed to) entirely disappear but all 
such (non-commercial) content that the provider has not paid for (which 
include so much of what we value most on the Internet) may become 
something akin to those obscure, difficult to get and difficult to read, 
pamphlets of social and community campaigns, that we may occasionally 
pick up in order to indulge our morality and social/ community 
conscience. The all-around glitz of the paid-for commercial content will 
be too over-powering for it to be any other way. This is the structural 
difference between paying for 'pulling content' form the Internet and  
paying for 'pushing content' into it. This distinction defines the very 
nature of the Internet as we know it, and especially its role and 
potential as a democratic media.

 >this debate is over, as also McTim has confirmed.

I will like to take your word and McTim's that is no current or future 
danger at all that there will be price based differentiated Quality of 
Service (QoS) and speed of transmission of content ever on the Internet. 
(Pl correct me if I havent worded it right.) That will solve my original 
problem.

However, just is case that this danger is not entirely gone , can you 
(and McTim) accept it as a NN principle  - that we should advocate that 
there should not any differentiated  *price* based QoS/ speed  content 
discrimination on the Internet.

We are already all agreed that

(1) Vertical tying/ bundling services by a company and/or discriminatory 
exclusive business deals that make for QoS/ speed differentiation among 
different content and applications is one of the most important issues of NN

(2) ISPs should clearly self declare their content/ traffic management 
policies

(3) Users should have clearly laid out means of redress in case illegal/ 
inappropriate traffic/ content practices are found.

(4) any other ???

We all also agree that we are against censorship on the Internet. 
However, I would think that since the motivations for censorship 
(mostly, political/ cultural) are very different from that of curtailing 
NN (economic), the two concepts should be kept conceptually separate. 
This will help to deal with both kinds of problem much better.

parminder


Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> Parminder schrieb:
>   
>>> 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.
>>     
> I was talking about access.
>
> The transmission over the backbones depends on which peering agreements my
> ISP has etc. There is no thing such as the "public" internet in this sense
> - it's all private contracts between different autonomous systems and with
> the owners of the "tubes". Of course, one can debate which kinds of
> principles we would like to establish to ensure the backbone traffic is
> not discriminating against specific content etc.
>
>   
>>> 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.
>>     
> And why would this not apply to the backbones as you mention above? Now
> you confuse me.
>
>   
>> Quote from Obama's technology policy doc.
>>
>> (...) 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.
>>     
> As I said, this debate is over, as also McTim has confirmed. Maybe someone
> here wants to apply for an advisory position in the Obama adminstration? ;-)
>
> But before we go too deep into the fuzzy and potentially outdated
> formulations of a specific candidate who won an election in one specific
> country, can I ask the million Euro question?
>
> "What are the global public policy implications of all this?"
>
> 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/20090111/a690d474/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