[governance] What is Network Neutrality

[Parminder]

Milton

>Your turn. Please tell me, how does the ordinary user benefit from an 
egalitarian ideologue telling them and everyone else that if they want 
to pay more for a higher speed >or better service they can't do it, even 
if it is offered on a nondiscriminatory basis?

That is closer to a real honest discussion. I will deal with the 'red 
herrings' in your email later, below.

I see Internet's primary value and its basic characteristic, as a 
revolutionary democratic media, in the fact that unlike say interactive 
cable TV it can accommodate  unlimited content, in a manner that all of 
it is accessible to the user at exactly the same level and ease, which 
puts the control and choice of what she wants to access completely in 
the user's hand. However, if one can pay to push ones content extra hard 
at the user, at the cost of other competing content, it compromises 
user's choice, and thus harms her interests. In case of traditional 
media platforms, like print or TV, where the interface-space is 
constrained, some way needs to be found to  squeeze  some content in 
this limited space rather than the other. However, the essential and the 
defining feature of the Internet is that there is no such constraint of 
how much and what all content one can access at the same one-remove, at 
the same level. This is how the Internet fundamentally revolutionizes 
users choice. Now, if some content providers are able to pay and line 
their content up closer to the user relative to other content, without 
her exercise of such a choice, it obviously constraints her freedom and 
choice. And, consequently, it turns the basic logic of the Internet on 
its head.

I am not able to see what benefit it gives to the user, to put some 
content closer to her than other, in a way that has *not* been chosen by 
her. Can you please tell me what benefit the user gets? The loss, on the 
other hand, is obvious; it interferes with free exercise of her choice.

Milton, the underlying difference is that you are using an exclusively 
marketplace framework for the Internet and forget the democratic media 
aspect of the Internet, which is at least as important.  (Though  you 
do  deal with  FoE; but everyone knows that democratic media issues 
extend quite  a lot beyond FoE). I prioritize the democratic media or 
public sphere (as in Habermass) aspect in looking at the Internet. To 
the extent both are important, let us try to include  basic  principles  
of both  in framing the essential  characteristics of the  Internet.

Now for some fun :-).

 > am repeatedly surprised at how you dismiss the relevance of 
nondiscrimination and universal access to content and applications

You are needlessly putting words in my mouth.  I have never dismissed 
its relevance.

>You say that the content and application discrimination issues "are easy 
to achieve" and "dont matter much."

Can you show where I said they "dont matter much". Yes, I did say that 
between the two situation (1) there is no content and application 
discrimination at all, even with open-offer differential prices (what I 
have called for) and (2) no discrimination other than based on price 
differentials that are equally open to all,  (which you call for), the 
later is relatively easier to achieve. Do you disagree with this 
proposition?

The VoIP issue detailed by you is very important, and I have always been 
cognizant of its importance. But thanks anyway, it does highlight the 
importance of the NN issue.

>You blithely dismiss the idea of ISPs or governments being able to say, 
"we don't like this web site or that service, we are just going to block 
it." Doesn't matter? >Wow.

Milton, you are being especially difficult. When did I say the above ?????

Parminder


Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Parminder:
>  
> > It is my humble opinion that between these two positions  
> > lies a world of difference, and the real battle will be situated  
> > in this space. 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.  
>  
> I am repeatedly surprised at how you dismiss the relevance of 
> nondiscrimination and universal access to content and applications, 
> which is the _only_ thing important about NN, and elevate the economic 
> equality argument (no one should be able to pay more for better 
> service), which is unimportant to ordinary people and ultimately is 
> impossible to achieve.
>  
> You say that the content and application discrimination issues "are 
> easy to achieve" and "dont matter much." Let me give you a very simple 
> example of why you are mistaken: VoIP.
>  
> In many developing countries, and in quite a few developing countries, 
> the telco has monopoly power and can use it to prevent Internet users 
> from using voice over IP as a substitute for their overpriced 
> telephone service. Imagine then two mobile phone providers. One is NN 
> compliant - you can use VoIP as a substitute for traditional mobile 
> voice service. The other is not, it forces you to use _their_ service 
> and accordingly charges high prices for regular, and especially 
> international and roaming service. We are talking dollars per minute 
> rather than pennies per minute. The amount of surplus profit or 
> revenue generated by the second mobile ISP is, cumulatively, enormous, 
> billions of dollars across the globe. It affects the affordability of 
> service, and the consumers ability to choose qualities, modes and 
> applications that they want. It affects the ability of new companies 
> to enter the market, with all that that implies for innovation and 
> competition.
>  
> I have made a simple case for large benefits caused by the correct 
> conception of NN. Your turn. Please tell me, how does the 
> ordinary user benefit from an egalitarian ideologue telling them and 
> everyone else that if they want to pay more for a higher speed or 
> better service they can't do it, even if it is offered on a 
> nondiscriminatory basis? Tell us all how leveling down the market to 
> the lowest common denominator enhances the public good. 
>  
> Take the same logic to content discrimination. You blithely dismiss 
> the idea of ISPs or governments being able to say, "we don't like this 
> web site or that service, we are just going to block it." Doesn't 
> matter? Wow. That need for liberty of choice and openness is 
> fundamental to the value the internet delivers. By comparison, the 
> equality of price and service you propose is meaningless. Who cares 
> whether i get the same price and service as everyone else, when the 
> content and applications delivered are censorsed and strangled and 
> suppressed?
>  
> Do you argue that no one should be able to buy DSL service because 
> there are people who have dial up and can't afford DSL? sounds to me 
> like that's the basis of your argument. absurd. this is not an NN 
> argument it's an economic egalitarian argument. NN isn;t about that.
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090112/9bbc9a26/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