[governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality

[Parminder]

I am forwarding the response of Steve Anderson who leads the 
Save-Our-Internet campaign in Canada, and to whom my original email in 
this long and interesting thread was addressed. He replied with cc to 
IGC list, but since he is not a member I am forwarding it to the list. I 
also wanted to share how civil society actors involved in democratic 
media issues look at the problem, since I think the views in the present 
discussion on the list have been, if I may say so, dominated by a 
(unadulterated)  free market based economic framework.

 From Steve's response, it looks like that the NN advocacy position I 
have been trying to formulate is not so obscure after all, as is made 
out by much of the discussion on this list. On the other hand, everyone 
does realize that the whole area is quite complex, and evolving. 
However, from an action oriented advocacy point of view, which is what 
we are trying to do vis a vis the IGF, one needs to formulate advocacy 
positions as we go along based on our basic political and ethical 
convictions. One cannot just keep waiting for a danger to completely, 
and often irrevocably, envelop us, before thinking about doing anything.

And, as we all know, not doing anything is an important political position.

It is my humble opinion that this is what is happening in many quarters 
vis-a-vis price-differentiated content transmission over the Internet 
which is the most direct violation of the original and the fundamental 
NN principle. To this extent, merely (and only) talking about 
transparency and non-exclusive-business-deals may only serve as 
convenient diversions, however important these issues intrinsically may be.

Parminder

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: What is Network Neutrality - was; a very grounded and 
divergent perspective on Net Neutrality
Date: 	Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:30:40 -0800
From: 	Steve Anderson <steve at democraticmedia.ca>
To: 	Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
CC: 	governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>, 
"Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>, "Brian Beaton" 
<brianbeaton at knet.ca>, isolatedn at gmail.com
References: 	



Parminder, you raise important points here and I think we are on the
same page. I'm for option 2, and I've put this forth in submissions
and discussions with the CRTC.

Funny thing is that Google Canada just asked my position on
prioritization and I basically put what you wrote for option number 2.
I think they agree, but we'll see what they respond with. They
stretched the issue with moving their servers, but I think they are
still against prioritization. In my view it's at least half the issue
of NN.

I think the SON site and reports have been clear on this matter, but
I'll look for opportunities to be more clear. CDM's submission net
neutrality made explicit mention of prioritization.

I wrote a bit about the problem of creating an internet fast lane in
my most recent Media Links column:
http://www.vueweekly.com/article.php?id=10713

cheers,
Steve

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Steve
>
> Thanks for supporting the 'publicness of the Internet' advocacy plank. One
> of the fliers of your save-our-internet campaign captures it just right -
> 'they may own the networks, but the Internet is ours'.
>
> I agree that it is a crucial and a difficult time for global public interest
> advocates interested in 'saving the Internet' in its original open, public
> and egalitarian conception. For this purpose we need to be strategic in our
> advocacy plans and make all necessary alliances. It is for this reason that
> I mentioned in my original email in this thread that though I/ we have some
> problems with the way the term Network Neutrality is being used by many, it
> is still one of the most appropriate 'umbrella' for us to to be working
> under.
>
> However, after the recent Wall Street Journal article attracted our
> attention towards important nuances (though, as will be argued, they are
> hardly 'nuances') in the network neutrality (NN) debates and advocacy, we
> think that greater conceptual clarity on 'what is NN' is required before we
> can move forward in this area.. Lawrence Lessig, who is credited with
> co-inventing the term NN, sees NN as something that many others do not see
> NN as. I surfed the net on this issue a bit in the last few days and I am
> quite sure that an overwhelming number of people who support NN, and are
> rather passionate about it, are supporting something which is very different
> from what some leaders of NN movement (like Lessig) seem to be (now?)
> fighting for. In the circumstances, people need to know what they are
> supporting before they support it. This will foreclose what increasingly
> looks to me to be an impending eventuality - some leaders of the campaign
> coming back and reporting - we have won NN (for you!), and a celebration
> goes around, when what they would have gotten would still be enough to kill
> the Internet.
>
> Which is why, since you lead an important NN campaign in Canada -
> save-our-internet - (and from what I have read about this campaign it
> appears to me that it, unlike the US's save-the-internet campaign, is much
> clearer about what it wants) I wonder if you can help clarify which one of
> the following two situations meet your criterion of NN, and whether the two
> are not considerably different positions for people who are NN followers and
> foot-soldiers to be clear about what is what.
>
> Option 1. Telecoms are constrained from doing any ad-hoc and discriminatory
> interferences with traffic based on their business interests and
> arrangements with different providers of content and applications. However,
> this does not mean that they may not charge content providers differently
> for quality and speed for transmitting their content, as long as this
> special treatment is available to all for the same price and conditions.
>
> Option 2. Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers for
> any special treatment of their content, i.e. we do not have a tiered
> Internet, with different quality and speed of delivery of content as per
> different charges.
>
> It is my view that the situation described in the option 1 above while very
> important, is relatively easy to ensure. (I do agree that we still need to
> fight for getting even this level of fairness.) However, casting NN advocacy
> and struggle narrowly in these terms, in my view, may turn out to be even
> more dangerous that having no advocacy around NN, because it deludes most
> people who seem to think that they are fighting for a really equal,
> non-tiered, Internet when they join the NN  brigade.  In the end - as has
> been the experience of many an advocacy campaigns - it is likely that this
> confusion on what exactly is NN, and what different groups may be seeking
> and may be against, is most likely to damage the interests of those who have
> certain ideas about what Internet was meant to be, what it should be and
> what it can be, in terms of its potential for equity and social justice, or
> even as a democratic media and a 'public sphere' etc.
>
> While I agree on being strategic in joining forces on this key issue, I
> think greater clarity on the NN concept, and more discussion among civil
> society actors on what are we fighting for, and to what avail, including if
> needed building scenarios, is very important at this stage.
>
> Thanks, and best regards. Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve Anderson wrote:
>
> Hi all, I agree with overall vision concerning the publicness of the
> Internet, and less so with the laissez faire stuff.
>
> But this underlines a key element of Net Neutrality. There is a very
> broad and diverse constituency supporting Net Neutrality. This is
> important because the other side, while small in number, is very well
> financed and organized. Hence we can't afford lose anyone willing to
> work toward net neutrality. So I think keeping the principles simple
> and focused on net neutrality is key to this battle. I want the
> laissez faire people and public ownership people to work together on
> this - it's essential.
>
> I also support working on broader issues and forming coalitions for
> these. Some in Canada might be interested in the Campaign for
> Democratic Media Network:
> http://democraticmedia.ca/organizations-campaign-for-democratic-media-network
>
> Principles:
> http://democraticmedia.ca/our-principles
>
> -let me know if you're org wants to join the network.
>
> But for Net Neutrality I think the principles of the SaveOurNet.ca
> coalition are specific yet open enough to appeal most everyone who
> supports Net Neutrality. Namely it mentions both access issues and
> neutrality. Those who want to focus on the free market stuff can do
> work under these principles, as can those who support the public
> interest side of thing. For example, I'm working with several public
> internet groups in the coalition to make a coordinated public interest
> effort with the upcomming traffic management hearing. And I know
> Google and others are doing the same on the business side. This
> approach allows different groups and sub-sets to articulate their
> vision for the Internet, while also providing common ground for a
> broad coalition to operate. I think this is essential if we are to win
> this and broader digital divide issues.
>
> SON Description:
> SaveOurNet.ca is a coalition of citizens, businesses, and public
> interest groups fighting to protect our Internet's level playing
> field. We're calling on lawmakers and industry to protect openness,
> choice, and access for ALL Canadians — and stopping lobbyists and
> special interests from ruining Canada's Internet.
>
> Principles:
> http://saveournet.ca/content/saveournetca-principles
>
> If you support these I hope all of you will consider signing on as
> individuals and organizations here:
> http://saveournet.ca/members
>
> Bryan, is K-Net going to sign on?
>
> cheers,
> Steve
>
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> We need to develop and anchor such basic principles that maximize the
> possibilities of the Internet as a new revolutionary network – whose central
>
>
> characteristics  (mentioned in social rather than technical terms) should
>
>
> be that
>
>
>
>
> 1.   In terms of ownership – it is public
>
>
>
>
> As I have explained numerous times, the essential characteristic of the
> internet is NOT that it is public; the networks and most of the investment
> are private........ >So >the  critical feature of the internet is in many
> ways precisely the opposite of what you are asserting.
>
>
> Milton
>
> First of all, it is clear from my usage above, and the background of this
> issue in the 'publicness of the Internet' concept, that I speak of Internet
> being public not in strict legal ownership terms, but in socio-political
> terms. So you think the essential characteristic of the Internet is that it
> is private ?? I do suspect so from your views on network neutrality, but I
> will come to that in a seperate email.
>
> Your counter-arguments to my propositions are a bit slippery, and shifting.
> When confronting the 'ownership' issue (not legalistic-ally, but as everyone
> having in principle full and equal right to) you speak of the Internet as
> the physical networks. And when I speak of the 'purpose' of the Internet,
> you switch to speaking of the Internet as its essential protocols. Thats a
> bit, shall I say, disingenuous :-). Because if we speak of Internet as its
> essential protocols it is easy to agree about the publicness of the
> Internet. On the other hand, if we speak of it as physical networks built
> with private investments it is easier to speak of its purpose - which is
> private gain, with no guarantee of public interest and gains.
>
> This brings us to the essential issue which my email dealt with - trying to
> figure out the essential nature of the Internet, as we would like to have,
> and from their possibly derive the basic public policy principles for it.
> Would you not agree that this will be the logical way to go about it. I know
> you too are quite interested in developing the basic public policy
> principles for the Internet. Would you then state what you think are the
> essential characteristics of the Internet, and then we can debate it.
>
>
>
> The STANDARDS are open and nonproprietary, but they are useful only because
> they allow any and all private networks and privately owned equipment to be
>
>
> interconnected.
>
>
> Any public system - roads, infrastructure of the market, laws, etc - are
> useful only because they facilitate private individuals. Everyone knows
> that. This does not obliterate the difference between the public and the
> private, does it!
>
>
>
> However, because the TCP/IP protocol suite's ability to connect networks
> initially outstripped the understanding and capacity of governments to
> regulate....
>
>
> and the understanding and the capacity of the corporates to appropriate.
>
>
>
> one could say that its effect was more libertarian than egalitarian. But
> its uniform, open nature did indeed level the playing field and afford those
> interested in >communicating more equal rights than they have ever had
> before.
>
>
> This is interesting. You say that the socio-political impact of the Internet
> was incidental. Fine, I may accept that, but you also seem to be
> non-committal about how it should be, hereon. Don't you want the Internet to
> have any (socio-political) directions and purpose. If you do want to it to
> have any, would you please state it. The whole debate is about that. That is
> what we all are where about.
>
>
>
> more libertarian than egalitarian.
>
>
> Now, this is fair turf. This is really what we are discussing, the above was
> mostly avoidable red-herring. (Though the term 'libertarian' is used by so
> many different types, that it often confuses me. I understand you are
> professing views more of what may be called as right-libertarian kind.
> Please correct me if I am wrong, in India we are still not very used to
> these terms). Since we want to keep our discussion practical, and
> purposeful, I think a very good instantiation of the above political
> difference is in our views on network neutrality. Will discuss in another
> email.
>
> parminder
>
>
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Parminder:
>
> Happy holidays, all. Sorry for the slow response.
>
>
>
> It seems that we have had this conversation before, and you always have to
> agree that I am right but it never seems to make an impression on your
> political rhetoric. So I will try again (because
> I am just as persistent as you, and will not allow policies or principles
> that are incorrect to be established simply because someone keeps repeating
> them.
>
>
>
> We need to develop and anchor such basic principles that maximize the
> possibilities of the Internet as a new revolutionary network – whose central
> characteristics (mentioned in social rather than technical terms) should be
> that
>
>
>
> 1.   In terms of ownership – it is public
>
>
>
> As I have explained numerous times, the essential characteristic of the
> internet is NOT that it is public; the networks and most of the investment
> are private. The STANDARDS are open and nonproprietary, but they are useful
> only because they allow any and all private networks and privately owned
> equipment to be interconnected. It is, in other words, the correct mixture
> of private and public elements, in their respective roles (to quote the TA)
> that makes it a success. The open protocols allow private initiative to
> flourish, and enable people to offer content and services without asking the
> public for permission. So the critical feature of the internet is in many
> ways precisely the opposite of what you are asserting.
>
>
>
> I know that this does not conform to your ideology, but it's a fact.
>
>
>
> 2.   and in terms of its key purpose, and orientation – it is egalitarian
> (definition of 'egalitarian' from The American Heritage Dictionary –
> "Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political,
> economic, social, and civil rights for all people")
>
>
>
> Again I think you've got it wrong.
>
> Strictly speaking, the internet protocols do not have a "purpose" other than
> to establish compatible data communications among any and all networks.
> However, because the TCP/IP protocol suite's ability to connect networks
> initially outstripped the understanding and capacity of governments to
> regulate, one could say that its effect was more libertarian than
> egalitarian. But its uniform, open nature did indeed level the playing field
> and afford those interested in communicating more equal rights than they
> have ever had before.
>
>
>
> Once we agree to these highest level principles as those most essential to
> what we call as the Internet – their contextual elaborations can always be
> done, in different circumstances and as related to different issues and
> aspects. No doubts, such elaboration will itself be a political process,
> subject to political trade-offs. The question is, are we as a world
> community – and to start with as a group of progressive civil society – able
> to agree to these (or any other) social and political principles to be the
> highest constitutive principles for the Internet.
>
>
>
> I can agree on principles when they are articulated with a full, exacting
> respect for the technical and historical facts.
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Find me on Facebook:
http://FacebookSteve.com

Find me on Twitter:
http://SteveOnTwitter.com

See my Democratic Media Blog:
http://medialinkscolumn.com

Canadian Media News:
http://democraticmedia.ca/news



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090113/424802ec/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