[governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality

[Parminder]

 >>Telecoms are absolutely barred from charging content providers for
 > any special treatment of their content

 >I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.

Avri,

Although your analysis is richer than just based on this 'confusion' I 
may mention here that as used by me in the above formulation a 'content 
provider' is just anyone on the Internet. Whereby, telecoms should not 
be able to prioritize the transmission of any content/traffic on the 
basis of higher charges. This should be the defining principle of a 
public Internet. On the other hand IP is an open technology allowed for 
private uses, and carriers can be allowed to run VPN kind of special, 
and more privately-oriented (with higher private-ness) services, subject 
to a different regulatory regime, if necessary, regarding private IP 
based services. But just don't name them Internet, this is the 'global 
public' claim on the Internet - that we all know in a particular way, 
and cherish.

Obama's technology agenda speaks of 'renewing Public Media' and 'To 
foster "the next generation of public media'. Such a new public media 
can hardly be fostered on an Internet with 
pay-to-be-first-to-reach-the-audience models. It requires a fully open 
and public Internet as described above, with an equal treatment of all 
content and traffic on it.


Parminder


PS: Before anyone jumps again on the mention of 'public Internet' it may 
be useful to note that Milton uses the term 'public internet' in his 
paper on 'network neutrality', though he came down heavily on my using 
even the relatively lighter term 'publicness' (of the Internet) which is 
deliberately more nuanced, and should therefore have been more acceptable.


Avri Doria wrote:
>
> On 13 Jan 2009, at 01:48, Parminder wrote:
>
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >
> I have gotten a little confused in this discussion.   So this email is 
> as much to try and understand the position as to perhaps make a small 
> point based on my possibl flawed understanding
>
> If I read this correctly the prohibition is only against doing this to 
> content providers.
>
> Not included is doing this to other service providers and no 
> prohibition against doing this to consumers. (perhaps the upstream 
> downstream distinction someone was making though I do not think it 
> maps perfectly).  I.e. Access providers can provide different service 
> levels for those who are happy with best effort for their email and 
> occasional surfing and for those who require high bandwidth with ultra 
> low latency for playing massive online distributed games.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> I think that is unavoidable.  One complexity with that is if the 
> premium service they provide starve the best effort pipes.  I am not 
> sure how that fits into the puzzle.
>
> Also I wonder how this is handled when a content provider who provides 
> a small amount  of content in a periodic newsletter and only uses a 
> trickle of uploading bandwidth while a providers of on demand videos 
> are using  large amounts of latency sensitive bandwidth.  Should they 
> be given the same access and be charged the same?
>
> It seems to me that there needs to be a line between differentiating 
> because of the nature of content or the business relationship with a 
> content provider (NN) and differentiating based on amount and type of 
> bandwidth used (something else).
>
> And while one can reasonably be an activist on content NN, and/or an 
> activist for 'sufficient' best-effort-access for all at an affordable 
> price (or even free), they are not the same struggles.
>
>
> a.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20090114/0a1d6038/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