[governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 14 janv. 09 à 14:08, McTim a écrit :

> Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work  
> going forward:
>
> "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
> control of what content they view and what applications they use on
> the Internet."

I'm wondering why would we even bother stating such an obvious  
"definition", since it doesn't define anything. If a statement  
doesn't allow us to go a step forward collectively, at least to reach  
a common understanding of an issue and if only to be able to confront  
different opinions in a consistent way, then what would have we  
achieved? Is our objective to agree by any mean, including by  
smoothing or polishing any issue until it becomes a non issue, or to  
clarify our understanding of an issue, and if diverging opinions  
appear, then so be it and after all, that's healthy?

> This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and what is
> not), as Google does here:
>
> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by- 
> net-neutrality.html

One might agree or disagree with the behavior classification as  
defined by Google (which ones are "okay" and which "not okay") and  
with the completeness of the identified options. However, the  
identified behaviors are good starting points for discussion, and I  
don't see why this would constitute a "can of worms".

Even without entering this - minimal - specification level, the whole  
definition offered by Google says at least a bit more than the  
sentence you excerpted:

"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in  
control of what content they view and what applications they use on  
the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality  
principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that  
has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and  
innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the  
Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted  
to use their market power to discriminate against competing  
applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not  
permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say,  
broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to  
control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at  
stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to  
determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply,  
this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet."

Note that, consistent with its definition above, Google identifies as  
"okay behavior" two of those we already agreed on:
- Employing certain upgrades, such as the use of local caching or  
private network backbone links;
- Charging consumers extra to receive higher speed or performance  
capacity broadband service.

So, do you disagree with any sentence in the above Google definition?  
Which can of "worms" do you identify from its classification of okay/ 
not okay behavior?

Best,
Meryem____________________________________________________________
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