[governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality

[McTim]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
>
> 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",

It seemed to be a starting point of defining an issue.. a point that
we can all agree on.

>
>> 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".

Well, once we start identifying behaviors, where do we stop? Do we
describe every single case of potential traffic discrimination?

Delimiting what's ok and what's not is something we will likely NOT
get consensus on.

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

it does:

>
> "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.

but the below is background and their stance, which I purposefully
excluded (I didn't want to be put in the situation where would be
accused of proposing that we accept the policy stance of the webs
wealthiest corporation on this issue ;-)

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?

Well, In a global context, I'd have to disagree that "net neutrality
is about equal access to the Internet."  What they seem to mean is
that everyone who already has access to the Internet should have equal
access.

Which
> can of "worms" do you identify from its classification of okay/not okay
> behavior?

Well their list is mostly about "their" issue.  They don't address the
responsibilities of governments, or users for that matter.  With
rights come responsibilities, everyone in this debate has both, often
competing.

Ralf has already identified some potential in earlier mails, here are
some more (as many as I can type in 60 seconds):

port blocking
cutting off "bandwidth hogs"
not allowing servers to be run on individual connections (what kinds
of equipment that may be attached)
what is allowed re: network management/data discrimination
censorship (not only by ISps but by governments)
blocking Skype/Vonage, etc
pricing models in an era of growing bandwidth consumption

now my fingers are tired, and there are many dozens or hundreds more.
 Are we going to enumerate every activity that is possible by
users/CS/PS and governments and than try to reach a consensus about
whether or not each is a NN violation?  I would hope not.  Let's stick
to high level principles in our statement.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
http://stateoftheinternetin.ug
____________________________________________________________
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