[governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 14 janv. 09 à 17:53, McTim a écrit :

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

>>> 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?

Not every single case at the deepest level of detail, but I find the  
broad situations used by Google to describe behaviors fair enough to  
allow discussion, opinions, and choices. They are (sorted by  
alphabetical order:) :

1- Building a new "fast lane" online that consigns Internet content  
and applications to a relatively slow, bandwidth-starved portion of  
the broadband connection
2- Charging consumers extra to receive higher speed or performance  
capacity broadband service
3- Employing certain upgrades, such as the use of local caching or  
private network backbone links
4- Levying surcharges on content providers that are not their retail  
customers
5- Managing their networks to, for example, block certain traffic  
based on IP address in order to prevent harmful denial of service  
(DOS) attacks, viruses or worms
6- Prioritizing all applications of a certain general type, such as  
streaming video
7- Prioritizing data packet delivery based on the ownership or  
affiliation (the who) of the content, or the source or destination  
(the what) of the content
8- Providing managed IP services and proprietary content (like IPTV)

We can add others if the want. It would be an interesting exercize to  
try to answer, for each of them, the two following questions:
- Does this fall into the network neutrality debate?
- If so, would this be compliant with a network neutrality objective  
or not?

>> 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 ;-)

:) it's true that not only their stance but also their formulation is  
primarily for their own sake, but who would expect anything else? And  
they seem to be only concerned with broadband carriers:)

>> 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."

ah ah ah, I expected this one:) Believe it or not, I disagree too.  
Not because this is not desirable, but because this is not exact. Net  
neutrality is not about equal access, and equal access involve much  
more than this. Net neutrality is about non discriminated treatment  
when placed under the same conditions. Which conditions, that's the  
whole debate.

> What they seem to mean is
> that everyone who already has access to the Internet should have equal
> access.

I suspect it's simply communication/public relations stuff. This  
Google page is intended to the large public, and "equal access" is  
good wish, likely to have people ready to write their Congress  
representatives that they are in favor of "net neutrality". "Ça ne  
mange pas de pain", as we say in French.

> Which
>> can of "worms" do you identify from its classification of okay/not  
>> okay
>> behavior?
>
> Well their list is mostly about "their" issue.

Agree. Let's add ours, if any, and remove those which are Google  
specifics, if needed.

> They don't address the
> responsibilities of governments, or users for that matter.

I think that, when adressing the net neutrality issue, users have no  
responsibilities in this, because they have no direct action on it,  
except to, as individual or organized citizens, act towards  
governements in view of a regulation ensuring net neutrality. Which  
leads me to restrict governments' responsibilities to define and  
enforce such regulations.
NB. I've already mentioned in a previous mail that direct censorship  
issues are NOT part of the net neutrality debate, in my view, as they  
should be dealt with differently, especially from the legislation  
point of view.

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

I think this level of details is not required at this step.

>  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.

Agree, and I find Google situations 1 to 8 above defined as high  
level principles, while still allowing to make one's mind. Don't you?

____________________________________________________________
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