[governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality

[Ian Peter]

The Google definition doesn’t work for me - in pay-tv models users are in
charge of what content they view, they just have to choose which packages of
content they pay for.

Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net]
> Sent: 15 January 2009 00:23
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Parminder'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
> 
> From McTim:
> 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."
> 
> Ginger says: I strongly second this suggestion--it addresses simply and
> clearly the point that is important to users.
> 
> Also from McTim:
> What do you realistically expect the IGF to do besides talk?
> 
> Ginger says: Exactly. The IGF is the Internet Governance FORUM. It is a
> place to discuss and debate: to talk. But it can inform, teach, support
> and
> foster principles it chooses, and we can affect those choices by our
> statement to the MAG.
> 
> Two points we can emphasize are NN, and Remote Participation, two areas
> that
> are important right now, and affect the concrete function of users. I
> suggest we work toward formulating a short concise statement to the MAG on
> these two points.
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Enviado el: Miércoles, 14 de Enero de 2009 08:38 a.m.
> Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
> 
> On 1/13/09, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> 
> We are all "civil society actors involved in democratic media issues".
> 
> , 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.
> >
> 
> You may say it, but you would be incorrect.  What Milton, Ralf and I
> have been saying is that the Internet is not egalitarian in some of the
> ways that you seem to think it is.
> 
> 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."
> 
> 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-
> neutra
> lity.html
> 
> 
> >  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.
> 
> Not obscure, just too specific.
> 
> 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
> 
> What do you realistically expect the IGF to do besides talk?
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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