[governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality

[Parminder]

Dear All

See a new item about Comcast's Phone/ Internet practises, given below
( 
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/20/technology/AP-FCC-Comcast.html?partner=rss&emc=rss 
)

to quote "Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed 
over a separate network instead of the public Internet and won't be 
affected by its new network management practices."

This has great relevance to some issues which were raised in this 
discussion a few days back. Excuse me to quote from my email to Avri

"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."

Interesting, the quoted news item further says that such managed IP 
based services should have a different regulatory regime.

 >The FCC said that if Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband 
network, the phone service could be classified as a telecommunications 
service subject to >regulation and intercarrier fees that phone 
companies currently pay.

Extending the above argument it is possible to have

(1) a (public) Internet, based on a conception of network neutrality 
(NN) that is guided by democratic media principles - this means 
absolutely no content discrimination -  ie no fast lanes for different 
content, no tiered Internet etc

(2) Seperate IP based networks that can carry QoS sensitive commercial 
applications, that can (an open issue ?) be priced in an open market on 
a non-exclusionary basis. These networks should be subject to anti-trust 
based NN principles, which will be especially stringent  because telecom 
is a oligopolistic business. These networks may also be required to keep 
a tier/channel free to application providers to use, which is paid for 
only by consumers on bandwidth cost basis.

The above is  a bare sketch of a possible new framework to look at the 
NN issue that comes to my mind. There are of course many issues and 
complications here that will need to be further worked on in this respect.

Parminder


  FCC Probes Comcast's Phone Practices


PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Comcast Corp. 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/comcast_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, 
the nation's biggest cable TV operator, is being investigated by the 
Federal Communications Commission 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_communications_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org> 
over concerns that it is giving preferential treatment to its phone 
service at the expense of similar services from competitors.

In a letter to Comcast on Sunday, the FCC asked Comcast to justify this 
''disparate treatment.''

Philadelphia-based Comcast said it is reviewing the FCC's letter. It has 
until Jan. 30 to respond.

Comcast last year changed the way it handles Internet traffic after the 
FCC cracked down on its practice of delaying peer-to-peer file sharing, 
an issue that outraged supporters of ''network neutrality,'' which is 
the idea that Internet service providers should not give certain types 
of online data better treatment than others. Now, Comcast is slowing 
down traffic for heavy users if there is Internet congestion in their 
area, regardless of what type of data they are consuming.

Comcast indicated in a regulatory filing that an Internet phone call 
placed when the network is congested could sound ''choppy.'' But the FCC 
noted that Comcast's Web site says that its own phone service is routed 
over a separate network instead of the public Internet and won't be 
affected by its new network management practices.

The FCC said that if Comcast isn't routing calls over its broadband 
network, the phone service could be classified as a telecommunications 
service subject to regulation and intercarrier fees that phone companies 
currently pay.

Ben Scott, policy director of consumer advocacy group Free Press, said 
his group is pleased that the FCC's past sanction on Comcast over its 
network management practices wasn't a ''one-and-done action.''

Comcast must submit a response by Jan. 30.

Shares of Comcast fell $1.31, or 8.6 percent, to close at $14.02.


Parminder wrote:
> >>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/20090124/2da225b5/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