[governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality

[Kabani]

Thank you for the updates, keep us posted.


With Best regards


Sincerely Yours



Asif Kabani

2009/1/24 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
> 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., the nation's biggest cable TV operator,
> is being investigated by the Federal Communications Commission 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>



-- 
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
____________________________________________________________
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