[governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality

[Hong Xue]

Net neutrality burns hot on the EU telecoms agenda at <
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=232&Itemid=9
>





On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> Curious timing for a regulatory action to be taken on a Sunday; perhaps
> that was because main man (ex-) FCC Chair Kevin Martin was but a small
> footnote in history by Tuesday afternoon.
>
> I am cross-posting from David Farber's IP list info on 2 forthcoming
> articles (in ACM)  below for IGCers info, on net neutrality:
>
> A copy of just the point/counterpoint article on Net Neutrality is in
> the directory
>
> http://idisk.mac.com/dfarber-Public
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kabani.asif at gmail.com on behalf of Kabani
> Sent: Sat 1/24/2009 1:57 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: What is Network Neutrality
>
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20090126/9974b539/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