Way too complicated. This issue is not a matter of such intricacies.
Do we want to regulate, via free services to smaller enterprises, the "net" so
that it provides equal platforms for those who cannot afford it?
This may sound crude. It may offend capitalists when laid out so clearly. It
scares me, because it may just be a way of putting our priorities above another.
But in the end, weighing all pros and cons -- I think we must. Implementing
policy that allows and encourages growth and new is good. Slowing down the
rampant stampede of huge megacorps just makes sense. Normally we do not want to
say it so clearly but I believe here we must stand firm, that yes, these guys
must contribute to the betterment as a whole and not just to profits.
________________________________
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>; David
Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net
Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 3:51:23 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
Tracey
To explain what is happening I will try to build a bad case scenario towards
which we may be headed. And there is no reason to suggest that we are not.
First Facebook is free, then it would be Google then Twitter and then a couple
of more big Internet businesses. They of course pay the telecom carrier for
this. Meanwhile all of these big internet businesses make deals with a good
number of partners. So that finally in this 'free' 'non net neutral' part of the
Internet - lets call it the Internet Mall - an ordinary consumer (with
sufficient purchasing power) can find most of the services he wants - travel,
information, books, online shopping , you name it (till there is a commercial
value to it). The services and options will be so abundant that one may not even
realise - even if one did, certainly not appear to miss much - that all services
that are available to him are those which come through (of course,
non-transparent) partnership deals with a few Internet businesses fronts which
pay for one's 'free internet'. The 'Internet Mall', being free and apparently so
abundantly providing, would become the principal 'Internet' space' (if we can
still call it 'Internet', and this is a very debatable question) for most,
especially those with sufficient purchasing power.
Now, it should not be difficult to see that there is almost everything wrong
with this scheme, and everything will work towards existing market power
capturing more market power. Consumers overall will be quite worse off, and
barriers to entry for new business entrants in this 'Internet Mall' quite
formidable.
On the other hand, the really 'public Internet' (the true Internet) will be paid
for. A couple of structural reasons will work to make it perhaps ever more
expensive, as well as poorer in quality. One, more expensive and poorer in
quality it is, less attraction it would hold for 'consumers' who could as well
go to the 'free entry' high-attraction 'Internet Mall'. Secondly, as fewer
activities remain on the public Internet increasingly lesser money, and lesser
inclination, there would be keep it going at any level of qaulity comparable to
the 'Internet Mall'.
This shriveled-off Public Internet, if we loosely take the example of the
preceding ICT revolution, that of the printing press, will be something like the
'print based public sphere based on those cheap pamphlets' that counter-cultural
groups, marginal political activists or representatives of small businesses
sometime push into our hands, and which we read with some amusement. It would
exist as a weak counter-space to the mainstream 'Internet Mall', usable at times
for some counter discourses, maybe for political activism as well, but largely
ignored by the large majority in normal times.
One can go on and on giving examples of what it could mean, but let me just give
one. If you search for 'Avian flu', you still get Wikipedia and WHO as the first
two sites from which you can get information. However, on the free 'Internet
Mall' unless Wikipedia and WHO pay up enough, which they may not be able to as
much Pfizer for instance will, the sources of information that you will be
directed to will be drug companies, or possibly corporate social responsiblity
fronts set up by them which subtly filter information towards serving the
companies' interests.
Not a great world we may be moving towards.
Like with Ian, it bothers me why we are not as active as we should be in picking
up this issue.
Parminder
On Monday 09 August 2010 05:37 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote:
This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed.
>
>
>I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those which
>violate the NN principle.
>
>
>Is http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130, for example, (available
>in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other developing countries) and
>example of a violation of NN?
>
>
>I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and clear up some
>of the grey about the issue in my mind.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Tracy
>
>
>On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>David,
>>
>>The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non
>>traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and
>>includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social
>>networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds -
>>we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new
>>search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To
>>me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network
>>neutrality. .
>>
>>I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product
>>buyndling.
>>
>>Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
>>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, David Goldstein
>>
>>> <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
>>
> Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
>>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>,
>parminder
>>
>>> <parminder at itforchange.net>, <ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net>
>>
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
>>>
>>> I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines
>>> for
>>> giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the
>>> benefits
>>> Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services.
>>>
>>> There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never
>>> addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>;
>>> ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net
>>> Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
>>>
>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>
>>> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common
>>> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free
>>> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or
>>> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to
>>> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free
>>> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot
>>> more attention.
>>>
>>> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and
>>> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces)
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree - we should discuss.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder
<parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530
>>>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, <ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net>
>>>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
>>>>
>>>> Hi All
>>>>
>>>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free
>>>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I
>>>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about
>>>> something similar in Russia.
>>>>
>>>> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN).
>>>>
>>>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like
>>>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and
>>>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as
>>>> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes.
>>>>
>>>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of
>>>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start
>>>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities,
>>>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies.
>>>>
>>>> Parminder
>>>>
>>>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at
>>>>
>>>>
>>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>>
>>-
>>>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based
>>>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet.
>>>>
>>>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to
>>>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party
>>>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely
>>>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned,
>>>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and
>>>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder
>>>> upon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>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
>>
>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100809/c1ecdec9/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
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t