[governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Mon Aug 9 16:42:44 EDT 2010
Here is the Google Verizon announcement
http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/742/JointPolicyProposalforanOpenInter
net.aspx
Much will be said about this, but note that the agreement separates wireless
internet as being out of scope for net neutrality (proposing different rules
for tethered access).
Lee, not only is there a problem with defining what net neutrality is, there
now seems to be a parallel problem defining what the internet is!
This wired/non wired policy divide is very problematic a nice commercial
distinction but very unusual for determining good public policy.
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:21:23 +0530
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>
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/20100810/88060935/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list