[governance] Net neutrality on mobiles

[McTim]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:48 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN
>> practitioners, it's just not part of who they are.
>>
>
> McTim, Sorry, but I think it is you who are missing the point here. It is
> not about what already happened surreptitiously

nothing surreptitious about it, QoS came from the telco world.


 and now may be more open,
> but what is your views on what is happening

It's a political proposal, one that I don't see being enacted into law
anytime soon (and then only in the USA of course).


, and its threat or not to the
> Internet you want to advocate for.

I pretty much have the Internet I want.....I just want more folk to
have it, really.  Unfortunately, most of the folk who don't have it
will be getting it on their mobile, which is not really a compelling
experience.  Despite Common Carrier obligations, which David rightly
refers to, Telcos run walled garden networks, charge by the trick and
want to charge for every bit that crosses their network. It's
bell-heads vs net-heads, and for the record, I'm a net-head.

>
> Incidentally, if i remember rightly, you have said on this list that you
> support 'network neutrality' (NN). So the point is what is the NN you
> support,

This one works for me:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html

>how important you think it is

On a scale of 1 to 10? Maybe about a 4.

>and what is it that you are ready to
> do to push for it.

I like JL's view at :
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100809_google_and_verizon_offer_a_gift_to_spammers/

"It's certainly true that in most parts of the country, there's only
one or two viable broadband ISPs, the phone company and the cable
company, and they can't be trusted to run the network the way their
users want. But the right way to address the excessive market power
isn't to regulate the ISPs, it's for the FCC to put the rules back the
way they were in the early 1990s, so telcos and, ideally, cable
companies have to provide the underlying connections to any ISP on the
same terms, so we have enough competing ISPs that if you don't like
one, you can just switch to another. "

for the most part however, I am happy to continue to do capacity
building around how Internetworking works, and make sure that folk
understand that openness is the key to the success of the Internet so
far.

>>
>> My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point
>> by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the
>> wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency
>> requirement".   Is this the best they could get?
>>
>
> I dont understand why you are so bothered about what google did vis a vis
> its interests and why, rather than how it affects public interest. And
> whether 'this is the best 'we', the public, can get'.

That would probably be something along the lines of Bob Frankston's
thinking, see http://frankston.com/public/?n=as
and http://frankston.com/public/?name=IntroAmbient

I don't know how we get there however.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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