[governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
SAMUELS,Carlton A
carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm
Thu Aug 12 14:21:09 EDT 2010
Parminder:
I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly misread my misgivings. To report what is - and recognize the nature of things - can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise.
I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green's Order that broke up Ma Bell. And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and show preference in very business-like practical ways for those customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, for me.
We - civil society - are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One of them is to make personal statements that undergird our opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said "I don't want to belong to any club that will have me as a member". The sentiment expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you'll find me. Ginger's response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of BP in recent past!]
My position is that this 'knowing' is what fuels the big picture response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency trumps.
Carlton
From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
Carlton
On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote:
Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency.
No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away."
How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way of influencing it?
The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period.
Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination.
Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and bundling would do in the network or Internet space.
However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the Internet for a more egalitarian world.
You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these developments.
In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere.
Parminder
Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law.
Carlton
-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
Ian and Parminder,
This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is
between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David
mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in
Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone
hooked on it. Then they started charging for it.
It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more
like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My
serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing.
Where do you see this 'line'?
I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more
productive in Vilnius.
Best, Ginger
On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
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><mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org><mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net><mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530
To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org><mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>,<ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net><mailto: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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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/20100812/e99dff03/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