[governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Aug 13 09:33:29 EDT 2010
Hi All
The biggest thing that comes out of the Verizon-Google deal is not what
that may do to the future of the Internet. I still keep my hopes with
political governance to ensure public interest prevails rather than
depend on deals between companies which are, and expected to be, based
on private interests. (Though the danger is that this deal could be a
trail balloon by the US establishment, which even though it knows it is
against people's interest vis a vis that of the big corporates, may
still go with a deal that doesnt protect network neutrality because
overall geo-economic interests of developed countries lie with sticking
to backing these global corporates. This is the reason that network
neutrality is really even more a developing country issue, a big and
central part of what would be development agenda.)
Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal
lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business
of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly
understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic
interest and private interest.
Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed to
do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing wrong
for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. That is
the nature of the private sector, definitionally.
On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest
players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems
about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However the
essential difference between private interest players (businesses) and
public interest players (civil society and governments) has always been
clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global society if
in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish this difference.
As Carlton notes in his email
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.
It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working
for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's
singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest
representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems
built to give political respectability to private interests.
Parminder
On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote:
>
> 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/20100813/92b032fa/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