[governance] Is unequal treatment of Internet users justifiable based on ability to pay for it?

[Paul Lehto]

On 8/14/10, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> I think that many of us look at the term "public internet" as a blanket
> phrase that covers the net as en entirety.
>
> However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public
> internet" to describe only that portion of the net that is owned or
> operated by a public entity.

As with many words in the dictionary, numerous meanings exist but
reasonably intelligent users and writers are able to distinguish them
and convey clear meanings in the specific context in which they arise.
 The existence of multiple meanings for the term "public internet" is
not, on its face, even a concern, unless and until it is shown that
users of the term are unable to convey themselves clearly.

[snip]
> Personally I am of the belief that the words "network neutrality" are
> essentially meaningless.  I look at the situation and accept the fact
> that non-equal treatment ("traffic engineering") is both reasonable and,
> in some cases (particularly for conversational or real-time control
> purposes), it is necessary.
>
> (For example, look at the way that even small delays in the carriage of
> domain name system packets multiply into perceptions of sluggish
> application behaviour.  That suggests that some carriers may reasonably
> chose a non-neutral path in which they give DNS packets priority.)

If my internet access is sluggish, the problem could be either (1) the
internet (2) the specific website I'm accessing, or (3) my computer.
If unequal treatment is allowed via a private agreement between Giant
Corporation and, say, Verizon, then some websites will continue to be
slow while Giant Corporation's website will load much better.  This
will falsely lead many people to conclude that the problem is with the
remaining sluggish websites, leading them to incrementally and
unfairly avoid those websites, and.or lead to excessive investment and
loss of time and money attempting to fix one's own computer when it
actually doesn't need fixing.

While you correctly point to the problem of sluggish performance of
websites creating the inference of a website problem, allowing unequal
treatment only exacerbates that problem and misleads people, whenever
they (as is often the case) have also experienced other slow websites.
>
> So I look beyond the notion of pure network neutrality and ask the next
> question - in whose hands are vested the power to pull the levers and
> twist the dials of control of the non-neutral behaviour of the net?  To
> my mind that power should be vested in the users, and by explicit or
> implicit delegation to their applications and their contracted ISPs.

"Opting in" via a contract of adhesion full of fine print with an ISP
or provider like Verizon does not result in meaningful "governance by
agreement" but only in government-by-large-ISPs and those who control
or own infrastructure of the Internet.  For this reason, vesting
"power" "in users" to delegate to applications and their contracted
ISPs" is quite nearly the opposite of empowering the actual users of
the internet, which is nearly the entire basis of the concept of the
Internet as a public good, as well as the basis of much individual and
even corporate investment in the concept of the Internet and Internet
presence.

Dictating public policy based on ability to pay, with the result being
expressly admitted "unequal treatment" is, in my opinion, very poor
public policy.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
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