[governance] Net neutrality

[Mawaki Chango]

As I suspect "public internet" for most proponents on this list refers
to something more than just a bunch of IP-based networks
owned/operated by some public entities, I guess the challenge now is
to try and define what (more/else) 'public internet' might mean, if
anything -- as Paque suggested, among other terms.

My own guess is, if there's such a thing as public internet, it'll
have to be built on the idea that TCP/IP is a public good (or in the
public domain). But I'm afraid we'll need more than that, which will
depend on political will and negotiations among stakeholders. This
will probably involve the deployment and acceptance of some norms
(maybe even a "political fiction") and concepts that will set forth,
and maybe guarantee, the terms of a "minimum" or "basic" Internet
access to all users in the name of public good (which is my
provisional understanding of 'public internet').

Now if that understanding points in the right direction (the terms of
the "minimum" being what's at stake, and still to be specified) then
the reality is, between a basic access to TCP/IP operated networks and
undiscriminated access to virtually all IP-generated networks and
capabilities available at one point in time around the world, there
probably is quite a room for engineering whatever which may
differentiate traffic... Unless (and we're back to what exactly
'public internet' means, if not that.)

OECD released the following report a couple years ago on "Internet
Traffic Prioritisation" you may want to re-visit for the purpose of
this renewed discussion:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/63/38405781.pdf

Mawaki


On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> On 08/14/2010 12:58 AM, parminder wrote:
>
>> By the way, I am impressed the number of time the term 'public internet'
>> is being used now.
>
> Perhaps we ought to be somewhat careful about how that term is used.
>
> Much, perhaps most, of the internet infrastructure is owned and operated by
> private actors, particularly if one considers mobile phone providers that
> carry IP packets as also being part of the internet.
>
> 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.
>
> In that latter case the notion of net neutrality that is being espoused for
> the "public internet" would be net neutrality only on that small part that
> is owned or operated by some sort of public entity.  That would suggest that
> the remainder, the privately owned or operated parts, would be free to
> engage in traffic engineering.
>
> And even in that narrow use of the words "public internet" there is danger -
> for example here in the USA the military and its supporting
> military-industrial complex operate several of the domain name system root
> servers.  It would be naive to believe that the US military would agree to
> subordinate US national security to the principles of network neutrality.
>  (I personally would not be surprised if the US were, in fact, using the
> rather unique observation capabilities of a root server to do some - what
> word should I use? - observation.  For more on that notion see
> http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000232.html )
>
> We are entering an er of increasing use of private interconnects between
> large content providers and content deliverers.  This is nothing new, but it
> is of increasing popularity.  And it is something that requires non-neutral
> treatment of packets even if that non-neutral treatment is differential
> routing onto a private interconnect based on shallow inspection of IP
> addresses or protocol.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
>                --karl--
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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