[governance] network neutrality and the public internet

[parminder]

A very interesting discussion! And one very much pointing to the heart 
of the issue. Let me chip in too.

Karl says he doesnt understand the meaning of 'public'. But his 
discourse is full of, in fact almost entirely based on, the term 'user'. 
As argued many times before,  I do not understand the social meaning and 
implications of this term 'user', and find its use in socio-political 
discourse around the Internet very problematic.

Before going on with this, let me state a meta point. Language and 
discourse has its political economy What terms we use and/ or understand 
and which not often depends on where we stand, what we want and what we 
are trying to do. Karl, and many like him, do not 'understand' 'public' 
because (let me guess !) a strong fear of government controls on the 
Internet is a very important, close to the central, part of their world 
view about the phenomenon of Internet.

I do not like/understand the term 'user' because

1. this term defines human beings in relation to technology rather than 
the other way around

2. More importantly, the use of the term seeks to, in some strange way, 
make all those whom technology impacts as equal or, at any rate, to be 
at the same starting point. But all progressive socio-political 
discourse starts with the premise that people are structurally located 
differently, and thus are to be treated as different for all or most 
social analysis.

Karl's 'user' looks to be a very empowered individual (of course 
ungendered, for one), shaped from ethics (and possibilities) of 
individual responsibilities and individual freedoms, to which the 
'collective' could, more likely than not, mostly only cause loses of 
these freedoms. We all recognize this ideology, and I am not being 
dismissive about it. I too speak from a ideology.

I am sorry, but like all social progressives, I am unable to accept this 
world view. I know and work among people to whom it is (further) 
demeaning and humiliating to be told that it is basically all upto them 
to exercise their choices and freedoms, and so bad it they cannot. We 
are convinced that these people are subject to structural disadvantage, 
and our daily social, economic and political processes (including 
perhaps discussions on this list) feed and constantly renew these 
structures that cause disadvantage. The only way is to intervene with 
means to correct these structural disadvantages - and one of the 
principal means for that is the political process, and, further, the 
concept of 'public'.

I would, tentatively, define public as something to which people 
(citizens) have some kind of a universalistic right of appropriation. No 
social term can be defined exactly and in all encompassing manner (that 
is more in the technical realm). Like any other right, such rights of 
appropriation of the public are never absolute.

To cut it short, and come to the discussion on the 'publicness of the 
Internet', we know that there are public parks where the right of 
appropriation is more or less unhindered and there are public utilities 
(telecommunications have always been a public utility) where this right 
is considerably qualified (you may have to pay something for use etc).

My main contention is, when we have rather fruitfully employed the term 
'public' in the pre-Internet world, and the term is basic to a 
democratic system, why should it suddenly become meaningless in the 
Internet space? I think it is  techno-utopianism to look at Internet 
space as something basically different in terms of its socio-political 
categories, and is ideologically based.

The only way, IMHO, to make progress on the net neutrality issue is to 
explore and fix publicness characteristics of the Internet, and from 
there to explore a model of Internet regulation that best balances the 
needs of innovation, economic growth, equity, social justice etc. 
Equally important for a global group like ours, is to differentiate 
interests of developing countries, and groups otherwise marginalized, 
and not club everyone together as 'users', in order to specifically see 
what kind of net neutrality or 'public internet' regulations serves all 
these deferential interests.

Parminder











On Sunday 15 August 2010 05:03 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On 08/14/2010 03:58 PM, Paul Lehto wrote:
>
>>> 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
>
> "clear meanings"?  Clear to whom?
>
> The argument you are making is one that says "public internet" and 
> "internet" are of identical meaning, which is to say that the word 
> "public" is a meaningless and thus superfluous adjective.
>
> On the other hand some of us read words, particularly words of legal 
> import, so that every word has meaning and no word is surplus.  Which 
> is to say that the word "public" in the phrase "public internet" is a 
> word that has meaning.
>
> But you missed my larger point - it is very possible, even perhaps 
> likely, that those who author statements of net neutrality couched 
> with phrases such as "public internet" actually mean their statements 
> only to apply to those parts that are owned or operated by a public 
> entity. Humpty Dumpty famously asked who is the master, Humpty or the 
> word. When performing exegesis on statements by Google or Verizon or 
> others about network neutrality it would be useful to remember that 
> the authors of those statements are using extremely careful language 
> to navigate very tricky policy waters and that those authors are the 
> masters of their own words.
>
> Regarding your dismissal of a provider who traffic engineers their 
> network routers to give priority to domain name query and response 
> packets:  Why should not a provider build a network that makes their 
> network feel more responsive to users?  What is wrong with that?
>
> And, finally, you dismiss the ability of people to make their own 
> decisions (or to delegate those choices to their chosen agents) and 
> thus say that there should be no choice possible at all because to do 
> so simply empowers the rich over the poor.
>
> That strikes me as an argument that says that people are unable to 
> live their own lives and that they must depend upon protection from 
> those with more expertise or time.  That was the same argument used by 
> Queen Victoria and King Leopold to justify their imperial policies 
> over the people in their African colonies in the 19th century.  It is 
> not an argument that I am particularly willing to accept.
>
> I am not opposed to protective agencies and even paternalistic 
> institutions - I do believe that governments, and citizens under those 
> governments, do have duties of those kinds.  However, I do object to 
> such agencies and institutions when they do not allow individuals to 
> opt out and chose their own path.
>
> The internet is not free.  If people are not allowed to chose the way 
> that they want to use the internet then those choices will be made by 
> others.  And more often than not those choices will be made by those 
> who view the internet as a means to make money from users or, as we 
> are beginning to increasingly see, as a means to impose governmental 
> policies.
>
> User choice is not some sort of anathema; user choice works just fine 
> in other areas of life.  Are you opposed to services such as Federal 
> Express of UPS that provided tiered package delivery services for 
> tiered prices?
>
> Again I ask, if the knobs and levers that control how traffic is 
> passed across the internet are not knobs and levers that can be 
> manipulated by users then who is going to have the power to do that 
> manipulation and to what ends?
>
>     --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