[governance] Net neutrality on mobiles

Sun Aug 15 04:43:25 EDT 2010

Dear Parminder,

Thank You for Your clear thoughts. However, I do not as yet see, why such deals should invalidate the concept of multi-stakeholderism, the idea of which is to involve all stakeholders to identify problems and solve them together, if possible, for thr common interest. If some actors prefer to give preference to their private interests or to the national interest in individual cases this would still not mean that the public interest could not be better served by a multi-stakeholder approach in general. In a multi-stakeholder approach, the privatization of public interests is less likely to happen. It is up to the not-profit stakeholders whether to engage with for-profit actors and thus give legitimacy to the joint undertaking in particular cases.

Wolfgang Benedek

Am 13.08.10 15:33 schrieb "parminder" unter <parminder at itforchange.net>:

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; 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

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

____________________________________________________________

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100815/05bda772/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