[governance] Net neutrality on mobiles
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Aug 15 08:06:03 EDT 2010
Dear Wolfgang,
I have no problem with the idea of multistakeholderism, if two
conditions are met
1. It works within a democratic polity as an adjunct to it, and does not
try to seek to supplant it
2. The important issue of very strong differences in the power of
different actors in a multistakeholder setting is always kept foremost,
and sufficiently factored into multistakeholder structures. In this
regard, the immense power of mega-corporates and there proclivity to use
multistakeholder platforms both for stalling public interest policy
making, and legitimising their own lobbying activities should be
carefully and evidently guarded against.
As discussed in emails following the one you responded to, I most often
see that multistakeholderism is preached and practised outside the above
two important conditions, and this is my problem with this concept.
Thanks for your engagement with this discussion. Parminder
On Sunday 15 August 2010 02:13 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
(wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote:
> 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/20100815/928a56fe/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