[governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality

[Roland Perry]

In message <4B45C5C4.8040408 at itforchange.net>, at 17:00:12 on Thu, 7 Jan 
2010, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes

>Roland Perry wrote:

>> In message <F2011E85-3298-4E9F-9AA3-D46BD87B1DD9 at psg.com>, at 
>>23:41:52  on Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> writes

>>> to avoid confusion i think the Net Neutrality (NN) must be restricted
>>> to issues of content, source or protocol port and not bandwidth.
>>
>> In other words, all that it means is "no blocking".
>>
>> While that's a valuable concept, why invent a [confusing] new name 
>>for  it? Most discussions of NN that I've seen embrace the concept 
>>that one  kind of content would merely be given priority over another 
>>(so  disdavantaged traffic is delivered slower, rather than delivered 
>>
>>
>> The way the end-user perceives such a disadvantage is 
>>indistingushable  from throttled bandwidth.

>Not true. There is a world of difference between a user getting all her 
>traffic slow, because of low bandwidth, and selective content coming to 
>her slow or fast depending on whether the content provider pays extra 
>or not. In the former case, all content gets treated (and presented to 
>the user) equally, even if equally badly. In the latter case different 
>content gets 'presented' to the user differently, and thus effects her 
>choice. This becomes especially relevant when there are many competing 
>possible sources of information etc that the user may seek.

I disagree. Content doesn't all arrive at the same speed, even in the 
absence of specific throttling measures. It depends on the quality of 
the servers, the end-to-end bandwidth constraints, and also the degree 
of "bloat" that the information provider attaches to his content. Don't 
be fooled into thinking that the only speed-of-loading constraint which 
applies is that of the user's local loop (or indeed some mythical 
throttling by the ISP of content from providers who have failed to 
grease their palm sufficiently).

And to the end user, *even* content which has been throttled for that 
reason is indistinguishable from content that has a naturally low 
end-to-end-bandwidth. And that is in fact the only point I am trying to 
make here.

I presume, by the way, that you also disagree with [what as far as I can 
tell is] Avri's proposition: that NN is only about content whose 
delivery is entirely blocked, rather than content whose delivery is 
discriminated against by the application of 'artificial slowness'.

>Some may say again (as they said in the discussion on Google), the user 
>should know and be able to select what source of information she wants, 
>and if she is clear about it, A non-NN network is the same as less 
>bandwidth for her (since even if the other source downloads faster and 
>better she will not change her preference). But as Micheal has 
>explained this is not the right reading of real human and social 
>behavior, in its power-laden complexities.

There's allegedly an eight-second rule (people will wait eight seconds 
for content to load before losing patience). I feel that this is a rule 
devised by people with very good Internet connectivity, and fast 
computers. If the information matters to you, waiting longer is 
acceptable, especially if your normal experience of the Internet is that 
all pages take more than eight seconds to load.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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