[governance] Proposed workshop text on global net neutrality

[David Allen]

On Apr 11, 2011, at 6:40 AM, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <4F2D2352-9964-40E5-A4C4-7DB62C476A7C at post.harvard.edu>,  
> at 12:38:35 on Sun, 10 Apr 2011, David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu 
> > writes
>>> In the current Internet model it's simply not possible for a  
>>> content provider in UK to pay a consumer-eyeballs network in  
>>> Pakistan to deliver its content preferentially (which includes  
>>> paying not to restrict it).
>>>
>>> And when the "content provider" is the individual Internet  
>>> citizen, wanting his blog to be transmitted everywhere, or wanting  
>>> the files he's sharing by P2P to be received unhindered anywhere  
>>> in the world, there's simply nothing approaching a mechanism for  
>>> him to pay for that.
>>
>> Following that logic:  It becomes even more important - for  
>> international receipt of material originated elsewhere - that  
>> _national_ NN regimes are 'in the public interest.'
>
> In the absence of infinite bandwidth within the country, and to the  
> country, it may be in the "National Interest" to use what bandwidth  
> you have to enable the majority of users to have a satisfactory  
> experience.
>
> In an attempt to illustrate what I mean, it's not unknown for email  
> systems to put limits on the size of attachments, to perhaps 8MB, in  
> order to share the system's resources equitably between users.  
> There's an implication that either (a) 8MB is enough to express  
> anything which should be circulated as an email or (b) that if you  
> want to use email as a file-transfer protocol, there's a limit to  
> the file size it's acceptable to attach.
>
> Therefore email of that kind is not "network neutral" because of  
> that arbitrary limit. And nor is there any money attached to each  
> email to assist in building infrastructure for its delivery.
>
> Similar arguments can be made for other protocols (such as HTTP,  
> NNTP), but email is a good one to start with because many people  
> will be familiar with this particular restriction, and indeed many  
> who have been on the receiving end of bloated attachments may  
> actually welcome it.
> -- 
> Roland Perry

Generally, in my experience, email is not a case with tiered prices to  
be paid for different size attachments.

David

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t