On NN workshop RE: Re: [governance] Three IGC workshops ) NN FYI DIPLO

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7173057C801 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, 
at 09:47:37 on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
writes
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Does it matter why they are blocking VoIP; the fact that they are, is
>> what causes the lack of neutrality.
>
>Yes, it matters.  What causes the lack of neutrality is the 
>discrimination, not the blocking per se.

Of course it's based on a wish to discriminate, I don't think anyone has 
suggested otherwise. It's almost a truism. Blocking is simply the 
manifestation (or if you like implementation) of the desire to 
discriminate. A desire to have a non-neutral network.

>If you institute an application neutral program that blocks malware or 
>harmful effects it is different than blocking an application simply 
>because you want to coerce your users into using a particular vendor's 
>voice service.

There's a different kind of political motivation, but all of these 
produce a situation where network neutrality has been breached.

>> And it's not being blocked because of the "origin or owner of the
>> service", but simply because it is voice (over IP).
>
>Incorrect. I guess I am not making my point, somehow. As I said, NO ONE 
>blocks VoIP simply because it is VoIP, or at least no one I have ever 
>heard of. They block it because it is a service that competes with 
>another service they profit from.

I'm not sure (sorry) what point you are trying to make. I thought we 
were attempting to avoid some of the confusion surrounding NN by 
characterising each instance as either Service-based or 
Participant-based. I'll repeat why I don't think VoIP is normally 
participant-based:

In the countries where VoIP is banned (for the admittedly commercial 
reasons discussed above, often with the State as actor rather than all 
the competing private sector network operators in concert) they ban it 
for all people in their country and all people trying to reach their 
country from outside. And for all VoIP products. So there's no 
discrimination based on persons or suppliers, simply on the nature of 
the service (eg being voice-over-IP rather than text-over-IP).

>Give me a specific, real-world counter example or concede the point.

I'd be happy to produce a counter-example, but not completely sure what 
it is I'm trying to counter.

In case it helps I'll talk about one form of Network Neutrality which 
has caused upset for as long as I can remember: NNTP (Network News, aka 
Usenet).

Originally conceived as a form of distributed "Bulletin Board", the 
volume of messages got out of hand when people started attaching 
pictures, and after that, files. Helpfully, the system is designed 
somewhat like a cache, with each server able to receive one copy of a 
posting, and deliver it many times to local recipients.

ISPs, in order to preserve their bandwidth to the rest of the 'net 
(either local peering or international transit), would block access to 
so called "off-net" (outside their network) NNTP servers by their 
customers, arguing that Usenet was available from their local server.
[Some customers would argue about the quality of service from the local 
server, but that's a different can of worms].

They'd also disallow off-net access (from other ISPs' customers) to 
their server, protecting their outbound connectivity, while arguing that 
those customers should be using their own ISP's server.

Because they were blocking all users (in both directions) and access to 
all off-net servers, I'd characterise the exercise as 
participant-neutral, but clearly not service-neutral.

Note that this had nothing to do with loss of revenue from selling 
access to their own server to their customers, as the cost was 
invariably bundled into the monthly subscription whether you wanted it 
or not. (Is that the counter-example you were seeking?)

Fast forward ten years to today, and there's still a lack of NNTP 
neutrality (in the UK at least), but for different reasons. Let me know 
if you want to hear chapter 2.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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