[governance] [lack of] Net Neutrality for Mobile Internet in different shapes and forms?

Roland Perry roland at internetpolicyagency.com
Wed Mar 16 12:02:42 EDT 2011


In message <4D80B666.4070403 at itforchange.net>, at 18:38:54 on Wed, 16
Mar 2011, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>
>
>On Wednesday 16 March 2011 04:09 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>  In message <
>  16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C9BB6C34F at SERVER01.globalpartners.local
>  >, at 09:39:13 on Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Lisa Horner
>  <LisaH at global-partners.co.uk> writes
>
>>    Meanwhile, this ?net neutrality summit? which it is feared will
>>    give rise to a 2 speed internet is happening in the UK today....
>>    watch this space.
>
>>    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/09/isps-outline-stance-net
>>    -neutrality
>  There is already a 2 speed Internet.
>  Pay $10 a month and get one speed, pay $50 a month and get a higher
>  one.
>
>Roland, why dont you just accept, and not keep confusing people, that
>there is big structural difference between differing speeds as per what
>content user pays, and differing speeds as per what content provider
>pays, and the Net neutrality issue deals with the second issue alone.

Unfortunately, that might be what *you* think NN means, and for all I
know it's the standard meaning in your country. It's absolutely not what
they mean when the UK press writes about it. (Think about it - the
biggest issue is restricting P2P and NNTP downloads of pirate movies,
what "content provider" is there who would pay the networks to remove
that restriction?)

>You dont have to agree with the NN guys on what is right and what is
>wrong, but why keep muddying established definitions.

I would be very happy if there were differing words for the various
differing "meanings". Unfortunately, there are many different concepts
which are all given the same name (NN). What I'm trying to do here is
*agree* that there is this confusion, and that the outcome of so-called
"Network Neutrality" debate in the UK is irrelevant to much of the rest
of the world, because it's a different thing that's being debated.

>  What people want is the $50 Internet for $10, and for everyone in
>  the country to be able to watch a High Definition[3] TV programme at
>  once.
>No, that is not at all what NN advoactes want, and you know that.

But it's what the UK NN advocates want, it was a UK-based discussion
that was linked to.

Here's what I posted in another forum about NN, a few days ago, hope it
helps clarify things:

<quote>

Net Neutrality means different things to different people.

Here in the UK it's about throttling bandwidth hogs like P2P and iPlayer
  in the busy hours.

In developing countries it's about Megabytes per dollar being the same
  on fixed and mobile networks (fat chance of that in developed
  countries either).

In some jurisdictions it's about blocking VoIP (but that tends to be an
  incumbent nationalised telco protecting PSTN revenue and the ability
  to wiretap the calls, not bandwidth).

In the USA it means throttling specific sites which don't pay you to
  deliver their bandwidth-hogging content. (Although to some extent
  that's also the iPlayer issue in UK). And a suspicion that as the big
  ISPs are owned by telcos, they might start blocking VoIP as well.

[Although Skype video is an example of a site where the final two of the
above can get a bit entangled].

</quote>
-- 
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



More information about the Governance mailing list