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

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<AANLkTinDvjczk2sz7ifmwMXSXA0gvCNNObt38qrw48wF at mail.gmail.com>, at 
14:51:13 on Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Ivar A. M. Hartmann 
<ivarhartmann at gmail.com> writes
>Roland,
>if there are different definitions used by different groups of people,
>wouldn't you want to use the definition Parminder referred to when
>you're communicating with the audience in this list?

Even if the UK authorities allow the ISPs to be non-Neutral, that's of 
little relevance to Parminder's issues because "neutrality" has a 
different context.

>I don't believe we're all from the UK here, or are we?

Nor are we all from Parminder's part of the world, with the issues he's 
concerned about.

So I think we are in fierce agreement.

Roland.

>On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 13:02, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>  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
>____________________________________________________________
>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
>

-- 
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