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

[Jeanette Hofmann]

> But the money has to come from somewhere, and in the UK that's the end
> users paying their monthly subscriptions to their ISPs. Unfortunately,
> the majority aren't paying enough money to provision the network
> sufficiently to deliver *everything* they demand *simultaneously*.

Hi,

I am surprised you frame things that way. This sounds like the typical 
telco point of view. Content providers do also pay for the bandwidth 
they are using don't they?

If all of that is not enough money for expanding the infrastructure, the 
ISPs should perhaps raise the monthly fees we pay for our internet 
connection?
Charging content providers for delivery to end users is suspected to 
create all sorts of unpleasant side-effects we cannot possibly want.

jeanette
>
> He went on to say:
>
>          "Net neutrality ... mean[s] that, not matter how many fast lanes
>          there are, the basic internet services – standard lane if you
>          like – should itself provide a very good, and consistently and
>          fairly delivered, service."
>
>          "Supporting net neutrality does not mean being against premium
>          high-speed services which households can choose to subscribe to
>          and which guarantee the very highest quality experience of
>          catchup and other internet resources,"
>
> The problem being that his content is already *past* the point at which
> it's straining the basic service. I doubt he'd be very happy to be told
>
>          "OK, we can deliver your service at 'full speed' as long as you
>          redesign it for half the bandwidth requirement".
>
> As well as
>
>          "and in the busy hour it might still be slowed down by someone
>          else in the same household you are delivering your catch-up TV
>          to, downloading a pirate [sorry, Parminder] movie and hogging
>          the bandwidth they can afford to pay for".
>
> And how ironic that the measures the ISPs are taking are such, that they
> serve to protect the delivery of *his* content - by filtering out, by
> time-of-day and protocol, the "competing" flows of P2P and NNTP which
> would otherwise drown out his content (and/or make the user exceed their
> monthly bandwidth cap very quickly, at which point nothing gets
> through).
>
>> No idea why Roland should insist that the contours of
>> the debate are not 'relatively' clear in this regard.
>
> Because there's still a great deal of muddle, between (but not limited
> to):
>
> o The speed of the local loop (physics lesson: why can't everyone get
>     8Mbits per second however frail their copper is).
>
> o The existence of monthly bandwidth caps, because most people buy their
>     service "down to a price". The cheapest residential broadband
>     representing as little as an hour of BBC iPlayer content a month.
>
> o The congestion on backhaul links, which means you can't have every
>     household downloading at full local loop speed at the same time.
>
>> especially insidious is to link advocacy of NN to piracy.
>
> Perhaps you could ask one of the most famous Torrent servers why they
> are called "Pirate Bay", and confirm with some Usenet serving
> organisations that their subscribers are downloading large collections
> of 'Warez'.
>
> But even if this material was in the public domain, my underlying point
> stands - who is the "content provider" who could pay (either want to
> pay, or afford to pay) the networks to deliver this P2P/NNTP content to
> the end users. The ISPs know that there is no such entity, so aren't
> stupid enough to be looking for a financial contribution from them.
>
>> Roland, if when you hear p2p you just think piracy, that the biggest
>> value of the Internet platform from a progressive point of view is lost
>> on you.
>
> I don't "just think piracy", but I'm realistic enough to think that very
> few people are in fact using it to download Linux distribution CDs, or
> all the other special pleading. And I'm not even suggesting banning P2P,
> or banning any class of content from P2P. All that's proposed is
> rate-limiting P2P/NNTP during the busiest hours, so people can use
> iPlayer at all.
>
> Finally, I confess to being a bit annoyed at the potential collateral
> damage which is the limiting of text-based Usenet (my own ISP doesn't
> rate limit NNTP). But if they did, I'm potentially suffering from a
> delay in my (and my correspondents') freedom of speech. Although even
> then, I can "route around" that damage by using Google Groups instead of
> a classic NNTP service.
____________________________________________________________
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