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

[JFC Morfin]

At 17:25 18/03/2011, Roland Perry wrote:
>In message <7.0.1.0.2.20110318161534.05ed5838 at jefsey.com>, at 
>16:36:49 on Fri, 18 Mar 2011, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> remarked:
>>All the discussed engineering is related to network operance tricks 
>>or rules. Governance is concerned with the architectural laws.
>
>There's also the laws of Physics.

Architectural laws belongs to them. Actually operance is the trick, 
rule and contract stratum. Governance is the law (scientific and 
politic) stratum. Adminance is the constitutional stratum, i.e. in 
the digital ecosystem  the principles, the code and civilization. 
Principles are (as identified): permanent change (RFC 1958), 
simplicity (RFC 3439) and subsidiarity (IDNA2008). Code is the past 
that present uses and that permit possible. Civilization is what we 
commonly want to achieve: the WSIS told it: a "people centered, à 
charactèe humain, centrada en la persona" digital society.

>>Architecturally, network neutrality is simple to define and test: 
>>it is when the quality of the end to end relation stays unaffected 
>>by the change of the operators of the intermediate network 
>>elements. This is why network neutrality will result from IUse 
>>generated competition among ISP, permitted by IUI ISP rotation.

If we want to be pertinent on particulars we need to understand 
better the Internet: principles, codes and civilization, in order not 
to confuse what belongs to what. The most recent introduced issue is 
subsidiarity. It took time to get it swallowed and it will take time 
to get it digested. There are two principles that accompany it that 
have not even an English translation yet. The first is the principle 
of suppleance: how the ecosystem is to structurally respect the 
principe of subsidiarity when subsidiairity fails somewhere (please 
note that supplance is not solidarity which is a patch in a 
catastrophic situation). The second is what the whole network history 
taught us: it is the progressive subsidiarity which goes from 
centralization to subsidiarity via uncouplings that we name "layers" 
in the OSI model. (In addition we now need to learn about intricated 
networks,as we progress towards the WSIS target).

Once we will have well accomodated these notions enought (and this is 
a real new important effort for the mankind's noetic) we will 
probably understand at least three levels of response to your question:
    * does the technology make it possible ? If yes apply (operance) 
the rule I gave you to test the proposed solutions (architecture is 
the judge of good engineering, not engineering).
    * if not organize the political law (governance) to address the 
management of the shortage.
    * and confer with the involved parties to subsidise a research 
that could make it technically possible (adminance).
The responses do not come from messing the problem and saying we want 
the impossible, but to try to solve the problems and sorting them to 
address them one issue at a time.
jfc

>If you were on an island with a 2 Megabit leased line, and had ten 
>people wanting to stream BBC iPlayer at 1 Megabit each [which they 
>naturally feel is possible because each of them only wants half the 
>supplied bandwidth], what architecturally network neutral solution 
>would you propose?
>
>(Assume you'd asked if they wanted to pay 10x the monthly fee, and 
>they all said "no").

The problem is not with the Internet, but with the BBC and its 
commercial motivations to broadcast at 1 megabit for various merchant 
reasons instead of better quality at 0.1 Megabit. So, neutrality is 
first to make sure that IUse neutral solutions (we are out of the 
network, i.e. fringe to fringe) do not exist, that permit better 
quality stream broadcast requiring 0.1 Megabit do not exist, that 
obviously could be possible, but out of BBC (and Apple) commercial 
control and benefits. This is why we are to be careful about the 
difference between the network neutrality bound to the Internet 
legacy and the current merchandisation strategies, and the intrinsic 
brain to brain digital ecosystem neutrality various middle strata. At 
each stratum the architectural law is the same, but the scope is different.

If you really want to dig into the roots of the Internet neutrality, 
I suggest you read the begining of the RFC 3869 where the IAB 
explains where the lack of neutrality comes from.... something which 
accuses its now ISOC owner, and the civil society which does not 
oppose it. One must oppose and propose at the root.

Best.

BTW, is not Britain an Island?


>--
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110318/7fa5a1b9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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