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

[Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro]

Page 7 of this link is quite interesting:

https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/FactsFigures2010.pdf

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:35 AM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> At 11:10 19/03/2011, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> If you want to watch a TV show at the same resolution as broadcast
>> (especially on a wide-screen TV) then it does require 1 Megabit or more.
>> That's quite an achievement, actually, because they use 4+ megabits for
>> standard broadcast quality.
>>
>
> And your eye has 40 slow channels to your brain. The margin left to better
> technology is huge. Read my definition back: it does call for innovation.
> Neutrality is first for everyone to have the best avaialble technology. RFC
> 3869 says (end of page 2):  "The principal thesis of this document is that
> if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet
> research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.  In
> addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can
> also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the
> development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the
> effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet."
>
> The network neutrality is in trouble. But the solution is not in managing
> what commercial funding led to, but in demanding public funding to at last
> respond to the IAB. And in heping grassoroots research. Europe decided not
> to do so at the WSIS, and to drop the hopes of developping countries in
> Tunis, with Martin Boyle representing us and playing the US card. We must
> reform that. To reform that is easy enough: to acknowledge the three areas
> involved (operance, governance, adminance) and to disqualify the absentees
> as stakeholders. For example, the non-participation of the IETF to the WSIS
> is proprely scandalous: this is the real source of the netneutrality issue.
> But Brian Carpenter, the Chair at the time, wrote me the less IETF is
> involved, the better.
>
> We have a chance now, which is to use the current architectural evolution,
> and the IUse tiny community emergence, to change this. But it will take time
> and apostoles.
>
> Best
> jfc
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20110320/5f542ff1/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