[governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network

[parminder]

Norbert's exposition of what is different with the Internet is rather 
convincing. At the same time, as he also argues, there are higher level 
principles that need to articulated, and articulated now, before it is 
too late - like net neutrality (also well defined by him). To this I 
will add the principle of universal access  as a right (as Mike 
suggests), that must be assured to all. Such a right is more necessary 
now then ever earlier with Internet being so essential to mediating 
sociality today.

At the same time as we remain circumspect of putting in too many 
specific regulations, we as much need a space where the larger social 
tectonics that the Internet has unleashed gets discussed, and, 
importantly, from time to time, as required and appropriate, norms, 
principles and if needed laws treaties, laws and regulation get shaped. 
Such  a space must be created in the UN system, with a new-age structure 
which maximises democratic participation. It is not ok, and I know I am 
saying this for the hundredth time, that OECD, CoE and US gov does this 
kind of norm/ principles/ treaty/ law making, as happens today.

The problem comes when we see the issue with the lock-ins that ITU may 
put on the Internet's potential, but turn a completely blind eye, or 
become fatalistic, about other lock-ins that are right now being put on 
the Internet, especially in terms of its egalitarian potential. This is 
where it begs a political economy explanation - /whose interests are 
being protected/ promoted by whom/. This is where it begins to suggest 
that the involved parties, including civil society, are pursuing a one 
sided agenda, in cooperating with the dominant economic forces of today.

Such lock-ins come not only from things like OECD's recent Internet 
policy principles, CoE's data protection treaty, and Internet related 
features of ACTA, TPP kind of pluri-lateral treaties, but also in 
numerous other ways of which we read almost by the day in the 
newspapers. To give an idea of the rapidity with which these monumental 
decisions are being taken on our behalf, and our complete powerlessness 
in the face of them, I mention just two that I read about in just the 
last few hour.....

    Apples gets a patent for 'page turn'
    <http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/apple-now-owns-the-page-turn/?smid=tw-nytimesbits&seid=auto>
    in any e-reader device in the US. Doesnt matter if software patents
    are not allowed in most countries in the world. What matters is what
    US authorities decide, and it would of course apply all over the world.

    Verizon and Time Warner have come up with asix strike rule
    <http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/16/3654302/verizon-time-warner-copyright-alert-system>
    to throttle Internet, which measure they claim is just for
    educational purposes. And since everyone here seems to agree that
    Internet should not be regulated, no one can tell them not to do it;
    it is up to them how they configure and offer their 'commercial'
    service.


A little while back I also read how google demoted web pages in its 
search result that are getting copyright violation alerts on its 
automated alert registering system, even without checking who has sent 
them and their veracity. Facebook is offering services to promote 
content by those who pay them on Facebook pages of their 'friends' 
without demarcating paid/ promoted content from non-paid one...... Path 
breaking stuff all of this, which is shaping the global Internet in very 
basic ways, but we should just sit by and watch.

It may not only be ITU  - or, rather, some countries through the ITU - 
that may be intent on damaging the Internet, as we want to see it to be. 
There are many others, and these latter ones have been rather more 
successful at their enterprise. The issue of who is going to stop them - 
and what global institutional mechanisms are needed for that purpose - 
shouldbother usas much as stopping anything adverse happening at the ITU.

On the other hand, even ITU can be employed for some positive purposes 
by getting high level principles like on universal access, right to 
communicate and net neutrality into the ITRs and other instruments of 
the ITU, while staying away from any kind of close regulation that for 
instance the ETNO proposal sought.

Parminder


On Friday 16 November 2012 01:14 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm sure this is naïve of me, but I'm wondering what the difference
>> (at the level of principle) might be between arguing as below, for
>> regulation (in support of the public interest) for an IP based
>> network through the FCC and arguing for regulation of "the
>> Internet" (in support of the public interest) at the WCIT/the ITU (as
>> per for example
>> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet
>> -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/
>>
>> (and please could we discuss this at the level of theory/principle
>> while avoiding US "exceptionalism"...
> I would suggest that the main difference is that the classical telephony
> network has a single, well-understood main purpose which is not changing
> over time. This makes it possible to have meaningful regulation that
> ties directly into this purpose.
>
> By contrast, the Internet is designed to be useful quite generally
> without tying it to any particular intended main purpose. As a
> consequence, the Internet enables rapid innovation of new ways in which
> it can be used. This fast evolution is a significant difference in
> regard to practical feasibility of regulation. As a matter of
> principle, it is not possible to effectively address by means
> of regulation aspects can that change more quickly than the time
> that it takes to change the regulations, except of course if people
> are willing to accept regulation that significantly slows down the
> pace of innovation.
>
> There are still issues that are sufficiently fundamental and
> therefore slow-changing that effective regulation is possible and in
> fact highly desirable. For example, I'm all in favor of a strong network
> neutrality principle which says that a company in the business of
> transmitting Internet protocol datagrams may define its price structure
> only in terms of properties of the service of transmitting these
> datagrams. (This allows to distinguish between a basic "best effort"
> service and a more expensive service with stronger QoS guarantees, but
> disallows the various "profit maximization at the expense of the
> integrity of the Internet" schemes.)
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121117/ce2bcf11/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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