[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

[Milton L Mueller]

I can't say if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis here in Malaysia) that give you free or cheaper access to Facebook than to other social networking websites.
OK, so this is at least a substantive issue, but this is a classic nondiscrimination issue that is typically debated in the context of network neutrality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "public goods" character of the internet or with "the commons." You do not get any traction on that debate by slinging those words around. If you want to make a net neutrality statement, make a net neutrality statement, at least people will know what you are talking about.
Also, devices such as phones and game consoles typically allow a gatekeeper to approve what apps you can use to access the Internet.  For example I have an iPhone, and I want to use a Bitcoin client on it - but I can't, because Apple decided I can't; and I want to install a Bittorrent app on my PS3, but I can't, because Sony decided I can't.  I presume that you have read Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", which although becoming dated now gives many other examples.
Again, this is a matter of the benefits or costs of the platform operator having the authority to internalize the externalities of the internet by making decisions about which apps/services can be excluded and which cannot. There are two sides to that debate. The platform operators argue that they should have editorial discretion; some consumer groups actually _want_ platform operators to make those decisions; many economists and regulators feel that competition among platform operators is enough to keep abuses in check. There are various examples of where public pressure has ended some arbitrary incidents of discrimination. My purpose here is not to take either of those sides, it is to point out that that debate has little to do with the "public goods" character of the internet. Nor do I see what we contribute to that debate with a vague invocation of "the commons."
An app platform operated as a "public good" or "commons" would mean what, exactly? That it is run by the government/public sector? Or that there was no management at all, anyone could put anything on it, including malware, phishing exploits, advertising driven stuff, and no one would have any right to remove it, even if thousands of consumers complain about it? But if there is selection, then who decides what is selected and under what criteria? The government? Think that'll be better? Which government?
In sum, the policy prescription implied by such characterization is not clear. This is still a meaningless statement.
Also, we are still lacking evidence that this is a growing problem. 6 years ago, when I first started studying mobile network neutrality, mobile walled gardens were the NORM. Most mobile operators confined you to a restricted set of special services they had deals with. The advent of the iPhone completed eliminated that model. The mobile internet is far more open now than it was then. Where is the evidence of a "growing trend?"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130429/47f02caa/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