[governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

The net neutrality debate has changed for the worse from its early form. 
Right now there is almost as much innuendo, politics and mudslinging there 
as there is in IG. So I am sort of glad that at least isn't coming in to 
poison the atmosphere here further.

--srs (htc one x)



On 15 September 2013 8:57:37 AM parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> On Saturday 14 September 2013 08:38 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> > In the Verizon case in the U.S. I've heard that the judges are leaning 
> towards allowing telecom and cable broadband providers to charge OTT 
> players for prioritized network services, but will leave some other parts 
> of the FCC's Open Internet rules intact.  Meanwhile in Europe, Commission 
> vice president Neelie Kroes last week released proposals for major telecom 
> reform aiming to create a single telecom market which include network 
> neutrality provisions that would allow telcos to do much the same: they'd 
> be able to differentiate their offers perhaps by speed and compete on 
> enhanced quality of service.  Thou Kroes is also proposing to prevent 
> throttling of traffic and blocking of some apps (Skype, WhatsApp etc etc).
> > Press release for the EC proposals 
> <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm>, good summary 
> <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm>
> > If both the U.S. and Europe were to go this way, and not certain in 
> either case, then guess it might become a bit of a norm for other country's 
> to allow the same.
>
>
> Which is a huge problem of global (non) governance of the Internet - that 
> the mighty are able to dictate the architectural framework of the Internet 
> by sheer market/economic, and, also often, political dominance. Civil 
> society has not been able to offer any response to this patently anti 
> democratic situation. Neither has the much touted multistakeholder model 
> any response to this situation.
>
> A bit strange that even after 7 editions of the IGF, while Bali IGF will be 
> full of sessions on multistakeholderism, all these years we could not get 
> one main session on net neutrality (NN) - which to me is almost 'the' 
> paradigmatic public policy issue of IG. In fact, there were really a lot of 
> proposals to get a main session on NN this year but , at the Paris MAG 
> consultations, I had the feeling that these proposals were actively 
> discouraged if not sabotaged by the powers that be.... Perhaps MAG members 
> can help us understand why we could not get a main session on NN, when all 
> kinds of sessions with vague titles made the grade...
>
> This gives grist to the propositions that the exclusive focus on procedural 
> issues at the IGF just helps build a smokescreen preventing the needed 
> global discussions on real public policy issues.
>
> Very unfortunate that while , as per above Adam's email, the die seems to 
> have been cast in terms of a non NN Internet, all these years IGC has still 
> not being able to get over arguing on things like - the meaning of NN is 
> not clear.... I consider it as a major failure of IGC that we could do 
> nothing, much less provide leadership, on this all crucial IG issue.....
>
> parminder
>
>
> > Adam
>
>



-------------- 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