[governance] FW: [Netneutrality] Organic Net Neutrality: David Weinberger

Seth Johnson seth.p.johnson at gmail.com
Tue Dec 9 00:38:53 EST 2014

(Correcting the list of URLs below)

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>

> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>
> wrote:
>> 1. Many people are surprised when I tell them to speed up the Internet,
>> traffic is “managed” or “shaped”.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping
>> In other words, left to its “organic” self in this Weinberger sense, we
>> will actually have slower Internet speed than if we manage the data.
> Traffic is often shaped, but only where it's possible.  That is, when you
> control policy across routers.  Or you *contract* specialized treatment
> with other intermediaries or end networks.
> The open network supports flexibility and interoperability.  Specialized
> treatment impedes that.  It's a general purpose platform across autonomous
> networks.
> You can see some discussion of various practices that affect the
> flexibility of the network in:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1958.txt
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2775.txt
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3724.txt
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4084.txt
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4924.txt

(fixed the above URLs)

> The last one is a sort of synthesis.
>> I listen to Tim Wu, who coined the term, and found that he was very
>> careful about this point. He never says no traffic discrimination at all.
>> Some discrimination (i.e. Traffic shaping) in fact is good for the
>> community.
> Yes, Tim Wu started on his theme, with Lessig and Mark Lemley, when our
> regulators eliminated competition at the physical layer.  He is attentive
> to the fact that the network of networks is not optimized for particular
> apps, and constructs his case in light of that.  However, you don't design
> the network of networks to serve particular applications.  That's,
> analogically speaking, the difference between a graphics card and a general
> purpose computer.
> The important thing is to draw the distinction properly.  What you do
> after that (and after you distinguish properly) might be a number of
> things.  I would stress to you that the important thing is that at bare
> minimum you can track the effect of specialized services on the open
> platform if you recognize the difference properly.
> This goes into that:
> Comments on Distinguishing Open Internet from Specialized Services
> http://internetdistinction.com/statement/
>> But once you do that, it’s a small step to throttling other services that
>> are not in your interests.
> Yes.  You can address that based on a proper understanding of the network
> of networks and of NN in both senses, both the original form and the forms
> you take when you've let the physical layer become privatized.
>> 2. Net neutrality is an intrusion into the rights of the owner of the
>> pipe/system/network. We can intrude into someone’s property rights if the
>> benefits to society at large are greater than the costs of the intrusion.
>> An example is copyright. It is a monopoly right but there are limits to
>> what the owner can do.
> Public franchises, right of way and tort law for common carriers are not
> that simple.  They don't come down to "who owns what [land[."  First of
> all, right of way is not ownership of real property or land; it's a set of
> rights secured by the state as an easement across other people's property.
> The rights of an incumbent are of that nature.  Yes, in many cases, the
> pipe they lay is allowed to be their private property -- as an analog, when
> railroads lose their right of way, they will often go in and remove the
> ties and rails as their property.  However, their rights in the "way" are
> granted and secured by the state, hence public.  They are private in the
> sense that a private party holds them (sometimes it's "public right of
> way," which simply means the special rights are held by the general
> public), but they are not attributes of ordinary private property.
> You're always going to have right of way in populated areas, because the
> alternative notion of competition would be one where everybody digs their
> own trenches.  Long haul transit can generally be treated more close to
> "fully private," since indeed each party generally does string their own
> wires.
> Seth
> 3. So between #1 and #2, we have a tricky question of balancing needs,
>> demands and interests. It also indicates that net neutrality is not an
>> absolute. Some non-neutrality is good. Where it crosses to bad, and IMHO
>> only when it does so, should we say that the owner’s right to do what it
>> wants with its pipe ends and society’s interests override.
>>  My 2 cents.
>>   Regards,
>> Peng Hwa ANG
>> *Peng Hwa ANG (Professor)* | Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and
>> Information | Nanyang Technological University *|* WKWSCI 02-17, 31
>> Nanyang Link, Singapore 639798  | Tel: (65) 67906109 GMT+8h | Fax: (65)
>> 6792-7526 | Web: http://www.sirc.ntu.edu.sg/Home@SiRC/Pages/Team.aspx
>>  President Elect-Select 2014 ICA
>> [image: confbanner] <http://www.icahdq.org/conf/index.asp>
>>  On 9/12/14 10:23 am, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  -----Original Message-----
>> From: Netneutrality [mailto:netneutrality-bounces at intgovforum.org
>> <netneutrality-bounces at intgovforum.org>] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson
>> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 11:14 PM
>> To: netneutrality at intgovforum.org; nncoalition at mailman.edri.org; bestbits
>> Subject: [Netneutrality] Organic Net Neutrality: David Weinberger
>>  David Weinberger coins a term and makes a critical point:
>>  Organic Net Neutrality
>> https://ting.com/blog/organic-net-neutrality/
>>  There are two types of Net Neutrality. Supporters of it (like me) spend
>> most of their time arguing for Artificial Net Neutrality: a government
>> policy that regulates the few dominant providers of access to the Internet.
>> In fact, we should be spending more of our time reminding people that
>> before Artificial Net Neutrality the Internet came by its neutrality
>> naturally, even organically.
>>  To see the difference, you have to keep in mind, (as my friend Doc
>> Searls frequently reminds me) that Net Neutrality refers not only to a
>> policy but to a fundamental characteristic of the Internet. The Internet is
>> an inter-network: local networks agree to pass data (divided into packets)
>> without discriminating among them, so that no matter what participating
>> network you’re plugged into, you can always get and send information
>> anywhere else on the Net. That’s the magic of the Net: It doesn’t care how
>> you’ve plugged in, where you are, or what sort of information you’re
>> looking for. It will all get to you, no matter where it’s coming from, what
>> it’s about, or what type of application created it.
>>  In fact, it’s because the creators of the Internet didn’t try to
>> anticipate what people would use it for that it has become the greatest
>> engine of creativity and wealth in recorded history. For example, if the
>> Internet had been designed primarily for connecting static pages, it would
>> have become less suitable for phone calls or video. If the current Internet
>> access providers decide that videos are their highest priority traffic,
>> then online games might suffer, and it would be harder to establish the
>> next new idea — maybe it’s holograms or some new high-def audio stream or a
>> web of astronomers working on data shared around the world.
>>  In short, we don’t want the businesses that sell us access to the
>> Internet to have the power to decide what gets priority on the
>> Internet…especially since many of them are also in the content business and
>> thus would be tempted to give preference to their own videos and music
>> streams. Artificial Net Neutrality as a policy is intended to preserve the
>> Internet’s non-discriminatory nature by regulating the access providers.
>>  Even the most fervent supporters of Net Neutrality policies usually
>> favor it only because we now have so few access providers (also known as
>> Internet Service Providers, or ISPs). Before a series of decisions by the
>> U.S. Federal Communications Commision beginning in 2002, and a ruling by
>> the Supreme Court in 2005, there were more than 9,000 ISPs in that country.
>> Now the ones that remain are either serving small, often remote, areas or
>> are one of the tiny handful of absolute giants.
>>  When you talk about Net Neutrality with Seth Johnson, a tireless
>> advocate presently working at the international level to defend the
>> Internet, he explains that before 2005, when there was a vibrant,
>> competitive market for ISPs, the Internet was naturally neutral. Back when
>> the Internet was composed of relatively small local networks, if an ISP
>> wanted to promise its subscribers that it would provide a “fast lane” for
>> movies, or games, or singing telegrams, or whatever, it could only provide
>> that favorable discrimination within its own small network. The many other
>> networks those packets passed through wouldn’t know or care about that one
>> network’s preferences. Zipping packets through the last couple of miles to
>> your house would be like speeding up a jet for the last hundred meters of
>> its flight: it wouldn’t make any noticeable difference.
>>  That was then. We need a Net Neutrality policy now because the giant
>> ISPs’ own networks are so extensive that a packet of data may spend most of
>> its time within a single network. That network can institute discriminatory
>> practices that are noticeable. A Net Neutrality policy prevents them from
>> giving in to this commercial temptation.
>>  Many of us Net Neutrality advocates, including Seth and Doc, would far
>> rather see the Internet’s natural infrastructure restored — a big network
>> composed of many smaller networks — which would in turn restore natural Net
>> Neutrality. We lost that infrastructure through a political process. We
>> could get it back the same way, by once again treating the wires and cables
>> through which Internet packets flow as a public resource, open to thousands
>> of competing ISPs, none of which would be able to effectively discriminate
>> among packets.
>>  It’s a shame that we’ve let the market for ISPs become so
>> non-competitive that we have to resort to government policies to preserve
>> the Net’s natural neutrality. As with peaches and whole grains, an
>> organically neutral Internet would be even better for the entire system.
>>  _______________________________________________
>> Netneutrality mailing list
>> Netneutrality at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/netneutrality_intgovforum.org
>> ------------------------------
>> CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and
>> may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended
>> recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its
>> content.
>> Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141209/9b2b2293/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:

For all other list information and functions, see:
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list