[governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree

Wed Oct 7 07:40:09 EDT 2015

Hi Milton

The problem and differences stem from a higher level. Let me see if I
can explain. You, and evidently the author of this paper, sees Internet
merely in terms of a market, competition and consumer viewpoint - as is
applicable to most economic good and services that we consume. I, and
many others, In fact I think most, see the Internet foremost as more of
a media, as an essential communication service and as a knowledge space
(aligned to fields like education, etc). The latter areas have always
had public interest regulation standards which were different and much
higher than for any normal market good or service.

Now, we have to first agree to what should be the basic social, and thus
political (meaning, relating to policy, regulation, etc). conception of
the Internet. And I dont think we agree here. I know you have for
decades been advocating the Internet as a bold new frontier which unlike
earlier communications services need no special regulation at all. The
problem is that I think most civil society people and groups, including
here, do not see the Internet like that, and connect well to its basic,
media, essential communication services, and knowledge sharing side.

Having very different socio-political conceptions of the Internet, there
is not much point in diving into the details, like relating to
competition policy issues, of the kind you present below.

But since the two arguments, 'how can we deny something to those who
have nothing' and 'can we deny the poor their choices' carry huge
rhetoric value, and could even be quite persuasive if not inspected
well, I must respond to them.

In most countries, media is regulated much beyond normal economic
regulation. For instance, in India, there are regulations vis a vis
clearly demarcating editorial content from paid-for one, even
proportions of time/ space between the two kind of content, and so on...
Now lets say, a media house proposes that it will supply free or very
cheap media especially for and to the poor if it is allowed to remain
unbound by such regulatory 'burden'. My direct question is: would you
recommend that such a thing be allowed, whether in the name of (argument
1), 'giving something to those who have nothing', or (argument 2)
'allowing them to exercise their free choice' (they are responsible
adults after all)?  I expect you, but if not you most other people here,
to say 'no' to any such offer.

That is almost exactly what facebook's zero-rated Internet.org offering
is about.. Like the poor cannot be allowed to be fed trash in the name
of media, they cannot be allowed to be fed trash in the name of the
Internet. But then, to understand/ accept this, you have to see the
Internet in certain ways rather than others, which as I discussed above,
I am not sure you do.

The problem with zero rating is that while it offers some immediate
benefits, it takes the Internet ecology towards long term structural
deformation and destruction... The issue is of crossing that sacred line
regarding the Internet being that which  at once connects us to everyone
and everything - and a zero rated service does not... Once we cross this
line, we lose one of the true building blocks of a different
communicative thinking and design that is behind the Internet that we
know, and accept a new kind of a building block and design, handing it
over to the commercial interests that hate the levelling tendency of the
Internet, and want to build an alternative kind of communicative space
which, while it reaches all ( for it must reach all for them to be
controlled) they can manipulate through different kinds of gatekeeping.
If we allow this most important rule to broken even once, there will be
a cascading effect, with newer and newer business models, nay Internets,
invented which all will be nothing like the Internet we know. Opposing
zero rating is about not allowing this sared line to be crossed, putting
all our weight in resistance. For if it gets if crossed once, I mean we
even normatively accept it and not just practically, it will let loose
an avalanche which can then never be stopped.

parminder

On Tuesday 06 October 2015 09:04 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> At the TPRC conference there was an interesting paper on Zero-rating.
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2587542
>
> Unfortunately it’s not downloadable yet. I attended this session
> however and while the methodology of this paper was not strong, it did
> raise some interesting questions about the attack on zero-rating. One
> of the most eye-opening findings was that the services or apps that
> were zero rated did not actually seem to benefit that much in terms of
> market share or demand. I know that minor incidences of zero-rating
> will not affect the fear of many that it could be abused by big
> players, but if it has truly strong and visible anti-competitive
> effects, then one should attack such practices on an adhoc basis using
> competition policy, not oppose all zero-rating in all situations by
> all market participants. It seems that zero-rating could be used by
> market entrants to gain a foothold in the market and increase
> competition in certain instances.
>
>  
>
> Regarding Facebook and Internet.org, let me see if I understand the
> argument: No access at all is preferable to limited access, and we
> shouldn’t allow anyone to make that choice for themselves. Is that it? ;-)
>
>  
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Suresh
> Ramasubramanian
> *Sent:* Monday, October 5, 2015 10:46 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* [governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
>
>  
>
> But it's interesting to see an articulate voice advocate "the other
> side" and call out some of the commentary on this issue as  ill
> informed and politically aimed rhetoric 
>
>  
>
> Engaging in debate would be useful so the author of this piece can get
> a more informed : balanced and less politically driven perspective of
> neutrality
>
>  
>
> http://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html
>
> --srs
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20151007/4310e31b/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