[governance] A lot of people here will likely disagree
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Wed Oct 7 08:03:18 EDT 2015
That was very persuasively argued
However even in print media the lines tend to blur quite a lot. And newspapers are traditionally sold well below the cost of even printing them, or even distributed free, as they are ad supported.
Now - despite the print media being regulated - it generally requires personal ethics from the paper's editor and management for them to draw a clear line between news and advertising content.
The internet is much more complex to regulate in this manner as it is largely cross border and trans national in nature.
Network connectivity and broadband pricing is definitely fair game for regulation. However given that the content model of Facebook (to take an example) is by and large user contributed with ads clearly demarcated as such - I don't see very much scope for editorial content or oversight here.
--srs
> On 07-Oct-2015, at 5:10 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20151007/5d7c040b/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list