[governance] Access at the cost of Net neutrality?

Sat Oct 10 13:24:18 EDT 2015

I love the initial threads that are created here but is it normal to
respond in the manner that I'm seeing over the past few days that I've been
a member here? "Take a course in networking"? Is that the response to
Guru's efforts to the topic?
On Oct 10, 2015 7:39 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> May I suggest that both of you strongly consider a course in networking
> first?
>
> --srs
>
> > On 10-Oct-2015, at 8:04 PM, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > this mail i received on the [governance] list. But, i think, it is a
> general question.
> >
> > Based on the transport mechanism, and only of that, Net neutrality means
> the neutrality of transport. This is possible, because we never look inside
> the data. Who is the sender, who the receiver, what protocol is used.
> >
> > But we have two different transport types. Asynchron and synchron. The
> mostly, what we use, is asynchron. We have no time restriction.
> >
> > Synchron means, that we have some time restriction and we have to follow
> it. But we know, the synchron packets are mostly very small.
> >
> > And in the synchron packet stream, we have only one with the highest
> priority: The emergency call of people. Never any packets from state
> institutions, military and paramilitary organisations, private organisation
> and so on. Only packets, to inform people that other people need our help.
> >
> > This principles comes from the real processing of transport of digital
> data in packet form. It have nothing to do with, what people speak about,
> they sit in any office or meetings and speak about.
> >
> > I do not understand, why Guru speak about "Inetnet.org" or similar
> things. It is not our theme. Our themes are, to organize a InterNet, that
> is really a InterNet. We always see only fog clouds. And i ask you: Why?
> >
> > many greetings, willi
> > Georgetown, Guyana (brit. Guiana)
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> > Betreff: [governance] Access at the cost of Net neutrality?
> > Datum: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:43:44 +0530
> > Von: Guru <Guru at ITforChange.net>
> > An: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> forum at justnetcoalition.org
> >
> > Suhrith Parthasarathy
> >
> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality/article7735242.ece
> >
> > In the Net neutrality debate, there is a conflict between two core
> > values: ease of access and neutrality. The ease of access promised by
> > applications like Free Basics compromises neutrality and may later morph
> into a method of predatory pricingIf programs that bring access to a part
> of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench
> > themselves, it could eventually lead to telecom companies abusing their
> > dominant positionsIn the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral
> > Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to
> > discriminate between different applications. Though they have not yet
> > exploited this autonomy fully, they are certainly moving towards that.
> >
> > Earlier this year, the social media giant, Facebook, formalised a
> > partnership
> > <
> http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/facebook-rings-reliance-communications-for-free-data-access/article6878396.ece
> >
> > with Reliance Communications that enabled the Indian company to provide
> > access to over 30 different websites, without any charge on mobile data
> > accruing to the ultimate user. The platform, originally known as
> > “Internet.org,” has now been rebranded
> > <
> http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/facebook-rebrands-internetorg-platform-as-free-basics-by-facebook/article7686680.ece
> >
> > as “Free Basics,” Facebook announced last month. Its fundamental ethos,
> > though, remains unchanged. It allows Reliance’s subscribers to surf
> > completely free of cost a bouquet of websites covered within the scheme,
> which includes, quite naturally, facebook.com <http://facebook.com>. Mark
> Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, views this supposed initiative as a
> philanthropic gesture, as part of a purported, larger aim to bring access
> to the Internet to those people who find the costs of using generally
> available mobile data prohibitive.
> >
> > *Neutrality, an interpretive concept*
> >
> > On the face of it, this supposed act of altruism appears to be
> > commendable. But, there are many critics — some of whom have come
> > together to launch a website “savetheinternet.in
> > <http://savetheinternet.in>” with a view to defending Internet freedom
> — who argue that Free Basics violates what has come to be known as the
> > principle of network (or Net) neutrality.
> >
> > While it is clear to all of us that a notion of Net neutrality involves
> > some regulation of the Internet, it is less clear what the term actually
> means. Like any phrase that involves either a moral or a legal
> > obligation, Net neutrality is also an interpretive concept. People who
> > employ the term to denote some sort of binding commitment, or at the
> > least an aspirational norm, often tend to disagree over precisely how
> > the idea ought to be accomplished. Tim Wu — an American lawyer and
> > presently a professor at the Columbia University — who coined the term,
> > views the notion of Net neutrality as signifying an Internet that does
> > not favour any one application over another. In other words, the idea is
> to ensure that Internet service providers do not discriminate content by
> either charging a fee for acting as its carrier or by incorporating any
> technical qualifications.
> >
> > In India, there is no law that expressly mandates the maintenance of a
> > neutral Internet. This March, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
> > (TRAI) released a draft consultation paper
> > <
> http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/trai-seeks-views-to-regulate-netbased-calling-messaging-apps/article7039815.ece
> >seeking
> > the public’s views on whether the Internet needed regulation.
> > Unfortunately, much of its attention was focussed on the supposedly
> > pernicious impact
> > <
> http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/policy-proposes-storage-of-all-messages-mandatory-for-90-days/article7674762.ece
> >of
> > applications such as WhatsApp and Viber. “In a multi-ethnic society
> > there is a vital need,” wrote TRAI, “to ensure that the social
> > equilibrium is not impacted adversely by communications that inflame
> > passions, disturb law and order and lead to sectarian disputes.” The
> > questions, therefore, in its view were these: should at least some
> > Internet applications be amenable to a greater regulation, and should
> > they compensate the telecom service providers in addition to the data
> > charges that the consumers pay directly for the use of mobile Internet?
> >
> > If the government eventually answers these questions in the affirmative,
> the consequences could be drastic. It could lead to a classification of
> Internet applications based on arbitrary grounds, by bringing some of them,
> whom the government views as harmful to society in some manner or another,
> within its regulatory net. Through such a move, the state, contrary to
> helping establish principles of Net neutrality as a rule of law, would be
> actively promoting an unequal Internet.
> >
> > In any event, as things stand, in the absence of a specific law
> > mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual /carte
> > blanche/ to discriminate between different applications. Though these
> > companies have not yet completely exploited this autonomy, they are
> > certainly proceeding towards such an exercise. In April this year,
> > Airtel announced Airtel Zero
> > <
> http://www.thehindu.com/business/airtel-launches-platform-offering-free-access-to-certain-apps/article7077204.ece
> >,
> > an initiative that would allow applications to purchase data from Airtel
> in exchange for the telecom company offering them to consumers free of cost.
> >
> > On the face of it, this programme appears opposed to Net neutrality. But
> what is even more alarming is that mobile Internet service providers could,
> in the future, plausibly also control the speeds at which different
> applications are delivered to consumers. For example, if WhatsApp were to
> subscribe to Airtel Zero by paying the fee demanded by the company, Airtel
> might accede to offering WhatsApp to consumers at a pace superior to that
> at which other applications are run. This kind of discrimination, as Nikhil
> Pahwa, one of the pioneers of the Save The Internet campaign, has argued,
> is prototypically opposed to Net neutrality. It tends to breed an unequal
> playing field, and, if allowed to subsist, it could create a deep division
> in the online world. Ultimately, we must view Net neutrality as a concept
> that stands for the values that we want to build as a society; it pertains
> to concerns about ensuring freedom of expression and about creating an open
> space for ideas where democracy can thrive. There is a tendency, though, to
> view those who support Net neutrality as representing a supercilious
> position. Such criticism is unquestionably blinkered, but it also
> highlights certain telling concerns.
> >
> > Telecom companies that wish to discriminate between applications argue
> > that in the absence of an Internet that has completely permeated all
> > strata of society, an obligation to maintain neutrality is not only
> > unreasonable on the companies, but also unfair on the consumer. After
> > all, if nothing else, Airtel Zero and Free Basics bring, at the least,
> > some portions of the Internet to people who otherwise have no means to
> > access the web. What we have, therefore, at some level, is a clash of
> > values: between access to the Internet (in a limited form) and the
> > maintenance of neutrality in an atmosphere that is inherently unequal.
> > This makes tailoring a solution to the problem a particularly arduous
> > process.
> >
> > The Internet, in its purest form, is a veritable fountain of
> > information. At its core lies a commitment to both openness and a level
> > playing field, where an ability to innovate is perennially maintained.
> > It is difficult to argue against Facebook when it says that some access
> > is better than no access at all. But one of the problems with Free
> > Basics, and indeed with Airtel Zero too, is that the consumer has no
> > choice in which websites he or she might want to access free of cost. If
> this decision is made only by Facebook, which might argue that it gives
> every developer an equal chance to be a part of its project as long as it
> meets a certain criteria, what we have is almost a paternalistic web. In
> such a situation, information, far from being free, is shackled by
> constraints imposed by the service provider.
> >
> > *Laudable end, unethical means*
> >
> > This is precisely one of the concerns raised by those arguing in favour
> > of Net neutrality, who, it is worth bearing in mind, aren’t resistant to
> the idea of a greater penetration of the Internet. Their apprehensions lie
> in companies resorting to what they believe is an unethical means to
> achieving, at least in theory, a laudable end. Accord\\ing to them,
> negating Net neutrality, in a bid to purportedly achieve greater access to
> the Internet in the immediate future, could prove profoundly injurious in
> the long run. Yes, Airtel Zero and Free Basics would bring to the
> less-privileged amongst us some access to the Internet, but the question is
> this: at what cost?
> >
> > The worry is that if the programs that bring access to a part of the
> > Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could
> > eventually lead to these telecom companies abusing their dominant
> > positions. No doubt, as Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre
> > for Internet and Society, has argued, it might require a deeper analysis
> to argue convincingly that packages such as Free Basics and Airtel Zero
> require immediate invalidation in their present forms; significantly, the
> former does not demand payments from the applications while the latter is
> premised on such consideration. But, viewed holistically, the companies’
> actions could potentially be characterised as a form of predatory pricing,
> where consumers might benefit in the short run, only for serious damage to
> ensue to competition in the long run.
> >
> > It is, therefore, necessary that any debate on the issue must address
> > the tension between the two apparently conflicting goals — the
> > importance of maintaining a neutral Internet and the need to ensure a
> > greater access to the web across the country. Mr. Zuckerberg argues that
> these two values are not fundamentally opposed to each other, but can — and
> must — coexist. He is possibly correct at a theoretical level.
> >
> > But the history of markets tells us that we have to be very careful in
> > allowing predatory practices, devised to achieve short-term goals, to go
> unbridled. As citizens, each of us has a fundamental right to freedom of
> speech and expression. If we were to get the balance between these two
> values wrong, if we were to allow the domination, by a few parties, of
> appliances that facilitate a free exchange of ideas, in a manner that
> impinges on the Internet’s neutrality, our most cherished civil liberties
> could well be put to grave danger.
> >
> > (/Suhrith Parthasarathy is an advocate in the Madras High Court./)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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/20151010/66ff5184/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