Net Neutrality Debate goes to WCIT-12
Whaddya know, somebody else saw it this way too! I read what Hamadoun Toure said on the Bloomberg interview and thought, hmmmm, wonder what he expects me to figure out by not directly saying it? Afterall, he's no slouch.... A correspondent sent this link to me... http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/net-neutrality-debate-goes-itu-wcit - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
Dear Carlton, A very interesting Article that you sent that was written by Vladmir where he talks about ETNO and Gambardella's proposal. Here are my comments. On the issue raised by Luigi Gambardella, it follows that a proposal by the European Network Operators Association (ETNO) on the principle that Sender Party pays in terms of Traffic is similar to the principle of Calling Party pays. The irony is that the link mentions that there is significant traffic sent to Europe from the US. If we think about this further, there is a sense of irony because as far as e commerce goes, US companies have consistent preferred to be taxed from source (US) and not at "place of consumption" or "destination". The EC and the US have no doubt been at loggerheads where it comes to the issue of taxation and the US of course has since the passage of the US Congress's Tax Freedom Act 1998[ (*authored by Representative Christopher Cox and Senator Ron Wyden and signed into law on October 21 1998 by then President Clinton*) which following expiry continued to be reauthorised and it most recent reauthorisation) was in October 2007 where this has been extended till 2014] consistently held that taxation for them would be from source, which means "no tax" as opposed to EC's attempts to tax at consumption. There are some in Europe who think that ETNO is pushing for a separate class of human rights for businesses. Take Finland where they hold that 1MB access of Broadband as a Human Right. Whilst 1MB is a human right in Finland it is not so for much of the world where access, availability, affordability is still an issue. It would be reasonable to expect that if this 1MB access is a human right then it is must be supplied to every houselhold and subsidised access for those who cannot afford it. The reality is all Telcos all over the world charge different prices for different products and the more the bandwidth and increase in QoS, the more you pay. If we take Finland's position and say X Bandwidth is a human right and therefore either (FREE) or heavily subsidised by Government, then anything on top of it is chargeable to whoever wants to pay for it within reason. The variations would depend on whether the markets are liberalised, whether the prices are market driven or regulated by the relevant competition authority. I think that there is a distinction between what ordinary access is. Recently talks about US FCC proposed Universal Service Funds on global submarine cable investments to benefit much of the developing world where they land had been met with much criticism by those who would have to pay into the USF. On the other hand declaring access as a human right may mean getting massive subsidies for global submarine deployment in developing countries but of course I am dreaming...lol With something like Network Neutrality which is a multidimensional concept where issues such as:- - Prioritisation of Traffic -challenges include (access, availability, affordability) should a packet be prioritised because someone paid top dollar to have it posted (commercial) compared to an ordinary content; - Traffic Management where bulk unsolicited mail can clog up the already little pipes in existence; - National Security/IPRs - telco/ISP driven packet sniffing? where it's no longer about size, it's about content. If the TPP unfolds and the Digital Rights Management system unfolds where this is regulated, yes your packets will be screened.
" consistent preferred " should read "consistently preferred" On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Carlton,
A very interesting Article that you sent that was written by Vladmir where he talks about ETNO and Gambardella's proposal. Here are my comments.
On the issue raised by Luigi Gambardella, it follows that a proposal by the European Network Operators Association (ETNO) on the principle that Sender Party pays in terms of Traffic is similar to the principle of Calling Party pays. The irony is that the link mentions that there is significant traffic sent to Europe from the US. If we think about this further, there is a sense of irony because as far as e commerce goes, US companies have consistent preferred to be taxed from source (US) and not at "place of consumption" or "destination".
The EC and the US have no doubt been at loggerheads where it comes to the issue of taxation and the US of course has since the passage of the US Congress's Tax Freedom Act 1998[ (*authored by Representative Christopher Cox and Senator Ron Wyden and signed into law on October 21 1998 by then President Clinton*) which following expiry continued to be reauthorised and it most recent reauthorisation) was in October 2007 where this has been extended till 2014] consistently held that taxation for them would be from source, which means "no tax" as opposed to EC's attempts to tax at consumption.
There are some in Europe who think that ETNO is pushing for a separate class of human rights for businesses. Take Finland where they hold that 1MB access of Broadband as a Human Right. Whilst 1MB is a human right in Finland it is not so for much of the world where access, availability, affordability is still an issue. It would be reasonable to expect that if this 1MB access is a human right then it is must be supplied to every houselhold and subsidised access for those who cannot afford it.
The reality is all Telcos all over the world charge different prices for different products and the more the bandwidth and increase in QoS, the more you pay.
If we take Finland's position and say X Bandwidth is a human right and therefore either (FREE) or heavily subsidised by Government, then anything on top of it is chargeable to whoever wants to pay for it within reason. The variations would depend on whether the markets are liberalised, whether the prices are market driven or regulated by the relevant competition authority.
I think that there is a distinction between what ordinary access is. Recently talks about US FCC proposed Universal Service Funds on global submarine cable investments to benefit much of the developing world where they land had been met with much criticism by those who would have to pay into the USF. On the other hand declaring access as a human right may mean getting massive subsidies for global submarine deployment in developing countries but of course I am dreaming...lol
With something like Network Neutrality which is a multidimensional concept where issues such as:-
- Prioritisation of Traffic -challenges include (access, availability, affordability) should a packet be prioritised because someone paid top dollar to have it posted (commercial) compared to an ordinary content; - Traffic Management where bulk unsolicited mail can clog up the already little pipes in existence; - National Security/IPRs - telco/ISP driven packet sniffing? where it's no longer about size, it's about content. If the TPP unfolds and the Digital Rights Management system unfolds where this is regulated, yes your packets will be screened.
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
An excellent background piece...should be required reading IMHO: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-07/carriagevcontent.html -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Greetings from the far seas! This is an excellent piece. I like how he discusses how the value chain for content was driven up by the end user through unauthorised data mining and how now content providers are asking for us to pay for content. I agree with Geoff that 10 years ago it was about the $$$ and how today very little has changed. I am not saying that making money is bad as there is nothing wrong with money, it causes things to be built etc. However, the reality is that when it comes to things like the Internet where there is alot of interdependence of networks, consumers or end users, there is an expected manner of behaviour. As has been the evolution from the wild wild west where one had a lack of regulation to each man his own and the need for "order" to be able to protect the weak and vulnerable and those who cannot speak. Until the world can control it unbridled lust for power, control, dominion then there will be no need for regulations and regulators. Until then, you still need the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) keeping a check on the likes of Verizon, AT&T and others or Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) that keep a check on the likes of European Telcos and ISPs or other Regulators around the world. Even if we say no to ETNO chances are that our voices are not going to be heard. But to make your voices heard, write submissions to the European Commission. The European Commission opened Public Consultation on Network Neutrality on 23rd July, 2012 where responses should be sent before 15 October, 2012. See: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/817&format=HTM... What was notable about the Press Release was that there were reports of deliberate slowing down of traffic and how some subscribers were affected. I should also mention that Diplo has an excellent Resource kit on the Subject, see: http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/general/network-neutrality-resources Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:19 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
An excellent background piece...should be required reading IMHO:
http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-07/carriagevcontent.html
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Dear ALSes, This is a link of a Video created by Diplo Foundation the organisation that Vladmir Radunovic works for, the writer of the Article that Carlton sent which started this discussion on Network Neutrality. This is a video on You Tube describing Network Neutrality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-uMbZFfJVU Enjoy! I am not sure if it is in other languages.
+1. Many thanks for sharing. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:19 PM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
An excellent background piece...should be required reading IMHO:
http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-07/carriagevcontent.html
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (3)
-
Carlton Samuels -
McTim -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro