Re: [lac-discuss-en] Net Neutrality
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Net Neutrality From: apisan@unam.mx Sergio, we reduce the discussion for the moment what appears to be the essential point: the discussion about net neutrality and what we know of the resolution of the US FCC prevent telecom operators charge services differently, ie, if t sell you a connection with a capacity of 100 Mbps to Netflix and over to your house, both should cost the same. That's very different from not charge. I think we can assume with high probability that CANTV charged to Netflix and others, is that correct? (It may happen that Netflix does not have a direct contract with CANTV but a company of CDN (Content Distribution Network) as Akamai or other matter who has the contract with the Company to Venezuela, and Netflix and dems between its origin and CDN servers installed in plants CANTV, but in either case, Netflix and similar They will be cut to pay for bandwidth to support the quality of their services). There are other interesting points in your aportacin but I suggest you go step by step, what more objective first. Best Regards Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Faculty of Chemistry UNAM University Av 3000. 04510 Mexico DF Mexico + 52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD FROM MEXICO SMS +525541444475 +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Join the LinkedIn group UNAM, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ From: lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Sergio Bronstein [bronstein.sergio@gmail.com] Posted on: Sunday, March 1, 2015 12:21 To: Carlos Vera Quintana CC: LACRALO Espaol Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Net Neutrality Buenos das My first post was an order of reflection about debating the issue neutrality in all its complexity. I confess that I have limitations to address not only by my limited knowledge of geopolitics Internet, but by the bias of working in a telecommunications operator (OT) a State intends to move towards a caring and humane society, which our conviction, is socialist. Alejandro, referring to my previous post, sealaba coincidences between my arguments and any OT and you're right. In this fight for survival, are these businesses they invest increasing amounts networks, while their service revenues voice and data go down.This is aspara all kinds of OT, are its capitalist or socialist state with fierce dueos vocation. In Venezuela, access to quality communications is policy of State, to regard them as a human right fundamental. No countries in the world can show how many achievements as blunt on the subject: Each child who attends in public schools is given a computer (educational Canaima project), as is esthaciendo with the university level institutions State (he can be accused of discrimination but, as deca Lula, "The rich do not need the State"); in the last couple of years is haninstalado Free WiFi in over 2000 locations; are they installed more than 1500 ms communications centers in communities (Called Infocentro); 54% of Venezuelans now have access to internet and its footprint reaches 93% of the territory. CANTV, the Venezuelan State OT, renationalised a little less than 8 years (not condemned, because it is Verizon pagcada cent) is carrying forward these initiatives, without asking a single penny to aoaao yielding government and increasing profits. And aquse install preocupacin express my previous post. If companies investing in networks podrn only charge your users and not to those who use and if they charge (Netflix, YouTube, etc.), the proposal to hold the human right to podrsostener not communication. End users will stay exposed to the will of those big corporations that do not pay today for doing their business on foreign networks, they do not think users but customers and distribute content "a piacere" not are necessarily conscious citizens to develop and conectarn only those who can become consumers. From what I read, in ultimately the fault in USA est referred to the OT podrn not charge distributors contents and, from an apparent defense of freedom and neutrality, leaves users without guarantees that podrn connect. First defend the human right to be notified and then, if this condition is met, advocate neutrality. Regards, Sergio Bronstein On 03/01/15, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq@gmail.com> i wrote:
Hay ejemplos de Estados respetuosos y no respetuosos?
Esto es muy subjetivo
Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq
El 28/2/2015, a las 7:54, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> escribió:
Muy interesante tema, especialmente para la región. No se si este es o no el ámbito. Me gustaría al menos estar al tanto de las reflexiones si cambian de ámbito.
Saludos
El 27 de febrero de 2015, 0:25, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> escribió:
Hola Alberto,
Sin duda a primera vista parece positivo. Yo quiero ser más cauteloso y esperar a que salga el texto completo de la resolución para poder analizarlo con detalle y ver que posibles implicaciones puede tener en diversos aspectos.
Por ejemplo me preocupa que al clasificarse como un bien público, el Estado pueda reclamar y ejercer rectoría sobre el mismo. Si es un Estado democrático y con principios, tal vez no sea grave. Si es un régimen autoritario y que no respeta los derechos humanos, cambia la visión.
Una de las preguntas que yo me formularía es ¿Con esta nueva clasificación que se hizo las comunicaciones serán más propensas a espionaje por parte de agencias como la NSA? No lo se. Justo ahí la cautela de no festejar antes de tiempo hasta no tener los detalles del caso.
En el caso de México, por citar un escenario paralelo, el Estado en un momento dado podría tomar control de la infraestructura de telecomunicaciones (por ser pública) y controlar, bajo la justificación de seguridad nacional, las comunicaciones sin que hubiera recurso que protegiera a los ciudadanos en contra de abusos. Nuevamente reflexiono. En un Estado respetuoso de los derechos humanos, el Estado bien puede controlar la infraestructura y el flujo de las comunicaciones sin que la ciudadanía tuviera (mucho) de que preocuparse. Pero en un Estado donde el respeto a los derechos humanos es laxo, por ponerlo de alguna manera, la preocupación debería ser mayúscula.
Creo que el tema dará para mucho análisis, reflexión y discusión en los meses por venir.
Gracias por acercarnos la nota!
Saludos,
León
El 26/02/2015, a las 19:52, Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org> escribió:
Es una medida que ojalá prospere y sea ejemplo para los gobiernos de nuestra Región:
Saludos cordiales
Alberto Soto
--- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
[[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/a0514d0040.html --]]
participants (1)
-
apisan＠unam.mx