Thanks. More reason to go for infrastructure rather than extending telecom. It doesn’t
guarantee local investment nor content but at least we should maximize for value to the
community rather than to distant shareholders.
From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Song
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 08:32
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] That Burger King commercial
I am glad you brought this up. For me raises the issue that there may be a technical
definition of network neutrality and maybe a more pragmatic ecosystemic definition of
network neutrality, or perhaps we need a new word like network health (for the sake of
argument). I read a news article in the Guardian this morning that I think illustrates
Men-only clubs and menace: how the establishment maintains male power
The article profiles men-only private clubs in London where sexual harassment has recently
been the subject of an expose. It's a good read. Following your argument, from a
technical network neutrality perspective the fact that these clubs are private is not a
network neutrality violation but the fact that they bar women from the club is. Packets
of the same type should be treated the same. Yet, there is a bigger problem that these
private clubs also entrench the power and influence of a small elite. This is also a
problem. Banning gendered discrimination in these clubs would help but it would only go
part of the way toward creating a healthier, more egalitarian political and economic
Similarly if we just talk about technical network neutrality and don't address issues
like affordability then we might win the technical battle on paper but lose the real goal
of creating a world where everyone has access to an Internet that allows them to connect
with other human beings, to access and to create digital resources in a manner that
increases their personal and collective agency without their reasonable expectations of
privacy being violated. This is why I have long argued that lack of affordable access to
the Internet is the biggest network neutrality violation of all. It is also why
zero-rating matters because, while it addresses the affordability issue, it creates
defaults that inhibit the natural fitness landscape that should allow new and better
apps/services to evolve.
A few years ago I wrote a piece on Net Neutrality in Africa
) that I think is relevant
to this discussion.
On 24 January 2018 at 20:32, <dc3(a)bob.ma <mailto:email@example.com> > wrote:
This is easier than trying on WhatsApp.
Network neutrality is based on common carriage which was aimed at preventing perverse
discrimination by carriers such as railroads so they wouldn’t check your bank account and
charge you by how much you could afford. Instead they had to offer standard pricing. More
to the point two boxes of a commodity product would have the same price so railroads
wouldn’t set the prices based on the contents of the container or play other games.
It doesn’t prevent levels of service like first and second class cars nor express trains.
You can have frequent flyer programs and sell different classes of seats. You can sell a
fast-burger. (Whether you should is a separate question – income inequality and all that).
But you can’t charge two people different prices just because one is Asian and another
It also meant that you can’t charge differently based on the kind of phone call though you
could offer business vs. residential pricing. But you couldn’t force someone to pay the
price for a business line even if you were using it for business.
It makes sense to apply this to transport of commodity packets. If all the packets are the
same they should be treated the same. In fact you wouldn’t even network neutrality
policies if all the transport saw ere commodity packets because there wouldn’t be the
means of differential pricing.
The problem is we currently have entangled telecommunications policy with connectivity
(AKA Internet) policy so the carriers to have “pipes” which maintain the relationships
through the network and complex peering arrangements. The idea that a provides own cable
content is example from caps when it’s in broadcast mode is just one example of a problem
not well addressed by neutrality. We also have the problem of the claim that the Internet
only works because of protocols like MPLS and other very smart protocols in the network.
Another implicit problem with neutrality is taking into account the willingness to invest
in facilities and capacity. This is why I wrote http://rmf.vc/ZeroRating
rating was a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself.
So while I applaud neutrality as a principle we need to recognize it is a temporary
principle and not a long term strategy. For those not familiar with US history we used to
have a concept called “separate-but-equal” for education so you can have separate schools
for some (typically non-white). In about 1956 the US Supreme Court recognized that it was
a terrible idea and banned separate schools. I compare NN with separate-but-equal pipes.
The problem is having pipes at all, not whether they are equal.
The solution is to completely separate the business of offering services from the business
of providing infrastructure. And if we can no longer fund the infrastructure by selling
services we need to pay for the infrastructure as such.
Let’s not trivialize these issues with high production quality videos that miss the
DC3 mailing list
+1 902 529 0046