[Chapter-delegates] Net Neutrality

[Fred Baker]

On May 30, 2012, at 2:54 AM, Elena Zvarici wrote:
> Is this the official position of Isoc on Net Neutrality? 

Unfortunately, to have a single fixed position on the topic, we have to agree on what the topic is. The term "Net Neutrality" is used to mean a variety of different things, and each has its proponents. In the absence of an agreed topic to have an official position on, it's difficult to discuss a common unified position. For example, one definition I have heard is that the basic service of the Internet is bandwidth, and that all bandwidth should be priced the same and deliver exactly the same service, which is global accessibility of content. This view is essentially anti-competitive; if there is no reason to purchase one's access services from one provider as opposed to another, the most reasonable expectation is that all competition will die and Internet access will be provided by the last company standing. If one promotes competition as a means of lower prices and delivering innovative services, one accepts that those services will differ and have different price structures.

I wonder whether you or others might be interested to comment on http://www.internetsociety.org/net-neutrality and http://www.isoc.org/isoc/chapters/guidelines/docs/netneutrality_toolkit.pdf? The former is a brief high level summary, and pretty much expresses the view that Sally puts forward here. The latter is a far more detailed study of the issues and principles in the discussion. What they both say, as I understand them, is that the Internet Society stands for an Open Internet in which people pay fair rates for services that they can understand, and in which content that is accessible anywhere is accessible everywhere.

The comment concerning content has some interesting limits, which I think deserve careful consideration at some point. The company I work for, for example, would very carefully circumscribe it with the words "legal content". In other words, if a specified bit of content is illegal in some jurisdiction, my company would make no comment on its exchange. In the United States, "illegal content" includes content that is, is carried in, or which results in attacks of various kinds; I'm not sure that people who have struggled with stuxnet or flame would agree that it should be equally accessible everywhere, or that it should exist anywhere. There is also a discussion on copyrighted materials, which gets very quickly into the licenses, ownership, motives, and intents of those exchanging it - it may be illegal to exchange content that is itself well within the law in some contexts. In some countries, the encryption of content is illegal, and in others, there are ideas that are illegal to state or discuss. The Internet Society has not, to my knowledge, undertaken to explore those issues on a global basis. I would agree that the legal limits that apply in various jurisdictions are probably best discussed within those jurisdictions, and without preemptive judgement. Speaking for myself - and I think the stated view of the Internet society would agree with this - I would start with the principle, not the limitations on its use. But I do note that the principle cannot be fully applied without answering those questions.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120530/d65509b2/attachment.htm>