[Chapter-delegates] ISOC open letter

[Richard Hill]

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for this.

Please see embedded comments below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-
> bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-
> delegates
> Sent: Thursday, 20 May 2021 19:50
> To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ISOC open letter
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 06:58:04PM +0200, Richard Hill via Chapter-
> delegates wrote:
> 

SNIP

> >No, there is not a bright line. Still I think that most people would
> agree
> >that, at least at present, e-commerce platforms, streaming services,
> and
> >social media are not infrastructure.
> 
> I am unprepared to speculate what most people would agree to on this
> topic, but I'm rather less certain than you seem to be.  I definitely
> disagree that some parts of social media are not infrastructure: the
> uniquity of "login via Facebook", "login via Google", and "login via
> Twitter" buttons show that _at least part_ of some social media
> platforms are definitely infrastructure on the modern Internet: accounts
> in unrelated services are using OAUTH services that depend on features
> tied to a particular social media system identity.  If that isn't
> infrastructure to you, then we're simply talking about different things.

Indeed there is a good argument to be made that such things are
infrastructure, albeit not "network infrastructure" (which is what the lower
layers are).

If they are infrastructure, then there is a good argument to regulate them:
think of roads, electrical power distribution grids, airports, etc. See:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure 

Of course the regulation should be such as to encourage, and not stifle,
innovation and efficiency, but that's a different matter.

> 
> >broadcast evolve, but the basic concept is the same: to use some medium
> to
> >send the same content to a lot of people more-or-less at the same time
> 
> But that is not, of course, the overwhelmingly dominant way that people
> use the Internet.  Clubhouse aside, people are just not setting their
> alarm clocks to make sure they watch their favourite Internet show when
> it comes on.  

Correct. Broadcasting has evolved, and time-shifting has become popular ever
since the good old video recorders were invented. Even with traditional
radiowave-broadcast TV, many people record the program and look at it later.
That's why I said "more-or-less" above.

>And they're not being tidy and careful about (in the case
> we're talking about) Candian content rules for who made the production
> and who were the performers and so on.  The traditional solution that
> Canada had for this was to use broadcast licensing to force the Canadian
> content to be carried into Canadian homes even if Canadians often didn't
> want it.  The Internet presents a challenge to that model, because the
> Internet doesn't impose a rigid distinction as to who is a "producer"
> and who a "consumer".  

Nor do satellite and cable. Anybody in Canada can use a satellite dish to
receive programs from around the world. And presumably some cable operators
are offering non-Canadian content.

>C-10 (and a host of other similar proposals in
> other countries) appear to be an attempt to re-impose those kinds of
> distinctions, frequently with implicit or explicit expectations that the
> network provide the necessary facilities to enforce the regulatory prefe
>  rence.  To me, that is a threat to the Internet Way of Networking, and
> the Internet Society should oppose it.
> 
> I am sad that I appear unable to convince you of this, but I suppose we
> will have to agree to disagree.

It is possible that we might agree if you mapped the specific bits of the
proposed Canadian regulation that appear to conflict with specific bits of
the Internet Way of Networking, but I have no problem in agreeing to
disagree.