Werblog has moved to http://werblog.com

Thanks Kevin. I agree with you. My simple parsing the net neutrality issue goes like this: There are lots of people throwing around ideas of what they think Net > Neutrality is. For some, it is a convenient hook for other unrelated concepts > like free speech and open source software. For many, it is a crutch for > concepts like the 'gift economy' (free as in free beer) or various > libertarian/neocon ideas (Esther Dyson stating in the WSJ that the Internet > has always been unregulated.) > > Its obvious that > there is quite a bit of loose talk going on. > > I can offer what the term means in the world of law and policy, where it has > been adopted as a legal or policy regulatory regime. > > Net Neutrality is short for "Network Neutrality". It is a term that is > intended to apply to all networks, not just the Internet. Network Neutrality > means that ALL networks must be operated on neutrality principles. Cable, > satellite, telecom, data, leased data, video, etc. > > There are three neutrality principles. They are 1) non-discrimination, 2) > interconnection, and 3) access. > > 1) Non-discrimination means that all bits are treated the same by the network > operator, including its own bits (bit parity). In the convergent environment > all data is 'just bits.'The network operator cannot discriminate against (or > in favor of) any bits/content/traffic over the network, except as required to > protect the security and quality of the network. For example, a network > operator could, if it was possible, filter out DOS attacks, computer viruses, > or spam. > > This is simplistic, but that's my purpose. I wanted to give a very concise > definition. Obviously there are examples that challenge the paradigm (SIP, > SPAM), but the principle remains the same. > > 2) Interconnection means that any network can connect to any other network and > move traffic over and between the two networks, at reasonable > non-discriminatory rates. Without interconnection there is no neutrality, > because there is no network. There must be a 'right of interconnection' so > that a network operator knows that it can get its traffic carried on rival > networks. > > Neutrality means nothing if there is no way to know that you can send traffic > to end users that terminate on another network. For example, someone sending > traffic on a telecom network must be able to know that they can send traffic > to an end user on the cable operator's network. > > This resembles common carriage. It would make every network operator very > similar to a common carrier as to the network operations, only. > > 3) Access means that any end user can send traffic to any other end user, > without discrimination or interference. Don't worry about the > non-discrimination stuff right now. The important principle is being able to > reach an end user, emphasis on the 'end'. This is a consumer-oriented > restatement of Prof. Lessig's 'end-to-end' principle. > > End users could be individuals, but they are also devices and even other > networks. For example, a modem must be able to speak with another device at > the other end of the network. An individual must be able to email to another > individual on another network, but it also applies to voice, video, or files. > Access also applies to video networks (at reasonable fees), telecom (for > competition in local and long distance and for services like voicemail, for > instance), and data (so that any router or modem can be attached, like a wi-fi > router). > > That's all there is to network neutrality. We can discuss how to present this > definition, but this is the actual, real-world, working definition that has > been enacted into law in the other developed countries. > > Michael Weisman, JD, LLM

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: