[discuss] Net Neutrality: Perhaps the FCC is the wrong agency?

Tue Jun 3 10:31:23 UTC 2014

Barry,

as always the question is what is NN? from which point of view? In 
which architectonical, architectural, and operational contexts? 
Computed bits are immune to feelings, but people's feelings are not 
immune to bits.

The whole datacommunication issue roots in 1976/77 congress hearings 
and FCC positions: universal service (life-line) and competition, 
with a confusion between bandwidth (cable, satellite, radio-waves, 
etc.) and quality (packet switching) because the two architectural 
innovations came in parallel. Architectonically this is part of the 
American model, where public interest services are delegated to 
private interests operators, Congress and FCC found motivated by 
competition in a ***wide*** country, where the impact of bandwidth 
variable costs is quite different from more geographically compact 
countries and, in turn, from international.

Depending on the cases, this is good or not. Up to now it was good 
enough to concentrate the global digital industry in the US. However, 
it does not scale anymore, for many reasons: NN is the diagnosis of 
this lack of scalling. It is not a remedy.

There seem to be three possible kinds of (simultaneous?) remedies:

- pragamatically administering the rules on a case basis. This is the 
MSism of NTIA, the OpenStand of technicians, the FCC approach. This 
calls for a fundamental architectonic strategy which is to be defined 
by the Congress of a dollar centered context. While, the WSIS has 
decided that the global digital social aesthetic would be people 
centered - what Sao Paulo has confrimed (the end result should be 
similar but the ethitechnic paths can be very different).

-  mutilaterally protecting the rest of the world precarious 
stability from the US instability, more over than the premises are 
different. This is the WCIT majority's position and in part of the 
OECD mitigated US support.

- coming down to fundamentals: what is the internet? How to 
consolidate it, by itself? Politically, economically, technically. 
It  seems difficult to address the "Natalie Coupet's question". So, I 
will try to simplify it: what is the purpose of the internet? Until 
now we have a ballance between a political "giving power" resonse and 
an economical "making money" other response. It is true that one 
needs political coordination and economical financing. Howeer, is not 
the first purpose of something to be ***used***?

As long as we do not accept that the Internet's first purpose is to 
be used and that it is the aggregation of its users' use solutions, 
people may have an inadequate response they will feel as non neutral. 
NN is like the tide and the wind for seamen who would like the FMM 
(Federal Maritime Management) to insure they are constantly "neutral" to all.

The NTIA's idea is that it would be better if FMM rules where 
replaced by a World Maritime Master referent. For the cyberspace they 
whish the job to be carried by ICANN, as the IANA, under an US 
Congress law triggered by the FCC.

M S G

At 07:21 03/06/2014, Barry Shein wrote:

>An interesting alternate take on this FCC / Net Neutrality issue.
>
>I tend to think the author has a good point -- be careful what you
>wish for.
>
>   "The FCC Must Ignore the Silly 'Net Neutrality' Advocates"
>
> 
>http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/19/the-fcc-must-ignore-the-silly-net-neutrality-advocates.html
>
>or
>
>   http://tinyurl.com/m5yllnl
>
>
>--
>         -Barry Shein
>
>The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
>Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
>Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss