[discuss] Network neutrality language [wascFINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING]
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri May 2 20:44:26 UTC 2014
On 02/05/2014 02:17, Adam Peake wrote:
> I agree with Markus' comments. NETmundial identified a number of issues the IGF could pick-up. Net neutrality: there's already an active IGF dynamic coalition working on network neutrality <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/dynamic-coalitions/1330-dc-on-network-neutrality>. It has produced substantive work. A starting point for a working group perhaps.
Unfortunately the very first sentence of its "Model Framework on Network Neutrality"
sets off in a false direction:
"Network neutrality is the principle according to which Internet traffic shall
be treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference
regardless of its sender, recipient, type or content, so that Internet
users’ freedom of choice is not restricted by favouring or disfavouring
the transmission of Internet traffic associated with particular content,
services, applications, or devices."
How many times must we explain that users need different types of
traffic (voice, video, web text, web images, instant messages, email,
etc.) to be treated differently, not equally? It's highly desirable
that voice packets be delivered promptly and it really doesn't matter
if email packets are delayed by a few seconds, to take two obvious
examples. Differentiated services according to type of traffic are
strongly in the users' interests. The above text shares the same
mistake as the recent EU Parliament text. Differentiated services
according to traffic type don't restrict "users' freedom of choice".
We need network neutrality text that supports fair competition and
consumers' rights, but not language like the above that restricts
correct provision of good quality of service to all users.
More information about the discuss