NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Definitions: "Network Neutrality" (and "National Security")
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 10:09 -0800, Lauren Weinstein wrote: > Gang, > > As you might expect, I agree with those who suggest that the wording on > the NNSquad home page ( http://www.nnsquad.org ) gives a quite specific > and useful focus to what we want to accomplish. That's a good place to start. The page says: "The Network Neutrality Squad (NNSquad) is an open-membership, open-source effort, enlisting the Internet's users to help keep the Internet's operations fair and unhindered from unreasonable restrictions." That's good so far, because it recognizes that "restrictions" can be "reasonable" or "unreasonable." But the spirit of dispassonate analysis doesn't last long: "The project's focus includes detection, analysis, and incident reporting of any anticompetitive, discriminatory, or other restrictive actions on the part of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or affiliated entities, such as the blocking or disruptive manipulation of applications, protocols, transmissions, or bandwidth; or other similar behaviors not specifically requested by their customers." "Not specifically requested by their customers" is the hard part. Customers who use their Internet access for legitimate, legal purposes want some things, and customers who use it for other purposes want other things. It often happens that customers who want to do legitimate things are caught in the crosshairs of a system intended to stifle illegitimate things. Robb Topolski, for example, is a victim. He's been prevented from doing what he wants to do by ISP Terms of Service that were probably put in place out of a desire to make network usage conform to a deployment model. Is the asymmetrical deployment model inherently abusive? If that's the case, we have to shut them all down. Does each ISP have an obligation to deploy symmetrical bandwidth because that's what a few users want? And how can you write a tool to detect something that you haven't defined, at least in your head? Unlike "national security", "net neutrality" doesn't have a long history and a general range of usage. The term "net neutrality" was coined by a law professor in 2002 and has never had a widely-accepted meaning, and still inspires yawns from the lay public. RB > > I also believe that a universally accepted, formal definition of > "network neutrality" is no more possible -- nor necessary -- than > one for a term like "national security" or the like. Yet these > terms are still useful so that people quickly understand the general > topic area under discussion, so long as we direct our concerns at > specific *actions* and don't try to hide behind too much > philosophical gobbledygook. > > For example, I believe we all likely agree that we want national > security as a general concept, but different people will have > varying ideas on what that means at the detailed level. We all want > to be safe from attack, but how far should we go to ensure that end > in terms of invasion of privacy, handling of captured prisoners, and > the like? So we see the various arguments relating to national > security focused on these sorts of specific actions and questions. > There isn't a lot of time spent arguing for a concise definition of > national security in a broad sense. > > Similarly, I'd like to see NNSquad devote its energies as much as > possible to *specific* issues relating to how the Internet is > managed, operated, used, and related topics, rather than what might > be characterized as philosophical meanderings -- perhaps more > appropriate for other venues -- however intellectually interesting > those latter discussions may be. > > There are plenty of specific issues for us to deal with. As it > stands now, just to choose one example, when a consumer pays extra > for a "higher speed" tier of Internet service, what are they > actually getting? The ISP will usually define speeds in terms of > "last mile" behavior, while Terms of Service (ToS) will usually > routinely disclaim *any* performance guarantees overall. This > situation strikes me as rather interesting. > > I believe that it would be worthwhile for consumers to have tools > that could be used to help figure out what sort of Internet they're > really getting for their money, in terms of performance, actual > capabilities, restrictions, and the like. We can work to develop > and deploy such tools, and help to analyze the resulting data for > consumers and the world at large to see, without getting everyone to > agree on a universal definition of network neutrality. > > There's a financial services firm that runs a commercial showing a > guy choking on food while eating. As he continues to choke, the other > folks at his table discuss what's happening to him and how the > Heimlich Maneuver works. As the choking continues, a man comes over > from another table, performs a quick Heimlich, and saves the day. > The tagline for the spot is "Less talk, more action." > > I'll leave it at that. > > --Lauren-- > NNSquad Moderator