I believe that those people who may see themselves as possibly being
an "odd man out", the feeling likely stems from neglecting the
differentiation between wireline and wireless transmissions.
One example of many (from the Google/Verison joint policy statement):
"Importantly, this new nondiscrimination principle includes a
presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic - including
paid prioritization. So, in addition to not blocking or degrading of
Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also
could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic."
It sounds good until you note the use of the word "wireline". The
policy statement is one document, but the policies they are announcing
are significantly different between wireline and wireless
transmissions. In short, wireline looks fairly well protected. The
same protections are not being proposed for wireless transmissions.
As wireless transmission technology grows, the dissimilarities between
it and wireline will diminish. I believe many people can see the value
of the idea of prioritizing data who's delivered meaning is dependent
upon continuous or synchronous transmission (live audio, live video,
"high priority" remote database calls), but even in determining what
should be "live" or "high priority", there is no clear-cut line.
Furthermore, why differentiate between wireless and wireline? The only
reasoning I've been able to figure out so far are would include the
assumptions that 1) wireline infrastructure will always possess the
ability to provide greater (higher volume, more stable) bandwidth and
that 2) wireless traffic will always be primarily concerned with live
voice communications. I don't think it's heresy to say that these
assumptions are, at the least, far from certain.
- Patrick E.
--
Patrick K. Etienne
Systems Analyst
Georgia Institute of Technology
Library & Information Center
(404) 385-8121
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Kyle Banerjee <banerjek_at_uoregon.edu> wrote:
> At the risk of being the odd man out, I'm not yet convinced that deals like
> this are a bad idea. Regardless the merits of the deal, I think clinging to
> the principle that all information should be treated the same is a
> disservice.
>
> Here's the rub -- some services are far less useful (and can even be made
> useless) with slower speeds or latency that does not affect the usability of
> other services. Just speaking broadly, significantly slower speeds and
> greater latency is acceptable with email than with regular web browsing.
> Significantly slower speeds and greater latency is acceptable with regular
> web browsing than with streaming video/audio or database calls.
>
> We rely on many services, and declaring them all equal has the effect
> of hosing valuable services in the name of protecting them. Wanting to
> believe that enough capacity is out there to make prioritization unnecessary
> does not make it true.
>
> Our professional paranoia is a major contributing factor to our
> marginalization. We are obsessed with g-men coming in to find out what books
> someone checked out, but we don't sweat the fact that the vast bulk of the
> information people use (i.e. google, amazon, netflix, FB, meebo, just about
> everything else on the web, their CC transactions, etc) is far more
> extensive and contains far more interesting info because they need it to be
> able to provide what people actually want.
>
> kyle
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:29 PM, john g marr <jmarr_at_unm.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Lovins, Daniel wrote:
>>
>> I haven't studied it closely enough myself yet, but here's Larry Lessig's
>>> take, courtesy of the New York Times:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/8/9/who-gets-priority-on-the-web/a-deregulation-debacle-for-the-internet
>>>
>>
>> Here's a tiny url for that and its several associated links:
>> http://tinyurl.com/23w6c5u
>>
>> IMHO, everyone is overlooking the basic issue that the legal system
>> addresses, i.e. the interests of economic expansion [i.e. profit generation]
>> always override personal concerns (e.g. the "good" to society of the former
>> override the non-economic "rights" [e.g. freedom of expression] of the
>> latter).
>>
>> IMHO (do I have to keep saying that?), it is time for the provision of
>> information to be considered a vital public service, rather than a form of
>> entertainment or data being a restrictable commercial commodity, and for
>> ISPs to be designated "public utilities" subject to the same levels of
>> government oversight as other "utilities." Or, maybe the Government can be
>> the ISP for the US and we can receive Internet access as a "right" via our
>> tax forms.
>>
>> Still there will always be the problem of who controls the corporations
>> and/or the governments at any particular time. We seem to be evolving
>> toward some sort of restructuring of both those concepts, which, I suspect,
>> will do a great deal of harm in the process until the madness of
>> misdirection is recognized.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> jgm
>>
>> John G. Marr
>> Cataloger
>> CDS, UL
>> Univ. of New Mexico
>> Albuquerque, NM 87131
>> jmarr_at_unm.edu
>> jmarr_at_flash.net
>>
>>
>> **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside the
>> box."
>>
>> Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
>> sharing is permitted.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Kyle Banerjee
> Digital Services Program Manager
> Orbis Cascade Alliance
> banerjek_at_uoregon.edu / 503.999.9787
>
--
P. Kieran Etienne
I am a meat popsicle.
(812) 671-0191
Received on Wed Aug 11 2010 - 14:46:41 EDT