[PP-discussions] Your internet access: restricted.

[Rudy Patard]

Hello,

This survey triggered mixed reactions and I could not enact my responses
spontaneously.
There seems to be some fundamental questions underlying the survey and the
associated topic. But the presentation is currently insufficiently
informative, in my opinion, to trigger action of not specialized or
dogma-tized persons. Either I don't question the sentences and check them
or I do and feel restrained.
This survey also made me realise that I knew very little about the
infrastructure, its capacity, the current consumption and its
classification (type of use). This would be important information support
for equal or unequal treatment of information flows.
Here my conclusion, see bellow the details.
Event-though I grant logical construction of sentences, the formulation of
the poll is not adapted to me (I hope to be marginal for once). I rephrased
something I'd abide by. Similitude could be drawn from road legislation
toward cycles, trucks and cars (limited area access, limited speed,
differences of infrastructures, road, pavement mechanical characteristics
and prices...). This may help non-web-geek citizens to integrate the debate.
> The right, 'Net neutrality', ensures 'what', is enforced 'by who' and has
'the following counter-parts'.

Unable to democratically solve prioritization on information exchanges (ref
toward debate on priorities), current approach are grounded in 'equality'
of treatment of information (ref toward 'net neutrality'). This 'equality'
is enforced by 'national telecommunications regulation authorities' (ref
toward this panel of authorities and current activities and potential
critics).
Far from trying and solving the prioritization with population samples
representative of the range of users interests at play, current EU
Regulators intend to grant this hierarchical power to telecoms corporations
(ref current ones).
Three points in the currently building regulations are critical: *Specialized
Services* (equivalent to private motorways with categorized access to
it), *Traffic
Management* (equivalent to cars and distribution companies deciding on
speed limitation toward different users i.e. plumbers car should be flanged
to 50 km/h) and *Zero Rating* (equivalent to letting vinci autoroute decide
that motor-ways that deserves an airport in Notre-Dame-des-Landes
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9roport_du_Grand_Ouest>, would have a
100% discount if the driver present its fly ticket).

Optional addition : (as additional to what is proposed : dvp of current
last point)
The ORECE and national telecommunications regulation authorities shall fall
under transparent *and *democratic control.

If you understand and reject one or several of these points, petition is
here (URL). (3 boxes)

@+
Rudy
I'm writing my thesis so sorry for the delay of responses.

A°) Net neutrality (wf!Net neutrality is the principle that Internet
service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the
same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site,
platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of
communication. copy paste didn't got the def in the survey) ensures
innovation and competition online
TR-FR (savetheinternet.eu/fr): L'Europe a besoin de la neutralité du
Net (neutralité
du Net : principe selon lequel les fournisseurs d'accès à Internet font
transiter les données sans discrimination d'origine, de destination ou de
type. Cela veut dire que la neutralité du Net empêche les opérateurs
télécoms de bloquer ou de dégrader du contenu, des services ou des
applications.)afin d'assurer l'innovation et la compétitivité en ligne.
> 2 goals are addressed on the same item. Innovation and Competition.
The intrinsic need for competition without differentiation of purpose is
debatable. I reject this point even-though I understand the concerns. This
question (as the other) do not settle the roles and powers of users in the
governance of providers.

B°) Allowing ISPs to charge for fast-lanes motivates them to make the rest
of the Internet slower
TR-FR : Permettre aux FAI de faire payer les connexions rapides les incite
à rendre tout le reste d'Internet plus lent
C°) Specialised services should not slow down users' regular Internet
service.
TR-FR :Les services spécialisés (Les services spécialisés sont les services
fournits grâce à un accès à Internet avec un meilleur traitement de la part
de l'entreprise qui en fournit l'accès. Selon le Règlement, cette
optimisation de ces services doit être objectivement nécessaire. Le
fournisseur d'accès doit s'assurer qu'il y ait suffisament de bande
passante afin que la connexion à Internet ne perde pas en qualité. Cette
nécessité doit être vérifiée par l'autorité de régulation des
télécommunications nationale. En bref, un « service spécialisé » ne peut
être une « voie rapide » discriminatoire.)
ne doivent pas ralentir le service d'accès à Internet des utilisateurs.
> B and C. The network is inequal. Again, I do not reject the logic of the
argument, I question the governance of ISPs.
If specific speed is required for certain service (health urgency,
fire-environmental-sanitary protections), they should be developed
specifically. (adapted infrastructure and protocols).
These interrogations question the inequality between services. If certain
needs are declared as more important than other it would be logical to
produce a ranging access to resources that satisfy to them. (i.e. slower
and faster services). But equality is not neutral. (is there reality to
"neutrality"). Equality is the declared equal importance of any aim
(purpose).
If means and resources are devoted to the development of specific network
infrastructure and protocol in order to serve the 'specialized' services,
these same means and resources won't be put into 'the net'.
An interesting point is the entity declaring hierarchies, the 'national
telecommunications regulation authorities
<https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorit%C3%A9_de_r%C3%A9gulation_des_communications_%C3%A9lectroniques_et_des_postes>'.
http://berec.europa.eu ; http://www.arcep.fr ... other NRAs and
interactions ?
To me the issue lies in declaring *a priori* the importance.

D°) Zero rating influences my decisions online and discriminates between
online services and applications
TR-FR : Le zero rating influence mes décisions en ligne et discrimine les
services et les applications sur Internet.
> IDEM the creation of a differential (low, zero / high, ?how much).
When discussing repartitions of resources, one cannot discuss a single
boundary. It is the same problematic as wages framing.
As for other question, either the inequality is rejected as a whole, or the
complete circuit must be followed on all actors and powers at stake.

E°) ISPs should treat all traffic equally whenever this is possible; when
ISPs can arbitrarily throttle or prioritse classes of services this has
negative consequences for online freedom
Internet doit traiter tous les trafics de manière égale quand cela est
possible; quand les FAI peuvent limiter ou prioriser les classes de services
cela à des conséquences négatives pour la liberté en ligne.
> Granted, this is a step down in my opinion. But are 'national
telecommunications regulation authorities' of lesser negative consequences
for online freedom ? An actor able to dominate large part of traffic to
disseminate is value in an 'equal to all flow' system would dominate the
net. Equality on the road do warranty 'justice' for each user.

F°) Transparency is a necessary – but not sufficient – precondition for a
free and neutral Internet
Transparency cannot, as proposed by the Commission in its initial draft of
the Regulation and subsequently rejected, be considered an antidote to
anti-competitive behaviour in itself. Transparency has limited scope in
fixing problems, particularly in this context.
> Again is there reality to "neutrality" ? what is 'free' ? Why relying on
competition targets.
-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pièce jointe HTML a été nettoyée...
URL: <http://lists.partipirate.org/mailman/private/discussions/attachments/20160711/9f201513/attachment.html>