Network Neutrality: Towards a Common Understanding of a Complex Issue
03 September 2014 - A Main Session on in Istanbul,Turkey
The following is the output of the real‑time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We will start shortly, but we do have speakers that speak in other languages than English, and our Chairman will speak in Turkish so make sure you have headphones for interpretation. If you haven't picked them up, you still have time to go and pick up headphones. Thank you.
Good afternoon again.
>> GALIP ZEREY: (No English translation)
They will make sure that we have interactive discussions, and we also want to bring in participants not just prenotified discussions as much as possible. So in order to get through, we obviously have to be very strict with time. I had hoped to have a timer up for everyone visible, but for some reason, that was not possible.
So we have a human timer, Nick Augustino. He works for the Secretariat, and he will put up one arm at 30 seconds left and two arms when there are no seconds left. Then we will ask you to stop and that will be my main task to make sure that we stick to the timeliness where the discussion leaders will lead the substantive parts of the discussions. Before we go into the discussion, it is my privilege and honor to invite Commissioner Mignon Clyburn of the U.S. Federal Communication Commission to give her regulatory perspective.
>> MIGNON CLYBURN: (No English translation). How pleased I am to be in Istanbul. The Chairman will forgive me if I applaud, but he probably did the translation anyway. I am not aware of any other successful product or platform with such a low barrier to entry that can produce such incredible equality than the Internet. That is why we are all here, correct? The United States is firmly committed to a free and open Internet, grounded in three fundamental principles, transparency, no blocking of lawful content, and no unreasonable discrimination.
I am happy to say to you that this is not new to us. Since the Bush administration we have been committed to an open platform. Every citizen should be able to engage in free and open exchange of ideas. For the Internet is the preeminent engine for innovation and the economic and social benefits of our century. It is fundamental to democratic society, free speech, civic engagement, education, healthcare, and more.
Educators now have more leverage to provide the best digital tools and learning for their students. Healthcare providers are better able to treat their patients no matter where they live, no matter how much money they make. None of this will be able to flourish and occur on a widespread manner if services and content are discriminated against or blocked.
The future of the Internet and the promise it holds will be threatened, however, if it does not remain free and open. Without the protections of a free and open Internet, large players will be allowed to stifle innovation. Those with deep pockets will be able to quash new ideas. And free speech and democratic ideals will undoubtedly suffer.
The President highlighted the importance of maintaining this free and open platform at the recent U.S. Africa Summit in Washington, D.C. He pointed out that it's important to avoid differentiation and how accessible the Internet is to various users. Over the past year I have noted that there have been inaccurate reports that the United States Federal Communications Commission has abandoned open Internet and that we will allow big players to quash innovation from large, from new entrants, and we will allow Internet service providers to restrict access to legal content.
This is absolutely not true. Transparency, no blocking of legal content, no unreasonable discrimination. These are principles that we hold fast to and that we will defend vigorously in court. Now, the court did agree that F.C.C. has the authority to preserve a free and open Internet, and agreed on our policy reasons for doing so. Now, we have to determine how best to proceed in light of a court decision that did take issue with some of the platforms or the structure in which we used to do so. This may not be an issue facing other nations, but this is a court decision that is strictly related to the legal framework in the United States of America.
So after that decision was rendered, the F.C.C. moved quickly and adopted a notice of proposed rule making in May of this year that proposes to protect an open Internet. The notice confirmed and reaffirmed our commitment to this open platform, and it embraced these principles so we are not walking away. We are reaffirming.
We made it clear that a free and open Internet is too important to be left to chance. And we moved decisively to propose these rules. The May notice 6 comment on different approaches to insure that the Internet remains open for innovation and expression while protecting certainty and predictability. Let me emphasize that the May notice contained proposals and not rules.
We are securing and getting comments from the public and we will issue hopefully by year's end final rules after considering all of this input. So thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak with you, and I will entertain any questions when the time is allocated. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Commissioner. And now we will move to our substantive discussion and we thought of putting our discussion leaders more in the middle of the room to make it more interactive and make it easier for them to interact with you all. So please, I ask, Sally Wentworth and Robert Pepper to move to the tables at the end of the U‑shaped head table so you can interact with all participants and we will have discussants. There have been last‑minute changes to the programme as some people who are listed speakers had to cancel their participation at the last moment for various reasons, so we have now Sally is a discussion leader.
She was previously listed as a discussant, and Robert Pepper was always listed as a discussion leader. He is Vice President for Global Technology Policy for Cisco and Sally is Vice President for global policy development with the Internet Society. And then we have discussants, we have ‑‑ may I ask the discussants to lift your arm so the people can see you when I mention your name. Prabir Purkayasthia, Delhi Science Forum, Adam Peake, researcher, GLOCOM and a professor in Tokyo, Alejandro Pisanty professor at National University of Mexico, and we also have Jeremy Malcolm as a respondent from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Please, Sally and Robert, and we said that the discussion leaders will be given three minutes for the introductory statements and then discussions will have two minutes. Who will start? Robert, please?
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Thank you very much. You also have Mr. Bram Tullemans who will be a discussant as well from the EBU right here. Thank you very much, and this is a, really it's an honor to be here, to be part of this main session and I thank the host from turkey for a terrific organisation and planning for this IGF.
As Markus pointed out when we were in Sao Paulo for NETmundial, there were a couple of things we agreed on when it came to the open Internet. First, in the principles coming from NETmundial, it said the Internet should be preserved as a fertile and innovative environment based upon an open system architecture with voluntary collaboration, collective stewardship, participation, and upholds the end‑to‑end nature of the open Internet.
And then in the going forward part of the document, the second document, which is the roadmap for issues, points to be discussed beyond NETmundial, the principles while it said that there's not agreement on not necessarily net neutrality, there was approval of open Internet and individual rights to freedom of expression and information, and then it went on to identify five important components of the open Internet.
It's important that we continue the discussion of the open Internet including, number one, how to enable the freedom of expression, two, competition, three, consumer choice, four, meaningful transparency, and, five, appropriate network management. And I think it is a really good way to have a fruitful discussion about net neutrality and the open Internet because it raises the right balance of questions.
The phrase net neutrality has been used in different context in different ways in different countries, and we may end up agreeing on some definition, but people come to the discussion about net neutrality and open Internet from different perspectives, different lenses. So I always try to start with a question what's the problem you are trying to solve for?
Many people in Civil Society focus on the freedom of expression, and it was very purposeful that freedom of expression was the first component piece of the open Internet in the language coming from NETmundial. In the United States we are very lucky. We take freedom of expression for granted because of our First Amendment. Not every country, not every people has that ability to take that for granted. You can't.
So freedom of expression is extremely important. So there is some important questions that we are facing. And as I mentioned, there is network management. So there are some things that we know. So from the, from what we know about network traffic, right, it's becoming much more complicated, the number and diversity of devices being connected are requiring different types of connections that need to be application, device and network aware, and we also know that traffic is not even, that everyday peak traffic exceeds average traffic by 3.5 times.
And until we reach the utopian world of fiber everywhere, networks that are managed today are going to have to be managed in the future. And the question then is how do we make it possible to have an open Internet that is pro consumer, pro competition with network management and how do we avoid the false choices of an either or world? Thank you. Sally.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Would it be possible for those who organize the Webcasting to have the scribes, the live transcript up on one of the screens that we don't have the picture on both screens, please. We would be grateful if you could change that, Sally.
>> SALLY WENTWORTH: Hello? Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Sally Wentworth for the Internet Society, and I would like to join with Bob in thanking all of you, thanking all of you for joining us today. It's a very big session which I think demonstrates the interest in this very complex but very timely topic.
I would like to thank our hosts from Turkey, and also the Commissioner for her opening remarks. What's great about going after Robert Pepper is he says many of the things that I would have said. I think from the Internet Society's perspective, we begin from where we would like to end up. We believe firmly in a global interoperable network of networks called the Internet.
We believe that users should have the ability to access the lawful content of their choosing, that they should have choice in their providers and in the environment, and that there should be transparency in that relationship between the end user and their provider. Those things are very nice to say, and very complicated to achieve. They are complicated to achieve from a policy perspective, they are complicated to achieve possibly even in a technical and commercial perspective. So I agree very much with what Robert said in terms of NETmundial offered an interesting breakout of the issues without possibly getting as caught up in the labels.
And I think that might be an interesting place, certainly, for this IGF to start, and also for our discussions as we go back into our local environments where this issue is increasingly one of discussion within the Internet community and beyond. So this session here we are supposed to talk about the technical issues. It will be interesting to see if we can do that. We are also dealing with some of these cross‑cutting issues, the development, the regulatory matters, but we also have sessions following us here that will delve more deeply into the economics and the regulatory issues.
But there are tough questions here, and what is the role for organisations that can help us create greater transparency in that relationship? How do we measure the quality that end users are receiving? How do we do that in a way that continues to promote innovation and global interoperability? These are not easy questions, but I think it's really, really important that a Forum like this that brings all of the different perspectives to the table take this on.
So we are going to lead a discussion here now on the technical issues. There has been a number of questions that have been raised, and I think they are in the background document here. So we are going to turn to our discussants and then open the floor for hopefully a very multi‑stakeholder enriched conversation about some of these thornier technical issues that will help illuminate the conversation we will have later about the economic and policy matters.
So thank you, and, Bob, maybe you want to lead the discussion?
>> ROBERT PEPPER: One of the things I was told is that the acoustics are not great, so even when the microphone is turned up you may not be able to hear, so I think using your headphones even if you don't need translation, I think, will help.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: One thing for the speakers, go as close to the microphone as possible. It makes a difference, eat the microphone.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Our first discussant is Bram Tullemans from the European Broadcasting Union.
>> BRAM TULLEMANS: The EBU is a union of more than 80 members, mainly public service media. So the words freedom of expression and transparency are very important for our members, and what I would like to say is that we see that radio and television is different now. It's not only audio and video anymore. It's also about Internet. Internet is integrated into it.
There are synchronized services that allow you to see on your tablets what is happening on television. You can have parallel discussions on it. You can see on the moment video programs you want to look whenever you want wherever you want on different devices, and this synchronicity is very important for us, and also makes it very difficult.
So if I look at video and technical things we have to do now, it's that we have to deliver over the Internet vast amounts of video, for example, that could create a problem, the Olympic games or the World Soccer Championship, we have to make a good approach with all of the service providers within a certain country, and even then you see that we reach the limits of what is possible.
So coordination is very needed. We have, we have to take into account that we work over the Internet with all different providers in the chain. You don't know them always, so we work with adaptive video codecs that can pick up and switch down connectivity. But the brig problem is all of the synchronicity has to be delivered to the end, and passed through. And that's a main problem here.
>> SALLY WENTWORTH: Thank you. I think that's an important comment in terms of coordination and how we, how we better understand what the needs are of the different parts providing the content. I think I have to understand. Our next speaker is Prabir Purkayasthia.
>> PRABIR PURKAYASTHIA: Okay. I think this mic should do and I will try and eat it. Okay. Now, I think that I would like to put a rider on the issue of free speech what was said earlier and legal speech or legal communication and I must say that the U.S.A. or people from U.S.A., free speech is best in the U.S. and actually free speech as defined in European and Indian law would be a problem for your law. So there is a difference between what you consider good freedom and what others may consider good freedom of speech.
And we must also bring into the issue the fact that there are also copyright laws which are very, very strict in the United States, more restrictive than most other regimes, so there are problems in looking at it in the version of the United States if we will, just as a caution.
But coming to that neutrality debate is not so much about freedom of speech as the right to access, which will preserve the freedom of speech, so add that layer. What we are talking about that we must have access which is not restricted technically because of the way the network has been configured or managed. And I would suggest that, therefore, the net neutrality issue is really connected to how people get access to the network, the preferential or discriminatory access to the network in the long run may freeze out free speech.
So we have to configure that at the architectural level and I would quote Lawrence Lessig on that, architecture is law, that what we are talking about in this context of net neutrality is architecture will be actually the law if we are not careful about it. So we need to focus on having an architecture which will not freeze out access because it's configured in a particular way.
I think that's an important issue for me. And the second point I would really like to make is what was talked about Internet being an end‑to‑end service. Now, unfortunately, when you get Facebook, when you get a whole bunch of other services, which are really in the middle, not at the end‑to‑end level, then we get the second level of problem which we are talking in net neutrality. Thank you.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Thank you, Prabir, and we will come back to those issues. My only point wasn't to be proscriptive but just to say that one reason why the issue is not always highlighted in the discussions in the U.S. Adam Peake is our next discussant.
>> ADAM PEAKE: My name is Adam Peake. I work for the research institute in Tokyo. So I will begin with an example from Japan and a couple of examples from the telecommunication business law which regulates the market in Japan and noting that the regulator does have authority over the sector, which is interesting. Anyway, two examples from the telecommunications business model that I think are relevant to this and hopefully useful.
One is an article that talks about fairness of use, and simply it says that any telecommunications carrier should not discriminate unfairly in providing telecommunications services. I don't think that's unusual. I think we see that in common carrier law in the history that goes around. The other that is relevant to the section we were talking about technology is another article which mentioned secrecy of communications and to quote that, it says "The secrecy of communications being handled by telecommunications carrier shall not be violated" and there is an example here that is relevant to network neutrality.
A couple of years ago one of the major ISPs was providing access, a Wi‑Fi access point from a convenience store, so a small Supermarket with a cafe, so on. It was found that if you accessed the Internet from that particular chain of stores, you would not be able to access the Web pages of competing stores. And the ISP was taken to task by the ministry over this and they didn't use the fairness doctrine that they could have done for non‑discrimination, but instead they addressed the security of communications aspect.
And that brings us to the notion of deep packeting inspection. The only way that the ISP knew where you were going and where you were looking at while you were going to the wrong convenience store was because they were examining that particular set of traffic. And so they were, they got their wrist slapped basically under the secrecy of communications clause of the Telecom Business Act. An industry study that went into a guideline on packet shaping and network management actually found in a questionnaire to members that a very sizable percentage of their members were actually violating this particular provision. So it's one I thought I put on the table as an example from existing law of how deep packet inspection and how we manage our networks can affect in different ways.
>> SALLY WENTWORTH: Thank you, Adam. And our next discussant will be Alejandro Pisanty from the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you, Sally. Can you hear me well? This is Alejandro Pisanty. Network neutrality from a technical point of view in many ways is paradise lost. The network, the Internet stopped being peer to peer, computer to computer very early in its history. Networks are very heavily managed right now in many layers. Networks are heavily managed these days in many layers and in many ways and in different forms.
When you go to Developing Countries, the arrangements are even more different because you may have a very competent provider in the middle between Developed Countries and the developing ones and then a monopoly low tech company providing the last mile to the user. Multi‑stakeholder expert enriched approach is required to define what a network neutrality problem is within each country within its legal framework and tradition and user demands or citizen demands and that should happen before and during the formal legislative and other law making or rule making processes.
Technical perspectives will allow to confine the constraints to innovation that telecos, cellcos, ISPs and consumers and innovators face. From a technical point, the technical mind, the layers principle must keep in mind to discover the site of the decisions and site of their execution which may be several layers below. You may want something for free speech, which is almost a layer 8 decision and has to be executed at the fiscal layer. In Developing Countries the technical sector may be the best developed followed by the commercial and regulators.
Civil Society must be talking to their engineers to make clearly defined demands that cannot be easily dismissed as naive or ignorant by the technical or lawyers in Governments and companies. The technical tools that can be used to provide transparency about the behavior of the network against monopolistic or other arbitrary practices will make a difference. They should be widespread in Developing Countries and elsewhere. And understaffed authorities may not have the inspection power that users will have.
Finally, we must move away from a few that is of network neutrality that is only web centric, and is centred on a consumer, on a condensed consumer point of view and look at producers of much more things than content and political videos which I don't want to dismiss, but there are many other forms of producing Internet that are critical for development.
And the final point, we must be careful not to copy. Critically what is happening in Developing Countries, we don't know if the U.S. will mess up the Internet by going to Title II of your specific laws, but we must be sure that we don't bring the Government in before we know what the intervention will do at the technical level to the Internet altogether.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Thank you very much. Our final speaker is labeled as a respondent.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: As a respondent I don't have prepared remarks. It was such diverse range of views that I'm not sure where to start, but I'm going to look at the question with which we opened, which was about identifying principles and defining net neutrality, and so both Robert Pepper and Sally Wentworth referred to NETmundial's list of issues which are about enabling freedom of expression, competition, consumer choice, transparency, et cetera.
These are not really a definition, and Robert said maybe we need to go on to agree on a definition in the future if that might be possible. I agree that that would be a worthwhile endeavor, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation is working with other Civil Society organisations in a new coalition that will be launched next month at The Web We Want Festival in London where we are going to try and do that. We are going to try and work out a definition that we can all agree on.
But it's interesting that everyone who spoke gave some hints about that. So Prabir Purkayasthia talked about the preferential or discriminatory access as a touchstone. Adam spoke about in Japan, the fairness of use and the secrecy and security of communications. The F.C.C. principles of transparency, no blocking of lawful content and no unreasonable discrimination were referred to. And for me a fifth perspective, we have a little set of principles against blocking discrimination amongst applications and no special access fees.
So it's a bit mind boggling to try and reconcile these into a single consistent definition, but I think it's something we should attempt, so I'm looking forward to the IGF playing a part in that. Perhaps we can refer this issue back to the main session next year and see if we have made any progress. It seems I have 30 seconds left. I will respond to what Alejandro said about the reclassification and being worried if the reclassification under Title II in the U.S.A. would break the Internet.
We certainly hope if won't, but for that reason we are asking the FCC to constrain its authority to forebear, to use the technical term, from regulating the whole of broadband services under Title II, and rather to confine itself to the three specific net neutrality problems that I referred to of blocking, discrimination amongst application and special access fees. So we think if the F.C.C. does forebear from exercising broader authority that will reduce the risk of it breaking the Internet as Alejandro said. Thank you very much.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Thank you, Jeremy. If I could do a time check, Markus, how much more time do we have for this part, the first third of the session?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Actually not doing badly, I think.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Good.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Let's have discussion, and that was a look to our remote moderator, John Walubengo, is anything happening?
>> ROBERT PEPPER: I wanted to go to the remote first.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: I think we can easily have another 25 minutes.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: What we want to do though is instead of just having sometimes random questions, whatever the question is, let's take five minutes and try to drill it down on a particular question, and that, I think, may be more productive. There were a number of questions listed as part of the background material. And I'm just going to go through those and then maybe go to the remote. What are the technical and economic factors in transmitting data across the Internet? This is the technical session.
Prioritization and how it affects time sensitive applications. In terms of applications that are more either time sensitive or sensitive to latency, prioritization of an ISP service, and its impact on available bandwidth for other services. We have already heard about deep packet inspection. And then the question is how to both define and enable appropriate network management. So those are some of the questions that were identified in the prework for the session, but we can delve in other issues as well. So is there anything on the remote with a question or should we go to the room? Let's go to the room.
Any question that the group wants to raise or a line of discussion that people would like to pursue? Go ahead, Chris, but, remember, you also are going to have an opportunity as a discussant later.
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: I will make it a real question. In the infrastructure panel a question was raised about certain, the question about prioritization. Two technologies in particular were raised, voice over LTE and IP television. To what extent do those depend on specialized services or some type of prioritization to effectively provide service?
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Bram.
>> BRAM TULLEMANS: A TPE is a specialized system. It's a closed system. It delivers from video content in the service providers' network to the end user, and you have to subscribe for it and there are no links, so it's really a closed system. So this would be a real candidate for a specialized service in that sense, and they are delivered over the same pipe. And they do coincide together now on the same pipe that works, but with regard to transparency and net neutrality, you would like to have a situation where the end user can see what is used for specialized service and what is available for the open Internet that would be my go for it.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm an editor of Utopia.EU, think tank and web magazine on digital society. My question is network neutrality seems to rely on the assumption that the infrastructure is an independent third party operation. Is that still the case? We see a development in the direction of centralization with the Cloud services and telecom operators running their own services and content delivery networks and such. So there is a technological development and business development of the networks. At the same time there is a trend of defragmentation where we can have local networks set up for mobile phones, et cetera.
So how do these trends of fragmentation and centralization influence the premise for the discussion on network neutrality?
>> ROBERT PEPPER: If nobody else wants to take a crack at that, I'm happy to at least start. So we have always had the specialized services. CDNs are Content Delivery Networks which are specialized networks and services for mostly video. Over the next five years 80% of the traffic across the Internet is going to be video.
So we know that. We also know that even in mobile services, 90% of the traffic is going to come from the Cloud. So but there are multiple Cloud providers, there are private Cloud, there is hybrid Cloud, there is public Cloud, and one of the trends that we are seeing are the interconnection of Clouds and the sharing of data across Cloud, and it's called data orchestration. What you want to do is move the data where the processing is available so that you can rapidly get what you need, and the networks have to be very agile to do that.
But it does not necessarily require that it all be vertically innovated. What we are seeing globally is a wide range of Cloud operators, a small number of them, very small have anything to do with the network service providers. So we are seeing both of those trends that you identified.
>> SALLY WENTWORTH: And Bram had a comment as well.
>> BRAM TULLEMANS: I understood the question also as part of relating to the vertical integration of the access provider who is becoming more, the big ones are becoming also tier one providers. When we are talking with the service providers on a national level for delivering of the content for the World Soccer games, for example, we talked to one division and we have peer relations with them, and the other division, they are doing trend set delivery, and they are not, they were not integrating. They were not talking together, but more and more, there is a fight that they don't want to have private peering anymore and that fight is a bit causing the tension around the net neutrality debate in that area.
>> SALLY WENTWORTH: Prabir Purkayasthia.
>> PRABIR PURKAYASTHIA: I think that's an important question. Are we getting into a situation where we are no longer talking about this end‑to‑end service being really one that goes from a common infrastructure as it were, and network neutrality being applicable only to infrastructure, but are we also seeing platforms emerge in the middle. And, therefore, you have also requirement that those platforms also be quote, unquote, neutral. So are we really talking about if somebody is offering Cloud services then should we also talk about platform neutrality as it were.
As in something which compliments network neutrality in the real world where it's no longer end‑to‑end service where the middle has become as important as end‑to‑end service.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Alejandro, you had ‑‑
>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you, Robert. This is Alejandro Pisanty. Very briefly, the setting of many of these questions, the way they are set is something we should think twice. We start speaking about the Internet and the network neutrality as an enemy or a friend of innovation, enemy or friend depending whether you are talking from teleco point of view or developers point of view, but very quickly we drift in I want to see Netflix. Well, which to begin with is a first word problem. You are not looking at the Internet, you are not looking even at the teleco which was providing you with circuits. You are actually going back to broadcast quality delivered through a very complex network that is best effort.
So, again, this is not a case of be careful with what you wish because you may get it. It's be careful with what you want to wish because you should better define it before fighting for it.
>> LARRY DOWNS: Hello, Larry Downs with Georgetown University. Thank you for this wonderful session and these interesting discussions. One of the things that's concerned me is when we talked about a lot of the exceptions that we have built into the network, whether specialized services or co‑located services or CDN or peering or transit, one of the things that concerns me is this is not an exhaustive list. It's not a list that's exhaustive for the future.
In the 2010 net neutrality proceeding of the F.C.C. there are a dozen widely exempted practices and technologies, but, of course, that world has changed since then. My question for this group is how do we make sure that whatever we do from a regulatory standpoint we leave open the opportunity to add new network management practices that may not appear neutral but yet are beneficial to all users and don't violate the core principles? Thank you.
>> MIGNON CLYBURN: One of the benefits of the renewed engagements influenced by a court decision is we have four years to look and see if we got it right in terms of high level principles, but you are absolutely right, from a regulatory standpoint, it is important for us to have rules that are nimble, and rules that are forward thinking and rules that honestly leave room for us to ‑‑ I don't want to say second guess, but know that we can't see it all.
So it's really important from a regulatory standpoint to not be overly prescriptive because, again, that not only could be, I don't want to say the death of innovation, but that can hamper innovative ideas, but really hamper regulatory creativity and flexibility. So you are absolutely right on that.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Aresteh.
>> KAVOUSS ARASTEH: Thanks for this wonderful arrangement. Thanks Turkey for the wonderful arrangements made and thanks to you for these sessions. I have one small question in an individual capacity. I have a question to the distinguished Commissioner. She mentioned no unreasonable discrimination. What is reasonable discrimination? What is the criteria to define a particular discrimination for particular sort of things? Is there any globally in a multi‑stakeholder approach to have discrimination being reasonable? Thank you.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Commissioner, do you want to handle that one?
>> MIGNON CLYBURN: It is ‑‑ can you hear me? It is a recognition of almost what I just put forth, that there is in terms of network management and the like, it is a recognition that there is a responsibility for ‑‑ when you talk about what reasonable discrimination is, is a recognition that there are management and other types of particulars that will be the responsibility to the ISP that we could ‑‑ that needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to decision making. So he is shaking his head.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: So you can keep going. Can you hear? The hand mic works. Go ahead, keep going, Commissioner.
>> MIGNON CLYBURN: So, again, it's one of those things that we will recognize it and it's necessary to have that flexibility, that dexterity to know that there is an obligation, there is a necessity for a managed network. There is an obligation and a necessity that we can't see and know all things, that there is a responsibility for that free flowing and free management and free exchange, and so the reasonableness, I think, sometimes you would say is in the eye of the beholder.
But it is necessary to have that flexibility because there is no way that we can see and know all. There might be a need for that in order for the public good, the needs and necessity of the public to be taken into consideration, and that's why we gave ourselves a little bit of dexterity as in terms of no unreasonable.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: And Mr. Arasteh, part of that also is in the history and the case law within the U.S. Communications Law. In the regulations it's called Title II for regulation of common carriers. It says that the pricing and tariffs and terms and conditions may not be unreasonably discriminatory. And the reason for that is not all customers are similarly situated. So you might have a very large customer, a large corporation that is a customer. You might have an individual.
You have different circumstances, and that's one of the things that on a case‑by‑case basis, if there was a complaint brought to the F.C.C., that's what the Commissioners would deal with. So it's not a definition that is absolute, but over time with case law, you build case law so that you know what is and what is not acceptable, but that provision is not just about net neutrality. That provision comes from the communications act that goes back to 1934. And so over the years with case law, it's actually worked quite well because it recognizes that not all situations are the same. One size does not fit all, and that you need that flexibility that the Commissioner described.
>> AUDIENCE: Just building on this, what are the parameters ‑‑ what are the parameters one needs, the regulator needs to have in order to begin to Judge if it is discrimination or not, reasonable or not reasonable. So what kind of monitoring? Is it only natural traffic management? Is it social cards and the richness of users, what are the parameters where the regulators decide what is an appropriate act?
>> MIGNON CLYBURN: For me fundamentally it goes back to the public interest in terms of the, the type of practice and the type of expectations we have with that particular, some people would call it a utility. And so I come from long term regulatory background where I dealt with, you know, pure electric, you know, water and gas utility, and I still define my, in terms of my approach to regulation through that lens.
What is the objective? What is the public good? What is this necessity? What has become a necessity? And that helps shape in terms of my definition and my framework.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: We have a question back here now.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I wonder what our primary concern here is. I'm from Minister of Development in Turkey. Is our primary concern which channel should we entertain or citizens or what is the most beneficial for all of our citizens? For example, when a disaster happens and in some part of the country, and in other parts of the country, there are many people watching IP based TV. And this is a problem.
If the people with problems could not communicate because some other people watching too much TV, what is our primary concern? Thank you.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Thank you. So this goes to the question of priority, and how do you set priorities, Alejandro Pisanty?
>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. This is Alejandro Pisanty. I think that we should look very carefully at some of these problems like the one just mentioned to see where you actually have a network neutrality, network management problem that's reasonably well defined and where you have an even better defined problem of political censorship or deliberate management of the networks to favor some usages or disfavor others. Also what ‑‑ to the first part of the question, what will work best in this country or in any other, it has to be studied inside the country. We are saying that network neutrality discussion globally right now is dominated by the U.S., the United States discussion about what to do with the F.C.C.'s powers that were taken away and may be coming back in some form or reach, and preventing this to go into overreach.
I highly recommend, very strongly recommend to read or listen, to read a paper or listen to a Conference recently given by Scott Markus which defines the origins of the different forms of the network neutrality debate in Europe and in the United States. The sole fact that in one of the continents things like Skype impinge on mobile Internet or mobile providers voice earnings causes a completely different approach, plus ex post and the other issues which I hope the rest of the panel will discuss, but don't copy.
>> MIGNON CLYBURN: One of the things I think you bring to the front and I thought about it when the gentle person to my extreme left talked about access and to me that's fundamentally what we are speaking about. And I differentiate from the cultural norms of each of our nations in what we are here to achieve, because that's why I use the term open Internet and not the, what I call "N squared," because the other one to me gets into a series of debates that I don't think are really especially healthy and open for what we are really attempting to channel and address.
When you talk about openness and a platform, what it means, it's agnostic, and that's a word as a granddaughter of a minister I rarely use, but it's agnostic because that is what we use it for, and what it transmits and transports, that's another series of discussions that I think are best defined within individual borders. But when we are talking about the commonality and the openness of the principles, that's what I always hope we come back to because the rest of it will have the same conversation for the next several decades, and I don't think we will get as far as we would want to.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: In the interest of time management, I think we have come to an end of the first segment, and I would like to ask both Sally and Robert to give their take away from this first hour of discussion. It was an interesting discussion. Is there any way you can help the guys who have to write the report? We have a remote participant. Yes, can you bring in the remote participant?
>> JOHN WALUBENGO: We have had about 20 people on the remote participation. There is one called Seth Johnson who is particularly concerned that the technical people were perhaps talking more about the Internet issues rather than Internet perspective of net neutrality. Then we had somebody called Gideon Rob. He wanted to hear more reports from developing nations with respect to net neutrality. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. That was a concern when you are actually preparing the session that we wanted to make sure we bring in voices from Developing Countries. But over to you, Robert and Sally. Who goes first?
>> SALLY WENTWORTH: I think actually the concluding discussion here was quite useful and maybe will help set up the next session, but this idea of a one size fits all policy solution is probably, certainly not where we would like to end up, but understanding the different components as we said and understanding the principles that we are trying to achieve, I think, is the right way forward. And we talked a little bit about even when we try to define these principles, when we try to define freedom or try to define free expression or access, we mean different things.
So having that conversation initially before we get to prescriptive results, I think, is really a very important outcome. We are all over the map, I think, on some of the technical issues, but issues related to prioritization, specialized services, deep packet inspection, all of those things were touched upon as things that will ultimately affect where we end up on the policy front with respect to net neutrality. So I think it was a very productive discussion and one that can help inform the next panel that comes up.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: So, Sally, when I started off and you said it's always difficult to follow me, it's very difficult to follow you because that's basically what I was going to say. I think from this discussion what we saw is that it's very difficult to pull apart and separate the technical, economic, and social issues because the conversation was technical, but it also is about the economic, how do we differentiate what is reasonable or non‑reasonable, unreasonable discrimination, that could be an economic impact, it could also from the public interest perspective be a social impact.
So it's difficult to pull these apart. And I look forward to the next two sessions, and then maybe at the end we will able to, you know, come away with something a little more coherent. So thank you very much, and thank you for your participation, and very much thank you for the remote participants. The question that Seth asked is one that we were discussing online, which is the intranet versus is Internet. It's the question of network management within networks, between networks, among networks, right, and that actually is a very important question at both the technical and policy levels as well. So thank you very much. Turn it back to you, Markus.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thanks to you both and can you hand over the microphone or leave the microphone where it is, and Vladimir Radunovic and Pablo Bello will pick it up from there. Vladimir Radunovic is coordinator of eDipolomacy educational and training programmes of the DiploFoundation. Pablo Bello is Secretary General of the Latin America Association of Research, Centers and Telecommunication Enterprises and he is based in Montevideo, Uruguay.
And the discussants for this section will be Andrew McDiarmid, Senior Policy Analyst for the Centre for Democracy and Technology, Washington, D.C., Scott McCullough, who will try to come in remotely, he was planning to come to Istanbul but he had a last minute impediment, and Christopher Yoo who is here in the room. And development perspectives will come from Roslyn Layton, from Aalborg University and George Fong who is executive Director and also president of the Internet Society of Australia. Over to you, Vladimir and Pablo.
>> PABLO BELLO: Thank you very much, my name is Pablo Bello. I will speak in Spanish, so I'm sorry for that. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to everyone. To initiate this conversation, I would like to put a few concepts on the table and a few questions for those who are going to speak after me.
Net neutrality is a principle that is not in the Bible nor in the Koran nor in the Torah. I think it's important to say this because it seems to be a given, however, the introduction that I will make will make a few important points, will speak about the interest and the interests. There are a few myths that are going around about net neutrality, and it's important to debunk them, for example, the packets are all equal, that technically it's not the same.
This is a statement that didn't assess this technical discussion. Innovation is only apparently over the top, but what we see daily is that innovation in the area of the digital ecosystem happens both in services as well as Internet applications as well as in telephone networks.
It is also stated that there is monopolies in the telecommunications network and the fact is that evidence shows that it is not necessarily the opposite. There is competence in telecommunications ever more, and some markets and services on the Internet where competence is a little bit more scarce and often it's difficult to go beyond the service providers and change these, but there are some points where we can all be in agreement. One of the fundamental points that we should be having in our conversations this afternoon is that the fundamental objective that we all have before us is to close the digital divide.
And doing this requires investment in competence and flexibility in marketing so that those who have low incomes are able to have access. And it should not necessarily be a tradeoff between the full Internet that we all like to have and the possibility of incomes, the possibility of low income families having access.
Three minutes. The second point question is how could we do it to incentivize more investment in telecommunications, and I believe this is a very important question. Thirdly, we want the maximum development in the digital system, and this is obvious not only the content should be added value but also the networks that are dispensable for the division of services and we need better and more networks and services on the Internet. We want an open Internet that is free and stimulates innovation and creativity and protects Human Rights and for this we require competence within the value chain. We don't need blockages throughout the digital ecosystem that can mean that there won't be enough competition. It's an important point and these need to be resolved in the communication network.
So what would be a reasonable system that we could establish? And the final question is how can we persuade ‑‑ place the users themselves at the centre of this debate? How can we maximize the possibility for them to choose so that they are not imposed, do not have services imposed upon them. So that users are able to choose themselves which services they want. To conclude with this introduction, I would like to point out the issue of flexibility because we see that in the market, there are services with two faces.
For example, the 800 service, 0800, and this is where you have to pay for the service, and downloading content, for example, books, and the possibility of having access to the Internet through particular applications. The question is this could be a problem for the marketing for services on the Internet and I will conclude by some cases that are interesting to mention. In the United States they offer services for DvT. You pay a monthly $8 and they provide you with a DvT, that you can have at home, Netflix. So why can't we do the same in terms of digital content through streaming? What would be the difference?
The users have already paid for this connectivity, and this is quite clear, but you have paid for the basic communication, but 50% of the downloading of Internet is Netflix and You Tube. And so, therefore, we require more capacity for transporting this, and why should users pay for these additional content? These are issues of net neutrality. Let's not have qualifications on this. We have been ‑‑ let's place this in the centre to promote competition, investment and innovation. Thank you.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you, Pablo. You did put me in the middle of the room by calling the end user perspective so I will try to reflect on this from the end user perspective. I should look at Nicholas. I see this is very serious today. So we are touching upon the economic aspect and I will try to gather the preparations received from all of you in preparations for end user experience, end wallet of end user. I will try to be provocative comments as end user put it, what I as end user want. Don't call me a consumer, call me a user. Citizen, not a consumer.
Internet is not just anything like other technology. Secondly, I want to have a meaningful choice, and that means meaningful or meaningful transparency as well. That means that I am able to know what to do with the traffic. I'm able to understand what you want to tell me that you are doing, but it also means that I need to be able to understand the whole concept terminology.
I need to be educated and have time to go through different options and offers and decide and find the best choice. If I can't do that, that means I don't have knowledge, or I don't have time, then I might ask for a protection by authorities of someone else to help me not to make the wrong choice.
Secondly, the new business model, special services, zero rating, all of those new things that come, I don't really care as long ‑‑ I don't care where the money goes between the industry as long as I have a quality of service that I want, as long as I can access anything that I want on the Internet with this decent quality of service, as long as someone can guarantee that the investments that are going to be put in will both cover the new services and the Internet as I want it.
So I want someone to guarantee that the Internet as I know it will also be invested in through specialized services if these exist. And I want equal chance for new entrants, for new services, for some new Twitter, new Facebook, local services, I want to be able to also access Wikipedia or anything I want. And thirdly, I might ask for some safeguard mechanism. I don't know from who. It might be on a legal ground or legislation to cover the basic principles as Sally mentioned, so basic principles, no blocking, no discrimination, and it might be a competition protection from regulatory authorities.
That is what I would like to see as an end user perspective and experience of the Internet. I'm trying to put this perspective in. I will stop here. Wow, I was shorter. Thank you, Nicholas. I will move here not to tease the camera men chasing me around the room. Let us go through the initial inputs by the discussants and I will start with Andrew McDiarmid, if Andrew McDiarmid is there. He is not on the table. Okay, we move on. Christopher Yoo.
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: Thank you very much. I would like to take the time I have to try to characterize some of the discussions from the earlier sessions feeding into this about what that shared about the economics. First is in the zero rating panel, there was a number of people who expressed the importance of focusing on the 4 billion people in the world who do not have connections today. For them, the quality of the connection that they get is a second order consideration. The first order consideration is getting connected in the first place.
And in that case, they are, there are two priorities for them, avoiding regulation that makes connectivity more expensive, and second, providing an impetus for people to adopt. What we found is many consumers don't necessarily, they need a compelling app to make them get service, even when it's fairly inexpensive, even in the developed world this is a problem. The F.C.C. did a study and they found out that among non‑adopters, two‑thirds will not adopt at any price. They just don't see the value.
So what they were talking about in the zero rating programmes when you get access to Facebook, you get access to Wiki media, all of a sudden the opportunity to call your grandchildren someplace else can bridge the generational divide and the digital divide and provide a compelling reason for people to try who were not on the Internet to adopt where it's available. This has been working in Turkey, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Africa, Middle East, many of the countries not currently connected.
There was an emphasis brought up by some of the speakers about the real essence of permissionless innovation is to allow people to try new things, new arrangements no one has seen before. And that's one of the threads that came out from some of the comments on that issue. The other thing that came out very clearly is different countries face different problems, which is some countries have competitive cable. Some countries are extending DSL and they don't have cable. Some don't even have copper and are building fiber, and some are depending entirely on wireless. In fact, what they are starting to see from them they come from different legal traditions, different economic statuses and what we have to have is a very nuanced policy instead of a one size fits all because the different realities in terms of the morality, the economic development requires different responses in different places.
And I think that these are some interesting complexities that have come out of the feeder sessions that should help us inform the economic analysis going forward.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Maybe a word to explain to those who are not that familiar with the IGF, we have also looked at what are the sessions that have taken place beforehand, and that should feed in to this main session, and there is we listed the meeting of the dynamic coalition on network neutrality that has taken place yesterday and then this morning we had net neutrality zero data and relevant what's the data. That's the session Christopher was referring to and Network Neutrality, a Roadmap for Infrastructure Enhancement. We don't want reports from these sessions, but we are keen to learn what was discussed at these sessions. Back to you is Vladimir and Pablo and we have a remote discussant. Is he on line. Can we loop in?
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you very much, we continue with Eric. Eric is not here. We have a problem with microphones. Neutrality, please? We probably went over the zero rate. Can someone help us solve the problem with microphones? And firstly, thank you, Christopher, for adding me some more inputs into the list of end user perspective. It was very valuable and I agree at the first point I want to have a connection and everything else comes. I agree. So is Eric around? Eric around? He is not here. So we move onto remote participants. Scott is remotely. Can we put Scott on line, I mean, in the room?
>> JOHN WALUBENGO: I can hear Scott, but I don't know if the room is hearing him.
>> REMOTE AUDIENCE: I think I'm getting feedback.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, Scott, we can hear you. You can go on.
>> REMOTE AUDIENCE: I thank our host for allowing me to (inaudible). We got it based on open access. I also comment on competition, appropriate network management, neutral choice, free expression and meaningful transparency, but net neutrality arises naturally in the intranet based policy environment. Under open access you can use bandwidth or access on reasonable terms and offer your own connectivity. If the infrastructure is open, lots of providers will offer their own individual service on it and there is no telling what the users will come up with at the end. Therefore, it must handle anything and everything. It means it must be effectively neutral transmitting packets without delay.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you, Scott. Stay with us, of course. We have two more speakers bringing the Developing Countries, and I'm sure you will help us more with that. We start with the only lady on this part of the panel, which is Roslyn Layton.
>> ROSLYN LAYTON: Thank you, Vladimir. Let me begin to say there are very many perspectives on this issue and I would like to share a few perspectives for myself and my colleagues. My university, Aalborg University in Copenhagen, the Center for Communications, Media and Information Studies, we specialize in teaching about political, economic engineering, social aspects of ICT, information, communication and technologies. We host Ph.D. students and faculty from around the world and we have partnerships with universities in Ghana, Nigeria, India and China.
We work with students in Iran and we have a number of us who specialize in the ICT in Africa. We have recently published this book called the Mobile Story of Africa where we are giving various studies about mobile as it relates to regulation, business models, banking, managing aid, transportation, agriculture and energy. So following our few comments that I have collected from my colleagues through an informal survey and I must add that not all of them have even heard about net neutrality. Some of them knew very little. So these are the comments from those who could make some responses.
First of all, they wanted to point out that two‑thirds of the world is not online. And they believe that Human Rights needs to be addressed not just across the Internet but all media. So just net neutrality discussion that