Here I go again on Net Neutrality
Listers This statement by the Chairman of the Federal Communication Commission of the U.S. is worth repeating here:- After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months. Read more:- http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/ This list has been consistent in advocating for a clear policy statement from our own ICT Ministry. It's time to bring it to the mainstream. Let us not be lulled by the innovations that have happened in this country through an ambiguous policy on ICT to think that we can continue like this without at least some clear rules of engagement. Let us not forget that a former minister of finance once tried to kill Safaricom's Mpesa because a strong finance industry lobby felt threatened. Today we can't imagine life without Mpesa. Let us not take this for granted. I would like to propose a forum of different stakeholders:- 1. TESPOK 2. ISOC - Ke 3. Media owners association 4. Government (Ministry, ICTA, CA, KENET) 5. Drake 6. KEPSA 7. Computer Society of Kenya and other ICT Associations 8. COFEK 9. And other interested parties. It is incumbent on us as leaders in various fora to stand up and be counted on this. We can start this discussion in ernest by reviewing where we really are as a country on this important subject matter. For example the freedoms we enjoy in the context of Net Neutrality that we have taken for granted. I'm gratified to note that the Government is taking a firm stand towards certain aspects of Net Neutrality but I contend that we need to solidify and institutionalize the gains made so far. Your thoughts? Ali Hussein +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad
@Ali, +++1, Unfortunately, in Africa (including Kenya :-) we are still dealing with bread and butter issues (corruption, primary education, universal health, insecurity, etc) to the point where Net Neutrality becomes too distant or esoteric/abstract. But (un)fortunately, as we have seen with the emerging intermediary liability issues, Net Neutrality is likely to be thrust into the throat of the ICT ministry, Regulator and our Courts way before they even know what it is all about - let alone take a position :-) So yes, I support a Kamkunji on the issue. Perhaps ISOC can take a lead and discuss the issues under the framework of this year's Internet Governance Forum(IGF). walu. From: Ali Hussein via isoc <isoc@lists.my.co.ke> To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>; ISOC Kenya Chapter <ISOC@lists.my.co.ke> Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 3:40 AM Subject: [isoc_ke] Here I go again on Net Neutrality Listers This statement by the Chairman of the Federal Communication Commission of the U.S. is worth repeating here:- After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months. Read more:- http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/ This list has been consistent in advocating for a clear policy statement from our own ICT Ministry. It's time to bring it to the mainstream. Let us not be lulled by the innovations that have happened in this country through an ambiguous policy on ICT to think that we can continue like this without at least some clear rules of engagement. Let us not forget that a former minister of finance once tried to kill Safaricom's Mpesa because a strong finance industry lobby felt threatened. Today we can't imagine life without Mpesa. Let us not take this for granted. I would like to propose a forum of different stakeholders:- 1. TESPOK2. ISOC - Ke3. Media owners association4. Government (Ministry, ICTA, CA, KENET)5. Drake6. KEPSA7. Computer Society of Kenya and other ICT Associations8. COFEK9. And other interested parties. It is incumbent on us as leaders in various fora to stand up and be counted on this. We can start this discussion in ernest by reviewing where we really are as a country on this important subject matter. For example the freedoms we enjoy in the context of Net Neutrality that we have taken for granted. I'm gratified to note that the Government is taking a firm stand towards certain aspects of Net Neutrality but I contend that we need to solidify and institutionalize the gains made so far. Your thoughts? Ali Hussein +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassimBlog: www.alyhussein.com "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
Walu I agree. My take though is that it is exactly this sort of thinking - that Net Neutrality is too abstract and far fetched for us to pay attention to it - that lands us in hot soup. There are too many small little 'non-issues' happening all around us that have a major impact on how we live and do business that are directly linked to our Net Neutrality policy (or lack thereof). 1. Interoperability of mobile money systems. If we had a solid policy on this we wouldn't be fighting shadow wars with operators. 2. Blocking or slowing down certain apps that are deemed to be competitors to operators own solutions. We all know what happened to the guy who tried to be clever enough to create a market place for Bonga Points. Who is to say that the next killer app will not be throttled to death before it sees the light of day? 3. 'Dear Customer, you are currently at 100% of your 'friendly user policy' allocation. You will now access the Internet at a reduced speed. To get back your normal speed, please buy another bundle!!' I don't know about you but I'm sure there is NOTHING friendly about Orange telling customers that they can purchase unlimited internet usage for a specific period and then proceed to throttle connectivity within an hour of usage! And to top it off they are doing it in open daylight. If this is not impunity and a blatant disregard to basic Net Neutrality principles I'm not sure what is. Why are they doing it? Simple. Either the Regulator is Ok with the practice or they have no clue. Ali Hussein +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad
On Feb 9, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
@Ali,
+++1,
Unfortunately, in Africa (including Kenya :-) we are still dealing with bread and butter issues (corruption, primary education, universal health, insecurity, etc) to the point where Net Neutrality becomes too distant or esoteric/abstract.
But (un)fortunately, as we have seen with the emerging intermediary liability issues, Net Neutrality is likely to be thrust into the throat of the ICT ministry, Regulator and our Courts way before they even know what it is all about - let alone take a position :-)
So yes, I support a Kamkunji on the issue. Perhaps ISOC can take a lead and discuss the issues under the framework of this year's Internet Governance Forum(IGF).
walu.
From: Ali Hussein via isoc <isoc@lists.my.co.ke> To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>; ISOC Kenya Chapter <ISOC@lists.my.co.ke> Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 3:40 AM Subject: [isoc_ke] Here I go again on Net Neutrality
Listers
This statement by the Chairman of the Federal Communication Commission of the U.S. is worth repeating here:-
After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.
Read more:-
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/
This list has been consistent in advocating for a clear policy statement from our own ICT Ministry. It's time to bring it to the mainstream. Let us not be lulled by the innovations that have happened in this country through an ambiguous policy on ICT to think that we can continue like this without at least some clear rules of engagement.
Let us not forget that a former minister of finance once tried to kill Safaricom's Mpesa because a strong finance industry lobby felt threatened. Today we can't imagine life without Mpesa. Let us not take this for granted.
I would like to propose a forum of different stakeholders:-
1. TESPOK 2. ISOC - Ke 3. Media owners association 4. Government (Ministry, ICTA, CA, KENET) 5. Drake 6. KEPSA 7. Computer Society of Kenya and other ICT Associations 8. COFEK 9. And other interested parties.
It is incumbent on us as leaders in various fora to stand up and be counted on this.
We can start this discussion in ernest by reviewing where we really are as a country on this important subject matter. For example the freedoms we enjoy in the context of Net Neutrality that we have taken for granted. I'm gratified to note that the Government is taking a firm stand towards certain aspects of Net Neutrality but I contend that we need to solidify and institutionalize the gains made so far.
Your thoughts?
Ali Hussein
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
In some ways we are all talked out on NN in the US, and are just waiting for it to get done already so we can move on! And it has indeed become something of a political football. But through the chaff there appear occasional pearls - such as this regulatory analysis (posted <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/2015/02/sort/time_rev/page/1/entry/0:38/20150208143818:0633E850-AFCA-11E4-8AE1-86185DAFC17C/> to By Dr Jonathan S. Shapiro to Dave Farber's IP list yesterday): The internet *does* need regulation, but not the kind of protectionist regulation that has historically been associated with Title II. The regulation that we need falls in several areas: 1. *Prohibiting* local monopolies on cable and internet services. As new delivery technologies emerge, new providers should not be hampered by incumbents, nor by the need to negotiate with every state, county, city, house, and outhouse to establish a right to offer service. A common national standard would go a long way. 2. Defining pricing schemas and requiring liberal interconnection at internet exchange points. Comcast should not be forced to lease its facilities, but it *should* be forced to interconnect its networks with those of others and carry their traffic, subject only to a uniform pricing policy. 3. Enforcing a clear layer boundary between the "internet as a transport" and the 'internet as a carrier of services" concept. There are valid and necessary reasons at the transport layer for operators to engage in network traffic management for *operational* reasons. But at that level there is also an obligation to send the end user's packets where they are supposed to go, without favoring one over another inappropriately. It is reasonable to define service classes providing distinct "shapes" of packet service guarantee, but the billing structure and operational treatment of packets within a class must be uniform. 4. A regulatory guarantee must be made that customer traffic will not be modified or tampered with beyond the requirements of implementing the standard and accepted protocol definitions. Verizon's "super cookie" should properly be framed as a violation of wiretap statutes or something like them. The principal here is that a carrier does *not* have a right to modify, examine, or record the traffic of its customers in the absence of customer consent or the lawful order of a judge, issued through an openly accountable process in compliance with the constitution and the law. Some adaptation of that principal is required to deal with network-based attacks and legitimate operational issues. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
It is sad that Kenya considers itself a leader on ICT, yet we have lagged way behind on two Key policy issues 1. Net Neutrality and 2. Intermediary liabilities. I shared the South African ICT policy framework sometimes back on this list that had a definite policy direction in Net Neutrality. Did we drop the ball by not championing this issues on the ICT Master plan? I support Ali's thinking to have a cross community round table and develop a paper ... then lobby for it to be adopted as a standard framework. Challenge is bringing all the relevant stakeholders on the table. Regards ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson On 9 February 2015 at 10:52, Joly MacFie via isoc <isoc@lists.my.co.ke> wrote:
In some ways we are all talked out on NN in the US, and are just waiting for it to get done already so we can move on! And it has indeed become something of a political football. But through the chaff there appear occasional pearls - such as this regulatory analysis (posted <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/2015/02/sort/time_rev/page/1/entry/0:38/20150208143818:0633E850-AFCA-11E4-8AE1-86185DAFC17C/> to By Dr Jonathan S. Shapiro to Dave Farber's IP list yesterday):
The internet *does* need regulation, but not the kind of protectionist regulation that has historically been associated with Title II. The regulation that we need falls in several areas:
1. *Prohibiting* local monopolies on cable and internet services. As new delivery technologies emerge, new providers should not be hampered by incumbents, nor by the need to negotiate with every state, county, city, house, and outhouse to establish a right to offer service. A common national standard would go a long way.
2. Defining pricing schemas and requiring liberal interconnection at internet exchange points. Comcast should not be forced to lease its facilities, but it *should* be forced to interconnect its networks with those of others and carry their traffic, subject only to a uniform pricing policy.
3. Enforcing a clear layer boundary between the "internet as a transport" and the 'internet as a carrier of services" concept. There are valid and necessary reasons at the transport layer for operators to engage in network traffic management for *operational* reasons. But at that level there is also an obligation to send the end user's packets where they are supposed to go, without favoring one over another inappropriately. It is reasonable to define service classes providing distinct "shapes" of packet service guarantee, but the billing structure and operational treatment of packets within a class must be uniform.
4. A regulatory guarantee must be made that customer traffic will not be modified or tampered with beyond the requirements of implementing the standard and accepted protocol definitions. Verizon's "super cookie" should properly be framed as a violation of wiretap statutes or something like them. The principal here is that a carrier does *not* have a right to modify, examine, or record the traffic of its customers in the absence of customer consent or the lawful order of a judge, issued through an openly accountable process in compliance with the constitution and the law. Some adaptation of that principal is required to deal with network-based attacks and legitimate operational issues.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
Mwendwa Maybe the problem is how we are approaching this issue? What can we do better to engage all stakeholders on this issue? Would be nice to hear from the Government side - even if it's from a private citizen capacity. Ali Hussein +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad
On Feb 10, 2015, at 3:39 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> wrote:
It is sad that Kenya considers itself a leader on ICT, yet we have lagged way behind on two Key policy issues 1. Net Neutrality and 2. Intermediary liabilities.
I shared the South African ICT policy framework sometimes back on this list that had a definite policy direction in Net Neutrality. Did we drop the ball by not championing this issues on the ICT Master plan?
I support Ali's thinking to have a cross community round table and develop a paper ... then lobby for it to be adopted as a standard framework. Challenge is bringing all the relevant stakeholders on the table.
Regards
______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
On 9 February 2015 at 10:52, Joly MacFie via isoc <isoc@lists.my.co.ke> wrote:
In some ways we are all talked out on NN in the US, and are just waiting for it to get done already so we can move on! And it has indeed become something of a political football. But through the chaff there appear occasional pearls - such as this regulatory analysis (posted to By Dr Jonathan S. Shapiro to Dave Farber's IP list yesterday):
The internet *does* need regulation, but not the kind of protectionist regulation that has historically been associated with Title II. The regulation that we need falls in several areas:
1. *Prohibiting* local monopolies on cable and internet services. As new delivery technologies emerge, new providers should not be hampered by incumbents, nor by the need to negotiate with every state, county, city, house, and outhouse to establish a right to offer service. A common national standard would go a long way.
2. Defining pricing schemas and requiring liberal interconnection at internet exchange points. Comcast should not be forced to lease its facilities, but it *should* be forced to interconnect its networks with those of others and carry their traffic, subject only to a uniform pricing policy.
3. Enforcing a clear layer boundary between the "internet as a transport" and the 'internet as a carrier of services" concept. There are valid and necessary reasons at the transport layer for operators to engage in network traffic management for *operational* reasons. But at that level there is also an obligation to send the end user's packets where they are supposed to go, without favoring one over another inappropriately. It is reasonable to define service classes providing distinct "shapes" of packet service guarantee, but the billing structure and operational treatment of packets within a class must be uniform.
4. A regulatory guarantee must be made that customer traffic will not be modified or tampered with beyond the requirements of implementing the standard and accepted protocol definitions. Verizon's "super cookie" should properly be framed as a violation of wiretap statutes or something like them. The principal here is that a carrier does *not* have a right to modify, examine, or record the traffic of its customers in the absence of customer consent or the lawful order of a judge, issued through an openly accountable process in compliance with the constitution and the law. Some adaptation of that principal is required to deal with network-based attacks and legitimate operational issues.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
Ali, my layman's view is ... we approach a member of parliament to sponsor a private members bill. At least that is what I see some guys approach it. We up our game. But then ... we need to have a set of principles we are championing. Thus the draft paper should be ready by then. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson On 11 February 2015 at 07:55, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
Mwendwa
Maybe the problem is how we are approaching this issue?
What can we do better to engage all stakeholders on this issue?
Would be nice to hear from the Government side - even if it's from a private citizen capacity.
*Ali Hussein*
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim
Skype: abu-jomo
LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 10, 2015, at 3:39 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> wrote:
It is sad that Kenya considers itself a leader on ICT, yet we have lagged way behind on two Key policy issues 1. Net Neutrality and 2. Intermediary liabilities.
I shared the South African ICT policy framework sometimes back on this list that had a definite policy direction in Net Neutrality. Did we drop the ball by not championing this issues on the ICT Master plan?
I support Ali's thinking to have a cross community round table and develop a paper ... then lobby for it to be adopted as a standard framework. Challenge is bringing all the relevant stakeholders on the table.
Regards
______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
On 9 February 2015 at 10:52, Joly MacFie via isoc <isoc@lists.my.co.ke> wrote:
In some ways we are all talked out on NN in the US, and are just waiting for it to get done already so we can move on! And it has indeed become something of a political football. But through the chaff there appear occasional pearls - such as this regulatory analysis (posted <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/2015/02/sort/time_rev/page/1/entry/0:38/20150208143818:0633E850-AFCA-11E4-8AE1-86185DAFC17C/> to By Dr Jonathan S. Shapiro to Dave Farber's IP list yesterday):
The internet *does* need regulation, but not the kind of protectionist regulation that has historically been associated with Title II. The regulation that we need falls in several areas:
1. *Prohibiting* local monopolies on cable and internet services. As new delivery technologies emerge, new providers should not be hampered by incumbents, nor by the need to negotiate with every state, county, city, house, and outhouse to establish a right to offer service. A common national standard would go a long way.
2. Defining pricing schemas and requiring liberal interconnection at internet exchange points. Comcast should not be forced to lease its facilities, but it *should* be forced to interconnect its networks with those of others and carry their traffic, subject only to a uniform pricing policy.
3. Enforcing a clear layer boundary between the "internet as a transport" and the 'internet as a carrier of services" concept. There are valid and necessary reasons at the transport layer for operators to engage in network traffic management for *operational* reasons. But at that level there is also an obligation to send the end user's packets where they are supposed to go, without favoring one over another inappropriately. It is reasonable to define service classes providing distinct "shapes" of packet service guarantee, but the billing structure and operational treatment of packets within a class must be uniform.
4. A regulatory guarantee must be made that customer traffic will not be modified or tampered with beyond the requirements of implementing the standard and accepted protocol definitions. Verizon's "super cookie" should properly be framed as a violation of wiretap statutes or something like them. The principal here is that a carrier does *not* have a right to modify, examine, or record the traffic of its customers in the absence of customer consent or the lawful order of a judge, issued through an openly accountable process in compliance with the constitution and the law. Some adaptation of that principal is required to deal with network-based attacks and legitimate operational issues.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
participants (4)
-
Ali Hussein -
Joly MacFie -
Mwendwa Kivuva -
Walubengo J