[At-Large] Net Neutrality Debate goes to WCIT-12

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Thu Sep 13 18:01:34 UTC 2012

Dear Carlton,

A very interesting Article that you sent that was written by Vladmir where
he talks about ETNO and Gambardella's proposal. Here are my comments.

On the issue raised by Luigi Gambardella, it follows that a proposal by the
European Network Operators Association (ETNO) on the principle that Sender
Party pays in terms of Traffic is similar to the principle of Calling Party
pays. The irony is that the link mentions that there is significant traffic
sent to Europe from the US. If we think about this further, there is a
sense of irony because as far as e commerce goes, US companies have
consistent preferred to be taxed from source (US) and not at "place of
consumption" or "destination".

The EC and the US have no doubt been at loggerheads where it comes to the
issue of taxation and the US of course has since the passage of the US
Congress's Tax Freedom Act 1998[ (*authored by Representative Christopher
Cox and Senator Ron Wyden and signed into law on October 21 1998 by then
President Clinton*) which following expiry continued to be reauthorised and
it most recent reauthorisation) was in October 2007 where this has been
extended till 2014] consistently held that taxation for them would be from
source, which means "no tax" as opposed to EC's attempts to tax at

There are some in Europe who think that ETNO is pushing for a separate
class of human rights for businesses. Take Finland where they hold that 1MB
access of Broadband as a Human Right. Whilst 1MB is a human right in
Finland it is not so for much of the world where access, availability,
affordability is still an issue. It would be reasonable to expect that if
this 1MB access is a human right then it is must be supplied to every
houselhold and subsidised access for those who cannot afford it.

The reality is all Telcos all over the world charge different prices for
different products and the more the bandwidth and increase in QoS, the more
you pay.

 If we take Finland's position and say X Bandwidth is a human right and
therefore either (FREE) or heavily subsidised by Government, then anything
on top of it is chargeable to whoever wants to pay for it within reason.
The variations would  depend on whether the markets are liberalised,
whether the prices are market driven or regulated by the relevant
competition authority.

I think that there is a distinction between what ordinary access is.
 Recently talks about US FCC proposed Universal Service Funds on global
submarine cable investments to benefit much of the developing world where
they land had been met with much criticism by those who would have to pay
into the USF. On the other hand declaring access as a human right may mean
getting massive subsidies for global submarine deployment in developing
countries but of course I am dreaming...lol

With something like Network Neutrality which is a multidimensional concept
where issues such as:-

   - Prioritisation of Traffic -challenges include (access, availability,
   affordability) should a packet be prioritised because someone paid top
   dollar to have it posted (commercial) compared to an ordinary content;
   - Traffic Management where bulk unsolicited mail can clog up the already
   little pipes in existence;
   - National Security/IPRs - telco/ISP driven packet sniffing? where it's
   no longer about size, it's about content. If the TPP unfolds and the
   Digital Rights Management system unfolds where this is regulated, yes your
   packets will be screened.

More information about the At-Large mailing list