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

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Thu Sep 13 18:08:56 UTC 2012

" consistent preferred " should read "consistently preferred"

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> consumption.
> 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.

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

More information about the At-Large mailing list