Back to NET Neutrality

      In the last months the Net Neutrality debate came up again.  The decision taken by some Telecom companies to disable the use of Skype iPhone application over their 3G networks revived the discussion.
Net Neutrality assures that the flow of information trough the communication networks is neither blocked nor degraded by communications operators. Net neutrality has guaranteed the freedom of connection with none limit of access to applications and services. Net Neutrality was one of fundamental principles of WWW. 
       However the rising of Internet access has faced communication operators with the necessity of increasing network capacity by investing on bandwidth. But network operators investments are not likely compensated by the application and service providers that are the parts benefited by the increased revenues got from the launching of new applications and services. Therefore, communication operators intend to create conditions limiting access by discriminating, filtering or prioritizing information passing through their networks. 
      Recently, the European community has discussed a set of directives regulating electronic communication networks. They are known as the “Telecom Package” and contain some directives that may compromise the Net Neutrality principle. Telecom package has been in discussion in European Parliament and much mobilization has been done around of subject aiming to protect the Net Neutrality principle. In USA, the FCC - Federal Communications Commission chair has also harmed the debate proposing include 2 new principles to the Internet principles guidelines of agency. There, Carriers are only permitted to block access to illegal services and sites. Internet providers and wireless carriers have strongly resisted net neutrality believing they have the right to control traffic on networks they own.
       Net Neutrality debate will attract attention for the next few months yet. Certainly an Internet without traffic limitations is what we users would like to have. That would assure its widespread adoption and equal conditions to access information, applications and services so facilitating the competition. An open Internet does still provide the freedom of expression and communication. But carrier’s argument is valid as well. They own the communication infrastructure and should be allowed to create any kind of control in order to implement different business scenario.
       I do believe that the solution to that dispute firstly should assure that the access for application and services not be restrict.  But it should also allow communication providers apply different quality of services models preserving their competitiveness.

Political Issues in an IETF upcoming Meeting

Recently an interesting discussion has come up through an IETF mailing list.  IETF has been to make   a decision on a potential upcoming meeting in China. That would be the first IETF meeting in that country.  However Chinese government has imposed a rule on all conferences held since 2008 regarding political speech: it is required that one not criticize the government, that people who attend conferences in China  not engage in political speech during their tour by the country.  If any speech shows any disrespect to China government, Chinese culture or violates any laws, the hosting Hotel reserves the right to terminate the event on the spot and/or ask the person(s) who initiates or participates in any or all of the above action to leave the hotel premises immediately.  The question put for IETF members was: could these restrictions prevent the IETF from conducting its business?
The argument toward realizes the meeting in China is that political issues are not commonly and historically explored during the IETF meetings.  Thus it would be expected there should not be any problem realizing the meeting.  Additionally has been pointed that other organizations and businesses have realized meetings in China all the time and there is no evidence of government interference and shutdowns.
Differently from that is what seems to be the concern of other part of IETF community.  Your position is based in highly ideological principles of IETF.  Your argument is that IETF takes care of net neutrality, crypto, IPR, telecom, and the Chinese government speech restrictions might restrict the scope of IETF discussion because it runs into privacy and human rights issues. Additionally they report that the IETF is still a community of thousands of engineers facing a broad technology and market space and fundamentally lead by individual voice (not necessary expressing company objectives). That does mean that similar experience of got in other meetings in China (3GPP, etc ) can´t be considered.
Well the fact is that the ideological/political debate is really relevant. Information technology acquired essential role in the development strategies of many countries. They are aware that to become powerful developed countries their insertion in the IT domain will be fundamental.  SDOs ( standard developement organisations  ) have looked to expand their frontiers towards development world as well. That strategy could ensure a more democratic and neutral debate assuring that world-class standards be strong and widely recognized.  But beyond of different technology stage of developed and developing world, it is still necessary pay attention to the cultural and political divergences between both.  Likely, these will be the issues that the old world will face in its movement to expand its initiatives into the developing nations.  China is just an example.