(Original at Bob’s site)

In 1949 a Bell Laboratory researcher, Claude Shannon, published a paper on a new science of “Information”.

With this understanding we can revisit connectivity by thinking in terms of relationships and communications between end points. The message itself doesn’t even exist along the path – yet the defining assumption of telecom is that the message itself is being transported as valuable cargo.

Bell Labs had sponsored the research with the goal of improving phone networks but was not prepared to embrace the full implications of the new science which made explicit the distinction between information in the information sense and information encoded in numbers or bits.

Today’s telecommunications business dates back to the days of the telegram when each message was treated as precious freight to be carried over the carriers wires just like a railroad would carry a box of cargo.

Cross-country telegraphy worked because we had just dots and dashes. If the signal becomes a bit fuzzy we could fix it by (re)generating fresh dots and dashes. As anyone who played the game in which you whisper a message from person to person knows it’s hard to preserve the voice message over a distance.

The solution was to turn voice into distinct ones and zeros just like the dots and dashes which could be preserved over any distance.

We can treat an Internet data packet just like any message and pay a carrier to deliver the message to the destination just like Pheidippides did at Marathon or like the telegraph companies did in the 19th century.

That is what we do and it misses the point of the Internet.

With the Internet we only need to exchange enough bits for the purpose. If we agree on a coding system I can send you “1B, 3b, 2o” then you can put them together to spell Bob. It doesn’t matter what order you get the letters in and if you are missing one I can resend it. You don’t even need all of them if you know Bob is the only name in your list that has two B’s.

Exchanging bits doesn’t even require a network. We can use any means available. Charging for carrying the bits is like trying to put a toll on a city street – there are simply too many other paths and it doesn’t make any sense to limit our paths so that toll-collectors could make a profit.

In 1897 the British Copyright office issued a report warning us of the dangers of creating scarcity by taking our abundance and dividing it up as property.

Yet this is just what we do by translating “Internet” into “Telecom” and using a property model wherein owners use their control to be the sole providers of services and transport.

People who create their own solutions are competition and those who add capacity are seen as thieves!

We may have a thousand wires running past our homes but we can only use one of them and must subscribe to a provider. We’ve taken the essential unlimited capacity for exchanging bits without wires and created exclusive properties in the guise of spectrum allocation.

Claude Shannon gave us an understanding to liberate us from the constrictions of telecom’s “pipes”. The Internet has given us a hint of what is possible once we can exchange bits instead of paying to send messages.

Yet today’s policies miss the point even as the telecommunications model is failing. The reason we need a “broadband” policy is that funding infrastructure by selling services fails when we can do it ourselves and bits are not consumables with a limited supply.

But then why should we expect common infrastructure to be a profit center any more than garbage collection should be a profit center?

The message from the market is simple. Instead of depending on service providers we should own our own facilities.

Home networks are not really networks – they are just wires and radios we use to exchange bits. We can get the same rapid improvements in price/performance by being able to invest in our communities rather than being beholden to providers.

Our home networks have been founts of innovation. We need to own the facilities that connect our homes to each other.

On the surface the Internet seems to be just another telecommunications service. In Information vs. Telecom I provide the deeper understanding necessary for challenging our accepted paradigms.

(Original at Bob’s site)

• Overview
• Information and Telecommunications
• Information
• Applied Information
• Tele-communications
• The Telecommunications Regulatorium
• The business of messages
• The Federal Communications Commission
• Ma Bell
• The Intelligent Network
• Divestiture
• Understanding the Concepts
• New Paradigms
• Learning
• Key Concepts
• Language and Meaning and Ambiguity
• Misattribution
• Names and Identifiers
• Active Information
• A Fresh Start
• Relationships
• Exchanging Bits
• Opportunity
• Achieving Infrastructure
• Looking Ahead
• Related Essays

Overview

In 1897 the British Copyright Commission issued a report. One of the observations is as salient today as it was then:

A limitation of supply by artificial causes, creates scarcity in order to create property. To limit that which is in its nature unlimited, and thereby to confer an exchangeable value on that which, without such interference, would be the gratuitous possession of mankind, is to create an artificial monopoly which has no warrant in the nature of things, which serves to produce scarcity where there ought to be abundance, and to confine to the few gifts which were intended for all.

There is no limited supply of letters of the alphabet or the bits we use to encode information. Yet we have created scarcity by adopting a property model in the form of spectrum allocation and by confining our ability to communicate to narrow pipes as if the very thoughts we communicate are freight to be tariffed by a government commission.

The telecommunications industry is based on this idea that there is a business in transporting meaning be it using the runners in ancient Greece, the telegraph of Napoleon’s era or today’s telecommunications providers with their scarce supply of “minutes”.

The big idea behind the Internet is that we can decouple the exchange of meaning, that is, what we communicate, from the representation or alphabet of bits, ones and zeros.

Thomas Kuhn has written about paradigm shifts – how changes in our understanding of the familiar change the world. We saw this happen in the 16th century. Copernicus looked at the same skies that mankind had observed for millennia but instead of seeing a solar system in which planetary motion was described in complex epicycles he saw planets orbiting around the sun. Nothing changed but our understanding and it is that understanding which gave Newton and others the insights that give us today’s world. Copernicus’ insight and Newton’s Calculus gave us the tools for a dispassionate understanding of the solar system.

As Gleick explains in his book, Information, Claude Shannon’s Information Science has given us a vital tool for understanding how we exchange information. The idea of measuring information in bits seems simple and sensible but understanding how the ideas apply to the real world turns out to be fraught with pitfalls.

James Gleick is a great writer who can translate arcane technical stories into exciting tales for a relatively wide audience. And his story of the rise of the concept of “Information” is exciting in itself.

We can use the science of information and our pragmatic experience with today’s Internet to formulate a policy that relies on markets rather than regulators. We can exchange bits over a common infrastructure just as we use common roads and sidewalks. Just as the road system emerges out of our local streets our networks emerge from our local efforts at networking.

Without the burden of the overhead of maintaining an infrastructure for each service we are free to innovate, taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by this new commons.

Let’s not forget that the United States was founded on the idea of creating opportunity bolstered by the guarantee of freedom of speech. We must not cede our future to the misguided idea that we may run out of words.

[. . .]

(Original at the Benton Foundation)

Submitted: April 21, 2011 – 3:31pm

Originally published: April 21, 2011
Last updated: April 21, 2011 – 3:37pm

In a Federal Register notice, the Federal Communications Commission announced its intent to create the Open Internet Advisory Committee.

The purpose of the Committee is to track and evaluate the effects of the FCC’s Open Internet rules, and to provide any recommendations the Committee deems appropriate to the FCC regarding policies and practices related to preserving the open Internet. The Committee will observe market developments regarding the freedom and openness of the Internet and will focus in particular on issues addressed in the FCC’s Open Internet rules, such as transparency, reasonable network management practices, differences in treatment of fixed and mobile broadband services, specialized services, technical standards, and the state of competition.

Links to Sources

Open Internet Advisory Committee

(From Challenge.gov)

(Original at New York Times)

By EDWARD WYATT

Published: April 8, 2011

The action, which is less likely to pass the Senate and which President Obama has threatened to veto, is nevertheless significant because it puts half of the legislative branch on the same side of the debate as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in restricting the FCC’s authority over Internet service.

House Joint Resolution 37, which was approved by a vote of 240 to 179, was spurred by the FCC’s approval in December of an order titled “Preserving the Open Internet.” The order forbids the companies that provide the pipeline through which consumers gain access to the Internet from blocking a user’s ability to reach legal Internet sites or to use legal applications.

[. . .]

It is likely that Democrats in the Senate can defeat the measure, but by no means is that certain. The joint resolution was initiated under the Congressional Review Act, meaning that it cannot be filibustered and requires the support of only 30 senators to bring it to the floor.

President Obama courted Silicon Valley supporters during his campaign by promising to enact a “net neutrality” provision, as the FCC’s order is known. Advisers to the president have said that he will veto the resolution; it would then take a vote by two-thirds of each house of Congress to override the veto.

In addition to opposing the FCC’s order in Congress, some broadband providers, including Verizon, have said they will challenge the order in court. Those challenges can begin once the regulations become final, in a few months. Last year, the appeals court ruled that the FCC did not prove it had the authority to sanction another major Internet provider, Comcast, for blocking access to the file-sharing service BitTorrent.

[. . .]

Democrats [. . .] said that without the FCC’s open Internet policy, broadband companies that also own content providers, like Comcast’s ownership of NBC, would be free to block the Web sites of competitors. Six Democrats voted with the majority on the resolution, while two Republicans voted against the bill.

[. . .]

Few of the debaters raised some of the more technical issues that are at the center of the debate over broadband regulation, like specialized services and tiered rates. Specialized services, for which a broadband company uses part of its Internet pipeline to deliver dedicated services to specific customers, worry regulators who fear that companies will invest more to develop those more profitable offerings while neglecting to update basic broadband service.

[. . .]

(Original at Broadband Breakfast)

By Jonathan Charnitski, Managing Editor, BroadbandBreakfast.com

WASHINGTON, April 5, 2011 – The House of Representatives is anticipated to hold a floor debate and vote this week on a measure that would put the kibosh on net neutrality rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission late last year, but the White House has said that it would likely veto such a measure should it come across the President’s desk.

House Joint Resolution 37, which is a Resolution of Disapproval, states simply that Congress disapproves of the Open Internet Order issued by the Commission late last year and that the rules shall have no effect.

[. . .]

Energy and Commerce Republicans have closed ranks on the issue and rallied around the assertion that the Order creates uncertainty and disincentives for companies to invest in the Internet economy. Rep. Walden, however, appeared uncharacteristically on his heels when defending that point during questioning by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) at Monday’s hearing.

While Rep. Walden has frequently used the failure of the FCC to conduct a market study to justify its net neutrality rules as evidence that the action is economically unfounded, he seemed unable to offer a response when Rep. Polis presented independent market analyses indicating that the Order created more certainty – not less – in the marketplace.  Instead, Rep. Walden deferred back to ambiguities in the FCC’s grant of authority under the Telecommunications Act to regulate the Internet.

[. . .]

Moreover, the administration, which has long supported net neutrality, has indicated that it “strongly opposes” the measure and that it faces a veto should it reach President Barack Obama’s desk.

“Disapproval of the rule would threaten those values and raise questions as to whether innovation on the Internet will be allowed to flourish, consumers will be protected from abuses, and the democratic spirit of the Internet will remain intact,” said the administration though the statement.  “If the President is presented with a Resolution of Disapproval that would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the Resolution.”

[. . .]

(Original at Politico)

By: Robin Chase
April 5, 2011

Low barriers to market entry encourage innovation, entrepreneurship and job creation. High costs and bureaucracy stifle it.

So far, I bet every person, Republican and Democrat, is with me.

So what is the issue with the GOP’s call to overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s order that gives it power to regulate the Internet, and the Democrat’s fierce defense of it? Both in the name of innovation and job creation?

[. . .]

Zipcar would not exist without a free and open Internet. There would be no company with $186 million in 2010 revenues, no creation of 474 full-time jobs serving 540,000 members.

Our innovation was to make renting a car as easy as getting cash from an ATM. Open access to the Internet was central to Zipcar’s success.

It is only because of the ease, speed and zero marginal cost of finding, reserving and unlocking a car that any consumer would be willing to rent a vehicle for as little as an hour — or any company would be willing to offer it.

What is at stake with the FCC order is the government’s ability to protect and maintain low barriers to entry to the Internet. The FCC order is not about services that run on the Internet, like Google, Amazon, or Facebook. It is about maintaining low cost and open access to the Internet.

When I founded Zipcar in 2000, access to the Internet was protected by the Communications Act. Since 2005, guaranteed access to the Internet, at low cost, has been increasingly challenged.

[. . .]

(Available at the House Rules Committee site)

Selection from the Dissenting Views, p. 26:

HJ Res 37 would undermine the Internet economy by allowing broadband operators to pick and choose winners and losers. It would allow broadband network operators to block applications, content, and services traveling on their networks absent any disclosure to consumers and without legitimate network management reasons.

(Original post at the House Rules Committee site)

Full Committee

H.J. Res 37 — Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the internet and broadband industry practices.

H-313 The Capitol

Meeting Information:

Meeting Time:  Monday, April 4, 2011 at 5:00 PM in H-313 The Capitol.

To watch this hearing, click here.

For more information on this bill, click here.

Resources:

• Text H.J. Res 37 — Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the internet and broadband industry practices. [PDF]
• Text of H. Rept. 112-51 — From the Committee on Energy and Commerce. [PDF]

(By the way: April Fools!)

(Original posted at Public Knowledge)

“If bandwidth providers could deduct a reasonable percentage of the revenue from their residential service from their overall tax bill, they would be incentivized to stretch bandwidth further while simultaneously exploring alternative communication supplies.”

Public Knowledge: Peak Bandwidth

By: John Bergmayer

The era of plentiful, low-cost bandwidth is approaching an end. The supply of bits, the raw material of our information economy, is rapidly dwindling. The good news is that commercially viable mitigation options are ready for implementation. The bad news is that unless mitigation is orchestrated on a timely basis, the economic damage to the world economy will be dire and long-lasting.

Bandwidth is the lifeblood of modern civilization. It fuels most communication worldwide and is an input for entertainment, commerce, telemedicine and a myriad of other products used in everyday life.

Dark fiber has been generous in yielding copious quantities of bandwidth to fuel world economic growth for over a century, but that period of plenty is changing.
In the following, we describe the nature of the problem, options for mitigation, and required timing.

[. . .]

(Original at New York Times)

Paul Baran, Internet Pioneer, Dies at 84

By KATIE HAFNER

Published: March 27, 2011

[. . .]

In the early 1960s, while working at the RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., Mr. Baran outlined the fundamentals for packaging data into discrete bundles, which he called “message blocks.” The bundles are then sent on various paths around a network and reassembled at their destination. Such a plan is known as “packet switching.”

Mr. Baran’s idea was to build a distributed communications network, less vulnerable to attack or disruption than conventional networks. In a series of technical papers published in the 1960s he suggested that networks be designed with redundant routes so that if a particular path failed or was destroyed, messages could still be delivered through another.

[. . .]

Mr. Baran received a master’s degree in engineering from U.C.L.A. in 1959. Gerald Estrin, who was Mr. Baran’s adviser, said Mr. Baran was the first student he ever had who actually went to the Patent Office in Washington to investigate whether his master’s work, on character recognition, was patentable.

“From that day on, my expectations of him changed,” Dr. Estrin said. “He wasn’t just a serious student, but a young man who was looking to have an effect on the world.”

[. . .]

In recent years, the origins of the Internet have been subject to claims and counterclaims of precedence, and Mr. Baran was an outspoken proponent of distributing credit widely.

“The Internet is really the work of a thousand people,” he said in an interview in 2001.

“The process of technological developments is like building a cathedral,” he said in an interview in 1990. “Over the course of several hundred years, new people come along and each lays down a block on top of the old foundations, each saying, ‘I built a cathedral.’

“Next month another block is placed atop the previous one. Then comes along an historian who asks, ‘Well, who built the cathedral?’ Peter added some stones here, and Paul added a few more. If you are not careful you can con yourself into believing that you did the most important part. But the reality is that each contribution has to follow onto previous work. Everything is tied to everything else.”

Mr. Baran’s wife, Evelyn, died in 2007. In addition to his son, David, of Atherton, Calif., he is survived by three grandchildren; and his companion of recent years, Ruth Rothman.

(Original at Huffington Post)

AT&T commemorated last week’s one-year anniversary of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) National Broadband Plan in its own, unique way. Ending a week of celebrations, it bought one of the other four biggest competitors, T-Mobile, further shrinking competition in wireless broadband, further concentrating an already concentrated market. Now instead of the big four wireless companies, there are the bigger three.

The government hasn’t blocked a telecom merger yet, but this one should given these policymakers pause. And if they let it through, there should be some very strong conditions.

That $39 billion move was just the capper to the celebrations. It levied bandwidth caps on its customers. It then told its customers that it was a no-no to use data from their broadband data plan service to connect a Blackberry to a laptop. Not all data is created equal. Separate tethering plan required, it seems. That basically sums up the state of broadband in America.

[. . .]

It’s a good thing that news organizations picked up the usage-cap story, because AT&T didn’t make it very clear in its new Terms of Service. This is what the company told customers: “Data Usage. For more information about the use of your High Speed Internet Service, data usage allowances that may apply to your service, how much data you use, and management of your data usage, please refer to www.att.com/internet-usage.” That’s very helpful.

[. . .]

Los Angeles Times tech editorial writer/blogger Jon Healey commented that even if the cap doesn’t affect users now, “it’s troubling when a broadband provider that faces little competition summarily raises prices, particularly when the move hurts rivals in a separate market. AT&T’s pay-TV service competes with online video-on-demand offerings from Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, Apple and CinemaNow, to name just a few. If the bandwidth caps deter consumers from using those services, that’s a very bad thing.”

That’s the point. High-speed Internet access is still a market with little competition and the government has been trying to stress the need to convert to a broadband-based economy. There is nothing in the National Broadband Plan to address that crucial fact. Indeed, the plan’s writers ignored the study that addressed the issue of competition.

[. . .]

How else is the National Broadband Plan being honored? In North Carolina, the same Time Warner Cable is on the verge of winning the legislative war to keep municipalities from offering their own competing Internet service. TWC has been trying for years to get the bill passed and now, with a friendly legislature, they have a good shot. The local groups who beat back the bill the last couple of years are fighting valiantly but they recognize it’s an uphill battle.

And up in Minnesota, cable company Mediacom is still fighting against a $66.5 million broadband stimulus project, filing a complaint with the U.S. Agriculture Department’s Inspector General against Lake County, Minnesota. Those companies trying to squash municipal networks should realize the local governments wouldn’t take on the challenge of a network if they got decent service from the private sector.

Somehow, the caps and the challenges seem at odds with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s vision that “what matters is the full broadband economy – a broad and widely available ecosystem of fast networks, valuable applications, and innovative devices.”

By most measurement, U.S. consumers still pay more money for less speed than other developed nations. Nothing in the National Broadband Plan will address that situation.

[. . .]

(Original post at the UK Guardian)

Berners-Lee Warns ISPs on Net Neutrality

By Charles Arthur
Wednesday 16 March 2011

The inventor of the world wide web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, has warned Internet service providers (ISPs) that plans for a “two-speed” internet go against the principles that have let the net grow so rapidly in the past two decades.

“Best practices should also include the neutrality of the net,” Berners-Lee told a round table in Westminster on Wednesday morning, convened by the communications minister Ed Vaizey. Content companies, represented by Facebook, Skype, the BBC and Yahoo, squared up to ISPs, with input from consumer representatives including the Open Rights Group, the Consumers’ Association and the communications regulator Ofcom.

[. . .]

Berners-Lee told the meeting that “every customer should be able to access every service, and every service should be able to access every customer … The web has grown so fast precisely because we have had two independent markets, one for connectivity, and the other for content and applications.”

Vaizey said the meeting had been “useful and productive” and that “it was important to discuss how to ensure the internet remains an open, innovative and competitive place.”

“Net neutrality” – in which services are treated exactly equally as they pass over the net, no matter what their source or destination – has become an increasingly vexed topic as demands on ISPs and mobile carriers have begun to outstrip capacity.

ISPs have thus suggested that they should be allowed to manipulate the transfer of data, but that they would be transparent about how and what they were doing.

[. . .]

(from Scott Bradner’s  column at NetworldWorld)

Eyes in their ankles: The congressional view of network neutrality

[. . .]

Too many in Congress, and elsewhere, see that any attempt at ensuring network neutrality will, in the words of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., “stifle innovation, in turn slowing our economic turnaround and further depressing an already anemic job market.”

This type of reaction only makes sense if someone has absolutely no idea how the Internet works or what it is used for.

The only way such an objection makes sense is if you only look at the carriers and assume that they will be worse off if they cannot get a piece of the action for the business that is done over their networks.

So, the argument must go, let the carriers control everything and they will create jobs and expand the economy.

Let’s look at some actual data from the U.S. Census Department. Total U.S. commerce in 2008 (the latest year reported on) was about $22 trillion. Of this about $3.7 trillion was in the form of e-commerce, mostly over the Internet. Most of this (92%) was business-to-business. Doing business over the Internet depends on the Internet working and working fairly.

What about the carriers? The National Cable & Telecommunications Association reports that the total cable company customer revenue for 2008 was about $85 billion and the FCC reports that total U.S. telecommunications industry revenues for 2008 was $297 billion. Thus, total carrier (cable plus telephone) revenue was about $382 billion or about 10% of the value of the business done over the Internet. Commentators that focus on the well-being of the carriers are ignoring the vast majority of the value of the Internet. They want to penalize the 90% to benefit the 10%.

This is an inability to see the value riding over the ‘Net, which is the same thing as having your eyes in your ankles pointing down so they can only see strips of asphalt and miss the cars and trucks riding on the asphalt.

[. . .]

(At SXSW as I post this)

Monday, March 14: SXSW Tackles Net Neutrality in Special Series of Presentations

The ongoing issue of net neutrality clearly impacts all aspects of the digital creativity we celebrate at SXSW. With this in mind, we are very excited about morning programming at the Radisson Hotel on Monday, March 14.

At 9:30 am, Senator Al Franken will talk about “An Open Internet: The Last, Best Hope for Independent Producers.”

At 11:00 am, Sharon Strover and Alex Curtis will cover “Why the FCC Can’t Please Anyone: Net Neutrality Blues.

At 12:30 pm, acclaimed author TIm Wu will explore “Net Neutrality Forever: The Very Long View“.

Don’t miss out on these important presentations — the future of the internet as we know it is potentially in the balance here.

(On SXSW Schedule for tomorrow)

Internet Evolution: Hyperconnected, Hyper-real

Time: 11:00 am, Tuesday, March 15

Venue: Austin Hyatt, Big Bend Room, 208 Barton Springs Road

What are your fears and hopes for the future of the Internet? People who do not understand the potential threats may never get to benefit from the possible opportunities. Most technology experts foresee: wireless devices embedded in everything – including us; nearly invisible cameras recording activity in all public spaces; databases cataloguing our online actions; massive data centers that allow that information to be sorted and understood in new ways; changes in work and home environments as the Internet of Things and everyware applications become widespread and immersive, invisible, ambient, networked computing makes us available to more people in more ways. And what about the implications of a direct brain-to-computer interface? Join in a discussion aimed at illuminating the concerns that should be addressed today to prepare for the potential future scenarios predicted by experts as documented by Pew Internet & American Life Project surveys and other current research.

Presenters

Janna Anderson Dir Imagining the Internet.orgCome to see my Core Conversation – “Internet Evolution: Hyperconnected, Hyper-real” at 11 a.m. Tuesday March 15. Also starring YOU and principal discussants Paul Jones of ibiblio, tech policy expert Mike Nelson (formerly IBM and Clinton White House) and Chris O’Brien of the San Jose Mercury News. My Bio: Lead author of the Pew Internet & American Life Project “Future of the Internet” surveys. Associate professor at Elon University specializing in emerging media. Founder and director of Imagining the Internet, http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org/, a Webby Honors-winning online compilation of survey studies and documentary videos illuminating people’s hopes and fears for the potential future of the Internet. This project, launched in 2003, has involved more than 200 Elon students in global communications research and documentary journalism. Has written articles for USA Today, Advertising Age and the New York Times News Service. Author of the book “Imagining the Internet,” (Rowman & Littlefield) and the “Future of the Internet” book series (Cambria Press). On the editorial board of Newspaper Research Journal; reviewer for New Media & Society; contributor to State of the Future reports. On the steering committee for the Internet Governance Forum-USA and a member of the boards of the Lifeboat Foundation and DiploFoundation. M.A., University of Memphis. Faculty at Elon University since spring 1999. Previously spent 20 years working as a copy editor, reporter, and features editor at papers in Minnesota and North Dakota.

Paul Jones Dir University of North Carolina Paul Jones runs ibiblio.org, a data archival site that hosts open source software and collaboratively created sites including Groklaw, Project Gutenberg, eTree.org and over 2000 other projects. ibiblio.org is supported by University of North Carolina’s the School of Information and Library Science and the School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Jones was co-chair of the 2010 International World Wide Web Conference, cited for his use of video and video conferencing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, and an IBM Faculty Research Award winner — all in the past year. Jones’ poems are found in several anthologies including Best American Erotic Poems: 1800 – Present (Scribners).

(Original article at Computerworld)

IDG News Service – A U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee has voted in favor of a resolution to throw out the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s recently adopted net neutrality rules.

The communications subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 15-8 along party lines for a resolution of disapproval that would overturn the FCC’s rules. Those rules would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic.

The resolution would also prohibit the FCC from re-attempting to create similar net neutrality rules.

[. . .]

The resolution will next go to the full committee, and if approved there, to the full House. If the Republican-controlled House approves the resolution, it would then move to the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority. The Senate is unlikely to pass the resolution.

[. . .]

Net neutrality rules are needed to allow small businesses to use the Web without interference from broadband providers, said Robin Chase, co-founder of car-sharing service Zipcar. An open Internet was essential to Zipcar’s success, she said.

“Network neutrality is not excessive regulation that will stifle innovation,” she said. “Network neutrality promotes innovation and protects consumers by preventing telecommunications companies from stifling new thinking, new services and new applications.”

Democratic lawmakers argued that the resolution was taking committee time away from more pressing broadband matters, including proposals to free up new spectrum and the creation of a nationwide, mobile public safety network. The resolution, given its dim chances in the Senate, is a “waste of time,” said Representative Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat.

The net neutrality rules allow Web users to control their online experiences, she added. “We want the consumers to make the choice, not corporations,” she said.

[. . .]

(Oral statement hosted at Public Knowledge.  Also see Robin’s written testimony.)

Oral Testimony by Robin Chase
CEO GoLoco, Founder and former CEO of Zipcar

Washington, DC
March 9, 2011

Before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the importance of network neutrality rules to job creation, economic development, and innovation. My name is Robin Chase and I am the founder and former CEO of GoLoco, an online ridesharing community; the founder of Meadow Networks, a consulting firm that advises government about wireless applications in the transportation sector; and the founder and former CEO of Zipcar, the world’s largest carsharing company.

When I received the invitation late last week to testify before this Committee, I was working across the Atlantic and later this afternoon I will fly back. Despite the significant resources and travel time it took to come here, I accepted the invitation because the course of action Congress is considering — namely repealing and eliminating the authority of the FCC to enact policies that preserve an open Internet — will harm our country’s ability to innovate, produce jobs, and remain competitive in the world marketplace. And I care deeply about that.

Eleven years ago, I co-founded Zipcar. The idea behind the company was to make renting a car as simple as getting cash from an ATM, and free and open access to the Internet was central to the company’s existence. It is only because of the ease, speed, and zero marginal cost of finding, reserving, and unlocking a car that anyone would be willing to rent a car for an hour, or to sell only an hour of a car’s time. Without an open Internet, Zipcar simply would not exist.

Eliminating the FCC’s network neutrality rules will put future entrepreneurs and small businesses at a significant disadvantage. It will permit the telecommunications industry to define the Internet.

I would like to draw an important parallel. Imagine for example, if Zipcar had been forced to rely on the auto industry’s definitions of car ownership — or worse yet, had to ask their permission in order to execute. Our vision of a fleet of personal cars being shared among unconnected individuals would have been implausible and threatening.

Likewise, we cannot rely on the telecommunications industry to define the Internet. Without a public policy, they will define the Internet as their preferred “triple play” — their telephone service, their video service, and their idea of your ideal Internet experience. And they will seek to squash any service that threatens their revenue stream. Such an approach is a perfect recipe for stifling innovation.

This is not just mere speculation about the potential for short-sightedness but rather firsthand experience. During the initial years of Zipcar the wireless industry simply would not think outside of the box. When we first approached them for a data plan in 2000, we were met with blank, non-responsive stares. I recall many representatives not actually understanding the difference between purchasing “kilobytes” versus purchasing “minutes.”  The industry had only one vision of wireless use and therefore only one product to sell. We were either a cell phone or we did not exist.

Innovation is the life blood of a competitive economy and the Internet is the circulatory system that carries this vital source to the whole. An open Internet gives everyone access, and the ability, to apply new ways of thinking to problems in discipline silos that often do not get new thinking applied to them. And especially important to entrepreneurs, the open Internet allows for extraordinarily low input costs, which allows them to efficiently tap into unused excess capacity, and multiply ideas across the network at virtually no cost.

Ensuring that the Internet can continue to perform this function of promoting innovation is the reason we are having this debate. I absolutely agree that excessive regulation stifles innovation and prevents free markets from innovating. BUT.

The most important thing I have to say to the committee, and the reason I have flown so many thousands of miles, is this:

The public policy enacted by the FCC helps ensure an open Internet. It is not excessive regulation that will stifle innovation but rather a policy that prevents excessive regulation by powerful telecommunications companies who do not have an interest in enabling and promoting innovation.

Indeed, I think the FCC’s rules actually did not go far enough, especially with respect to wireless: The idea that different rules should apply, and that my experience of the Internet would be different depending on whether I was sitting at my desk at home connected, or on a park bench accessing those pages wirelessly is nonsense. And it dramatically complicates life for innovators and entrepreneurs.

If Congress wants to truly unlock the economic and job creating potential of the Internet by fully tapping into the innovation potential of our country, it should do so by fixing the FCC’s rules in this regard, rather than repealing them.

Twenty years ago, no one was thinking that the Internet would be used to share small numbers of cars among large numbers of people. I don’t know what brilliant and unexpected uses the Internet will enable tomorrow. No one does. That is why it is critical to make sure that the fundamental characteristic of the Internet — its ability to accommodate, adapt, and evolve — remains as open as possible. It is crucial that there is a public policy by the FCC and Congress that ensures this outcome. Protecting the Internet by defining it as broadly as possible, and letting the FCC protect it from oligopoly interests, is in America’s best interest.

Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your questions.

(Original article at Tech Daily Dose)

(Original post at the House Energy and Commerce Committee site)

March 7, 2011

WASHINGTON, DC – The House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), will hold the second hearing this year on the Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to implement controversial Internet rules on Wednesday, March 9, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. in room 2123 of Rayburn House Office Building.  Following the legislative hearing, the subcommittee will hold a vote on H.J.Res. 37, a Resolution of Disapproval to reverse the FCC’s rules. Text of the resolution is available HERE.

The hearing is open to the public and press. Opening statements, witness testimony, and a live webcast will be available online at http://energycommerce.house.gov.

Witness List
Tom DeReggi
President
RapidDSL & Wireless

Anna-Maria Kovacs, PhD
Strategic Choices

Robin Chase
CEO
Buzzcar

Shane Mitchell Greenstein, PhD
The Elinor and Wendell Hobbs Professor
Kellogg School of Management
Northwestern University

Mr. James Cicconi
Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs
AT&T

S. Derek Turner
Research Director
Free Press

(Original posting on Bloomberg)

(Original commentary archived at Washington Speakers and on The Internet Distinction.)

“Twenty years ago, no one was thinking that the Internet would be used to share small numbers of cars among large numbers of people. I don’t know what brilliant and unexpected uses the Internet will enable tomorrow. No one does. That’s why we need to make sure that the fundamental characteristic of the Internet — its ability to accommodate, adapt and evolve — remains as open as possible.”

By Robin Chase

March 3 (Bloomberg) — Eleven years ago, I co-founded a company called Zipcar Inc. While there were many things we had to get right in order to make renting a car as simple as getting cash from an ATM, free and open access to the Internet was central to our success.

It’s thanks to the Internet that Zipcar members can effortlessly locate a car near them, make a reservation based on real-time availability for a specific car in a specific location, and then unlock the right car at the right time at the right location. It’s only because of the ease, speed and zero marginal cost of this transaction that anyone in their right mind would be willing to rent a car for an hour, or to sell only an hour of a car’s time.

Without the Internet (and wireless data transmission), Zipcar could not have become a mainstream service. It would not exist.

Incredibly, this fundamental asset is in serious jeopardy in America, putting at risk our ability to innovate and to compete. The U.S. House of Representatives is trying to block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing a network neutrality order it issued in December.

If the House action is successful, it will put small entrepreneurs at a disadvantage because we can’t pay the tolls for faster speeds and quality of service that the big guys can, and it may help them create groups of users that we can’t access at all. How could we compete?

Discriminate Against Data

Net neutrality polemics turn on the ability of telecommunications providers to be able to discriminate against some data flowing over the network: to charge more for better service for some and to block or degrade service for others. Like any startup, there was no way Zipcar could afford or gamble on premium anything.

A hallmark of an open Internet is the ability to create your own experience on the Web, without needing the permission of your Internet provider. For example, if Zipcar had been forced to rely on the auto industry’s definitions of car ownership — or worse yet, to ask their permission — our vision of a fleet of personal cars being shared among unconnected individuals would never have made the cut.

Likewise, we cannot rely on the telecommunications industry to define the Internet. The industry would almost certainly define it as their new preferred “triple play” — their telephone service, their movie service, and access to their idea of your ideal Internet experience. We need government intervention to ensure that the Internet remains its evolving and flexible and accessible self. Without it, startups with crazy and novel ideas might not be able to even reach consumers to try their wares.

The telcos can’t be expected to think outside their boxes. When we first approached them for a data plan back in 2000, we were met with blank, nonresponsive stares.

Despite the paltry amounts of data that were being sent to and from our cars, the telcos only had one vision of wireless use and therefore one data product to sell. We were either a cellphone or we didn’t exist.

Hobbled Excuse

So for the first three years of Zipcar’s experience, we used their hobbled excuse for a data network while they slowly figured out that there might be another market out there for their wireless highway.

Lacking a data plan, the telco was setting the pricing rules, and these rules didn’t include or imagine the type of service we wanted to offer. Likewise, any new packaged bundles of services, and the pricing plans they might now think up, are quite likely to exclude novel services that don’t fit their needs or match with the ideas of innovators.

Twenty years ago, no one was thinking that the Internet would be used to share small numbers of cars among large numbers of people. I don’t know what brilliant and unexpected uses the Internet will enable tomorrow. No one does. That’s why we need to make sure that the fundamental characteristic of the Internet — its ability to accommodate, adapt and evolve — remains as open as possible.

Most innovation and economic growth over the past 15 years has come from companies wholly reliant on the Internet or wireless data transmission. It’s worth noting that the root cause of Wi-Fi’s success was the basic FCC ruling that enabled unlicensed (i.e. free) use of certain bands and let market forces decide which were the technology winners.

The number of Wi-Fi chipsets will pass 1 billion units shipped annually by 2012. In the three short years since Apple and then Android smart phones have come online, more than 500,000 applications have been built on these newly opened devices, resulting in a $5 billion marketplace.

Our country thrives on its ability to innovate. And unfettered access to a free and open internet is a critical part of our toolkit. Protecting the Internet by defining it as broadly as possible, and letting the FCC protect it from oligopoly interests, is in America’s best interest.

Robin Chase is a founder and former CEO of Zipcar Inc. and an entrepreneur. She’s a member of the National Advisory Committee for Innovation and Entrepreneurship for the U.S. secretary of commerce.

(Original article at Scientific American)

“The fix, however, is simple. As the FCC goes about enforcing this ban on so-called unreasonable policies, it should clarify that the only kind of unreasonable discrimination is discrimination against particular applications.”

By The Editors | March 3, 2011

The island of Key Biscayne, Fla., sits in the Atlantic Ocean 10 miles southeast of Miami. Its 10,000 residents depend on the Rickenbacker Causeway, a four-mile-long toll bridge connecting the island to the mainland, for all their supplies. Right now all vehicles passing through must pay a set toll—$1.50 for cars, $9.00 for three-axle cargo trucks, and so on. But what would happen if a bridge owner decided to charge a toll based not on the size of a vehicle but on the cargo it was carrying? He could let his brother’s lumber-supply company through for free and make its chief competitor pay through the nose. He could force the Winn-Dixie grocery store to double its prices, pushing area residents to local restaurants. In short, the bridge owner would have the power to control everything that the residents of Key Biscayne have access to.

This is the essence of the widely discussed but little understood concept of “net neutrality.” The bridge, in this case, represents the lines that carry the Internet to your home computer or smart phone. So far Internet service providers have for the most part treated all content equally. The worry is that, sensing a business opportunity, they might strike deals with certain content providers to deliver faster access for a fee or to block some information entirely. The worry isn’t completely theoretical; Comcast recently told the company that delivers Netflix streaming videos that it needed to pay up if it wanted to access Comcast’s customers. (Lost on no one was the fact that Netflix directly competes with Comcast’s own video-on-demand service.)

To make matters worse, most Americans have only one choice of high-speed broadband provider; the most fortunate have two. Unhappy subscribers cannot just leave and get their Internet elsewhere. This effective monopoly leaves consumers with little protection from a provider that has the means to filter everything that they can buy, watch and read.

Internet service providers contend that they must retain the flexibility to manage their networks in the way they see fit—slowing or blocking some high-bandwidth applications to ensure reliable service for all. Network management is a serious concern, but it must not become a cover for policies that censor any content displeasing to the corporate gatekeeper. The Federal Communications Commission approved a rule last December that was intended to ensure equal treatment of content providers. Yet while the FCC rule prohibits “unreasonable” discrimination of network traffic, it fails to spell out what unreasonable behavior entails. The ruling is vague in ways that only a Washington, D.C., lawyer could love; the only certainty it gives is of the tens of thousands of billable hours to be spent arguing over the meaning of “unreasonable” in federal court.

The fix, however, is simple. As the FCC goes about enforcing this ban on so-called unreasonable policies, it should clarify that the only kind of unreasonable discrimination is discrimination against particular applications.

[. . .]

(Original article at NetworkWorld)

By Scott Bradner, Network World
January 18, 2011

As I write this, the IETF has been around for 25 years and a few hours. The first meeting started at 9 a.m. on Thursday, Jan. 16, 1986, in San Diego with 21 people in attendance — a far cry from the most recent meeting in Beijing, which attracted 1,207 attendees.

The Internet we have today, and that most enterprises heavily depend on, is largely a result of IETF technologies, and more importantly, the IETF philosophy of the proper role of the network. The network that sprang from this philosophy is now under sustained attack and the future role of the IETF will depend on how well it responds to this attack.

I first started paying attention to the IETF in 1988 or 1989 by monitoring various IETF mailing lists. The first meeting I attended in person was the Tallahassee, Fla., gathering in early 1990. (My boss was not willing to spring for the previous meeting in Hawaii — so it goes.) I go back aways with the IETF, but there are others that go back further — 20% (four) of the attendees of the first meeting are still active in the IETF.

If there is a key document that was the origin of the IETF’s design philosophy it is the 1984 Saltzer, Reed & Clark paper “End to End Arguments in System Design.” A dozen years after this paper was published, the IETF published an expanded description of its design philosophy in RFC 1958, “Architectural Principles of the Internet.” (You can find pointers to these, and many other relevant documents, by clicking here.)

The IETF has interpreted the “End to End” paper to basically say that the network should not be application aware. Unless told otherwise by an application, the network should treat all Internet traffic the same.

The IETF has defined various ways that an application can ask for special treatment by the network (such as Diffserv, defined in RFC 2474), but generally networks are ways to get bunches of bits (packets) from one place to another.

In brief, this design philosophy has led the IETF to create technologies that can be deployed without having to get permission from network operators or having to modify the networks. This is not to say that IETF protocols have not been impacted by the proliferation of firewalls and network address translators (NATs) — see RFC 2775. But this design philosophy has also led to an environment where network operators do not get added value from high-value traffic. This is the heart of the network neutrality discussions being played out so loudly in the wake of the recent FCC proposal.

The IETF has developed many technologies that make the Internet function, make the networks that make up the Internet more secure and make the Internet work over ever-faster and ever-changing transport technologies. But the IETF has developed far more technologies that run over the Internet to provide end-to-end functions for you and me to use.

My last column last year (Goodbye Internet, we hardly knew ye?) was quite pessimistic. So is this one, my first column of the new year.

Last year I was worried about what rules regulators and politicians were going to impose on the Internet. This year, my pessimism is focused at a lower level in the protocol stack: I’m worried about what kind of network the network operators will provide for the IETF to build on, for me and you to use, and for tomorrow’s enterprises to depend on. The IETF must play a role in the upcoming debate, and you should as well.

Disclaimer: Most of Harvard would be impacted if things turn out wrong but they do not know it yet. Some parts of the university do care quite deeply about these issues but I did not ask them for their opinion before writing this column, so the above is mine.

(Original at New York Times)

[. . .]

We thought maybe we’d put together a few temporary, informal memos on network protocols, the rules by which computers exchange information. I offered to organize our early notes.

What was supposed to be a simple chore turned out to be a nerve-racking project. Our intent was only to encourage others to chime in, but I worried we might sound as though we were making official decisions or asserting authority. In my mind, I was inciting the wrath of some prestigious professor at some phantom East Coast establishment. I was actually losing sleep over the whole thing, and when I finally tackled my first memo, which dealt with basic communication between two computers, it was in the wee hours of the morning. I had to work in a bathroom so as not to disturb the friends I was staying with, who were all asleep.

Still fearful of sounding presumptuous, I labeled the note a “Request for Comments.” R.F.C. 1, written 40 years ago today, left many questions unanswered, and soon became obsolete. But the R.F.C.’s themselves took root and flourished. They became the formal method of publishing Internet protocol standards, and today there are more than 5,000, all readily available online.

[. . .]

Less important than the content of those first documents was that they were available free of charge and anyone could write one. Instead of authority-based decision-making, we relied on a process we called “rough consensus and running code.” Everyone was welcome to propose ideas, and if enough people liked it and used it, the design became a standard.

After all, everyone understood there was a practical value in choosing to do the same task in the same way. For example, if we wanted to move a file from one machine to another, and if you were to design the process one way, and I was to design it another, then anyone who wanted to talk to both of us would have to employ two distinct ways of doing the same thing. So there was plenty of natural pressure to avoid such hassles. It probably helped that in those days we avoided patents and other restrictions; without any financial incentive to control the protocols, it was much easier to reach agreement.

This was the ultimate in openness in technical design and that culture of open processes was essential in enabling the Internet to grow and evolve as spectacularly as it has. In fact, we probably wouldn’t have the Web without it. When CERN physicists wanted to publish a lot of information in a way that people could easily get to it and add to it, they simply built and tested their ideas. Because of the groundwork we’d laid in the R.F.C.’s, they did not have to ask permission, or make any changes to the core operations of the Internet. Others soon copied them — hundreds of thousands of computer users, then hundreds of millions, creating and sharing content and technology. That’s the Web.

Put another way, we always tried to design each new protocol to be both useful in its own right and a building block available to others. We did not think of protocols as finished products, and we deliberately exposed the internal architecture to make it easy for others to gain a foothold. This was the antithesis of the attitude of the old telephone networks, which actively discouraged any additions or uses they had not sanctioned.

[. . .]

(Original post at EFF)

[. . .]

The FCC’s Basis for Regulating: Contrary to some expectations, the FCC is offering new theories for its regulatory authority, opting not to re-assert the “ancillary” legal theory rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Following the ‘throw it against the wall and see what sticks’ approach, the FCC has volunteered a smorgasbord of potential justifications, the sum of which apparently demonstrates that “[b]roadband Internet access services are clearly within the Commission’s jurisdiction.” The lead argument appears to be Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, which requires the FCC to report to Congress and take steps to help create universal broadband availability. We’ll see if the Court agrees that this allows the FCC to create broad rules of the road for the Internet.

The merits of the specific net neutrality proposals notwithstanding, the FCC’s continued attempt to find broad, unfocused basis for jurisdiction is a disconcerting strategy. An ungrounded rationale for regulatory authority is easily abused, opening the door to other, undesirable regulation.

Now to the substance. From what we’ve learned from FCC statements and bulletins, our anticipated concerns were right on target. The rules appear to be riddled with loopholes and exemptions, to the point where the FCC’s declaration that the order represents bright-line rules and a framework for predictability is hard to reconcile. It’s likely there won’t be much clarity around the rules’ application until they get invoked in FCC enforcement actions or otherwise.

The FCC’s release previews several points from the final order. Here’s how EFF’s list-to-watch-out-for compares:

(1) Carve-outs for wireless. [. . .]

(2) Loopholes for “unlawful content.” [. . .]

(3) “Reasonable network management” exceptions. Under the order, ‘no blocking’ and ‘no unreasonable discrimination’ rules may be superseded where there are “reasonable network management” requirements. While the order defines reasonable network management in what appears to be a content neutral way, it remains to be seen whether this will be the case in practice or whether, as we have warned, the exception may swallow the rule.

(4) Allowances for “managed” or “special” services.” Consistent with our concerns, the order leaves room for non-neutral “specialized services” immune from nondiscrimination rules, without clear boundaries on what those encompass. The rules state that this exemption will be monitored by the FCC for discriminatory and anticompetitive practices. We’ll be monitoring it, too.

(5) Pay for priority. The FCC statement notes that commercial pay-for-priority business arrangements are not likely to pass muster under the “no unreasonable discrimination” rule. This is the main element excerpted from the current order that was not on EFF’s list of concerns. It’s another one that will require close monitoring, however, and may be especially difficult to detect in the midst of complex peering and other relationships between various internet entities.

With the caveat again that we haven’t reviewed rules themselves in entirety, it appears that Chairman Genachowski is dodging resolution on the more difficult determinations, leaving them to future enforcement actions and underscoring our speculation that he may be pursuing political image first and substantive change second, if at all, since the regulations are certainly going to be challenged in court.

[. . .]

• Grant Gross/Computerworld: FCC approves compromise Net neutrality rules
• Sascha Meinrath: FCC Caves to Telecom Lobbyists
• Dave Weinberger: FCC Fail — Providing incentives for scarcity
• Harold Feld: The FCC Network Neutrality Order: Possible Adequacy, But No Regulatory Certainty Any Time Soon
• Public Knowledge: FCC Net Neutrality Order Falls Short
• Dan Lyons: The Internet Splits in Two
• Neon Tommy: FCC Protects Net Neutrality, But Legal Challenge Likely
• NPR: Divided FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules
• CNN: FCC approves controversial ‘net neutrality’ rules
• Washington Post: FCC set to enact new net neutrality rules
• Broadband Breakfast: Support Dims for FCC Chairman’s Open Internet Proposal
• Wilson Rothman/MSNBC Technology: ‘Open’ Internet just a pipe dream
• Dave Farber/Gerald Faulhaber: Net Neutrality: No One Will Be Satisfied, Everyone Will Complain

(Available at FCC.gov)

(Original article at The Atlantic)

By Steve Wozniak

[. . .]

When young, I remember clearly how my father told me why our country was so great, mainly based on the constitution and Bill of Rights. Over my lifetime, I’ve seen those rights disregarded at every step. Loopholes abound. It’s sad. For example, my (Eisenhower Republican) father explained the sanctity of your home and how it could not easily be entered. It was your own private abode. And you had a right to listen to any radio signals that came because the air was free and if it came into your home you had a right to listen to it. That principle went away with a ban on radios that could tune in cell phone frequencies in the days of analog cell phones. Nobody but myself seemed to treat this as a core principle that was too much to give up.

I was also taught that space, and the moon, were free and open. Nobody owned them. No country owned them. I loved this concept of the purest things in the universe being unowned.

The early Internet was so accidental, it also was free and open in this sense. The Internet has become as important as anything man has ever created. But those freedoms are being chipped away. Please, I beg you, open your senses to the will of the people to keep the Internet as free as possible. Local ISP’s should provide connection to the Internet but then it should be treated as though you own those wires and can choose what to do with them when and how you want to, as long as you don’t destruct them. I don’t want to feel that whichever content supplier had the best government connections or paid the most money determined what I can watch and for how much. This is the monopolistic approach and not representative of a truly free market in the case of today’s Internet.

Imagine that when we started Apple we set things up so that we could charge purchasers of our computers by the number of bits they use. The personal computer revolution would have been delayed a decade or more. If I had to pay for each bit I used on my 6502 microprocessor, I would not have been able to build my own computers anyway. What if we paid for our roads per mile that we drove? It would be fair and understandable to charge more for someone who drives more. But one of the most wonderful things in our current life is getting in the car and driving anywhere we feel like at this moment, and with no accounting for cost. You just get in your car and go. This is one of the most popular themes of our life and even our popular music. It’s a type of freedom from some concerns that makes us happy and not complain. The roads are already paid for. You rarely hear people complain that roads are “free.” The government shines when it comes to having provided us pathways to drive around our country. We don’t think of the roadways as being negative like telecommunication carriers. It’s a rare breath of fresh air.

I frequently speak to different types of audiences all over the country. When I’m asked my feeling on Net Neutrality I tell the open truth. When I was first asked to “sign on” with some good people interested in Net Neutrality my initial thought was that the economic system works better with tiered pricing for various customers. On the other hand, I’m a founder of the EFF and I care a lot about individuals and their own importance. Finally, the thought hit me that every time and in every way that the telecommunications careers have had power or control, we the people wind up getting screwed. Every audience that I speak this statement and phrase to bursts into applause.

That’s how the people think. They don’t want this to encroach on their Internet freedom.

[. . .]

(Original pdf available at FCC.gov)

(See the passage I’ve selected, at the end. It doesn’t define the distinction between specialized services and the Internet, and it doesn’t place the general purpose nature of the platform at stake, though it does talk about tracking the distinction. A missed opportunity to get the solid win. — Seth)

Action Helps Ensure Robust Internet for Consumers, Innovation, Investment, Economic Prosperity

Washington, D.C. – The Federal Communications Commission today acted to preserve the Internet as an open network enabling consumer choice, freedom of expression, user control, competition and the freedom to innovate.

Chairman Genachowski voted for the Order; Commissioner Copps concurred and Commissioner Clyburn approved in part and concurred in part. Commissioners McDowell and Baker dissented.

[. . .]

Specialized Services

In the Open Internet NPRM, the Commission recognized that broadband providers offer services that share capacity with broadband Internet access service over providers’ last-mile facilities, and may develop and offer other such services in the future. These “specialized services,” such as some broadband providers’ existing facilities-based VoIP and Internet Protocol-video offerings, differ from broadband Internet access service and may drive additional private investment in broadband networks and provide consumers valued services, supplementing the benefits of the open Internet. At the same time, specialized services may raise concerns regarding bypassing open Internet protections, supplanting the open Internet, and enabling anticompetitive conduct. We note also that our rules define broadband Internet access service to encompass “any service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of [broadband Internet access service], or that is used to evade the protections set forth in
these rules.”

We will closely monitor the robustness and affordability of broadband Internet access services, with a particular focus on any signs that specialized services are in any way retarding the growth of or constricting capacity available for broadband Internet access service. We fully expect that broadband providers will increase capacity offered for broadband Internet access service if they expand network capacity to accommodate specialized services. We would be concerned if capacity for broadband Internet access service did not keep pace. We also expect broadband providers to disclose information about specialized services’ impact, if any, on last-mile capacity available for, and the performance of, broadband Internet access service. We may consider additional disclosure requirements in this area in our related proceeding regarding consumer transparency and disclosure. We would also be concerned by any marketing, advertising, or other messaging by broadband providers suggesting that one or more specialized services, taken alone or together, and not provided in accordance with our open Internet rules, is “Internet” service or a substitute for broadband Internet access service. Finally, we will monitor the potential for anticompetitive or otherwise harmful effects from specialized services, including from any arrangements a broadband provider may seek to enter into with third parties to offer such services. The Open Internet Advisory Committee will aid us in monitoring these issues.

[. . .]