The Internet Distinction

(Original article at NetArchitecture.org)

By Barbara van Schewick

[This is the first of two posts about the FCC’s proposal for Open Internet rules. The second post is available here.]

[. . .]

Why do innovators and users need protection? If a network provider blocks or discriminates against an application I want to use, I cannot use the Internet in the way that is most valuable to me. If a network provider restricts access to content I am interested in, my ability to educate myself, contribute to discussions of the subject and make informed decisions will be limited. Ideally, open Internet rules would ban this type of discriminatory behavior and provide an easy mechanism for users to ask the FCC to stop it. In the absence of good rules, users just have to live with it.

If an application is blocked, it cannot reach its users and the application developer cannot reap its benefits. In the absence of meaningful protections, there is nothing the application developer can do about this. And concerned about the threat of discrimination, innovators (or potential investors) may decide not to pursue innovative ideas. Thus, without meaningful network neutrality rules, we will get less application innovation. And since applications, services and content are what makes the Internet useful to us, an Internet without meaningful network neutrality rules will be less useful to us in the future.

I’m sure you have heard that a lack of meaningful network neutrality rules harms start ups and reduces application innovation before. But for many, it sounds like an abstract theoretical concern. Yesterday, a start up from Silicon Valley called Zediva filed a letter with the FCC that explains what the Chairman’s current proposal would mean for them.

The letter does a great job of showing how different proposals for network neutrality rules can provide very different protections for innovative start ups and where the current proposal needs to be improved, so I asked Zediva for permission to post it here.

[. . .]

• ComputerWorld: Net neutrality plan has the votes at FCC
• F.C.C. Poised to Pass Net Neutrality Order
• Public Knowledge Disappointed With FCC Order
• Free Press: FCC Set to Move Forward with Fake Net Neutrality
• Media Access Project: Proposed FCC Rules on Open Internet are Inadequate to Protect Online Free Expression
• Marvin Ammori: FCC Chair Proposes Garbage, Calls it Net Neutrality
• Tim Karr: Obama FCC Caves on Net Neutrality — Tuesday Betrayal Assured
• Al Franken: The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time
• NPR: Vote On Network Neutrality May Alter The Way We Listen Online

(Original article at Techcrunch)

“Application-agnostic network management with a definition of an application should include apps, sites and web services. To the extent that there are specialized services that network providers want to put in market they should do that—but they need to be distinguished from the open internet.”

By John Borthwick

[Techcrunch] Editor’s note: Guest author John Borthwick is the CEO and founder of betaworks and in a previous life was a senior strategist for Time Warner and a witness in the Microsoft antitrust case.

Access to fast, affordable and open broadband, for users and developers alike is, I believe, the single most important driver of innovation in our business. The FCC will likely vote next week on a framework for net neutrality—we got aspects of this wrong ten years ago, we can’t afford to be wrong again. For the reasons I outline below, we are at an important juncture in the evolution of how we connect to the Internet and how services are delivered on top of the platform. The lack of basic “rules of the road” for what network providers and others can and can’t do is starting to hamper innovation and growth. The proposals aren’t perfect but now is the time for the FCC to act.

Brad Burnham stopped by our office earlier this week to talk about his proposal for the future of net neutrality. The FCC has circulated a draft of a set of rules about neutrality that the Commission will likely vote on this week. Though the rules are not public, Chairman Genachowski outlined their substance last week. Through a combination of the Chairman’s talk, the Waxman Proposal, and the Google/Verizon proposal, one can derive the substance of the issue and understand its opportunities and risks. I strongly support much of what the Chairman has proposed and I support the clarifications that Burnham outlines. But before further discussing this point, I have to ask, why does this matter now? Over the past few years there has been a lot of discussion, a lot of promises, and some proposals with regard to net neutrality. Here are three reasons why this matters now:

1. The Internet and how we build things on the network is undergoing meaningful change as we transition to broadband and wireless access.

[. . .]

2. Most of the innovation that has taken place online over the past 15 years was born out of a handful of architectural decisions. Two of these decisions are now being challenged.

Non-discriminatory pricing of bits and the clear definition of layers (i.e. the logical separation of conduit and content) that make up the Internet stack are two of the key architectural foundations of the network. The fact that bits containing applications, images, text or videos are handled in the same manner is central to how the Internet works. Network providers can shape or manage traffic on an aggregate, best-effort basis but identifying a single application or any content in an application or page will change the way the network is used. Specifically, it will hamper innovation by end-users such as individuals, developers and new or existing companies. Similarly, the layers are building blocks that are vital to how we develop and build Internet companies. This goes back to seminal pieces of Internet literature like the rise of the stupid network. I agree that, in the short term, tightly coupled systems can provide more efficient means to drive end-to-end innovation when you know precisely what you want to build. But I fundamentally believe that the essence of innovation is that you don’t usually know exactly what you want to build.

Innovators aim to solve problems—they start in one place and then they iterate. All too often real innovation is simply stumbled upon. Ideas and companies evolve (or pivot, as we now call it) as they better understand the problem they are seeking to solve. The Internet has demonstrated time and time again that loosely coupled systems and edge-based innovation is what drives the kind of massive change we have seen over the past two decades. This freedom to create “on the edge”, and to evolve ideas, is what gets me up in the morning and keeps me up late at night.

Like all good architecture, structural principles are remarkably resilient to change and scale. There have been continual challenges to these principles over the past few decades but this has all been part of the persistent tension that exists in a network between centralization and decentralization. Today, given our current transition to wireless and broadband access, the challenges faced are more fundamental as network providers attempt to change these building blocks as preconditions to future investment. The conflation of access (and control of access) with control of the stack of the open Internet is wrong.

3. Edge-based innovation has been the driver of change and creativity online, yet the edge has no single representative.

The edge-based innovation I talk of is predicated on access to a handful of things and the persistent tension between centralization and decentralization is a hallmark of a healthy web, evident in debates all the way back to Napster, CompuServe and AOL and, more recently, Facebook and Wikileaks. We have many native Internet companies relative to ten years ago. Though these native Internet companies come from the edge, no single company represents the edge. Moreover, as companies scale, they become increasingly misaligned with the edge. Google, Amazon, Facebook, eBay, and Yahoo, for example, all came from edge-based innovation but no longer represent the edge. Despite intentions to the contrary, there is a natural evolutionary path through which a large company becomes less likely to let edge-based innovations flourish and more likely to preserve the status quo. There is currently an over-representation of the center in Washington DC and the edge needs a louder voice. That’s up to us and, most likely, also up to you.

So what to do? As Burnham outlines, there are a handful of areas that merit attention. The key points are:

Application discrimination and specialized services

Burnham advocates Barbara van Schewick’s approach to “all application-specific discrimination”. I believe this approach can work because it works today. It is hard to understand where to draw lines here but we know what we think when a network provider discriminates against a specific application or specific content. We know it when we see it. Schewick proposes a generalized rule to ensure that this discrimination does not happen. If you doubt this approach, read the Zedevia letter as evidence that companies hesitate to invest without clarity—companies need clearly drawn lines. How much edge-based telephony (i.e. voice-based communication) innovation have you seen on the iPhone? Not a lot. Today—the list of issues and examples of discrimination is starting to grow. This is happening as the adoption of over the top services (IPTV etc.) places pressure on the cable companies’ video based revenues or the wireless companies’ voice and data revenues. Application-agnostic network management with a definition of an application should include apps, sites and web services. To the extent that there are specialized services that network providers want to put in market they should do that—but they need to be distinguished from the open internet.

[. . .]

(There is some promise here in that Genachowski is having specialized services justify themselves for not using the open Internet. But if he doesn’t define that right, this looks like a formula for rationalizing shortsighted policies piecemeal. The right definition can be guarded over time; the lack of it looks like it would accommodate the incumbents gradually baking all sorts of bad things into the Net. — Seth)

(Original article at New York Times)

“Broadband providers have natural business incentives to leverage their position as gatekeepers to the Internet,” the text of the speech says. “The record in the proceeding we’ve run over the past year, as well as history, shows that there are real risks to the Internet’s continued freedom and openness.”

The proposal will allow broadband companies to impose usage-based pricing, charging customers higher prices if they make heavy use of data-rich applications like streaming movies. Users who use the Internet only to check e-mail, for example, could be charged lower prices for using less data.

The F.C.C. also will allow companies to experiment with the offering of so-called specialized services, providing separate highways outside the public Internet for specific uses like medical services or home security.

But companies will be required to justify why those services will not be provided over the open Internet and to demonstrate that their implementation does not detract from a company’s investment in the more widely used open Internet infrastructure.

As for broadband service delivered over wires, providers to homes or offices will be prohibited from blocking lawful content, applications, services and the connection of nonharmful devices to the network.

The companies also will be subject to transparency requirements as to how their networks are managed.

For wireless broadband, the fastest-growing segment of the industry, the proposal includes a transparency requirement and “a basic no-blocking rule” covering Web sites and certain applications that compete with services that the broadband provider also offers.

But Mr. Genachowski says he recognizes “differences between fixed and mobile broadband,” and therefore will allow for flexibility for wireless rules. But he said he planned to “address anticompetitive or anticonsumer behavior as appropriate.”

(Original post at OpenInternet.gov)

Prepared Remarks of
Chairman Julius Genachowski
Washington DC
December 1, 2010

Good morning. After months of hard work at the FCC, in other parts of government, in the private sector, and in the public interest community, and after receiving more than 100,000 comments from citizens across America, we have reached an important milestone in our effort to protect Internet freedom and openness.

Yesterday, I circulated to my colleagues draft rules of the road to preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet. This framework, if adopted later this month, would advance a set of core goals: It would ensure that the Internet remains a powerful platform for innovation and job creation; it would empower consumers and entrepreneurs; it would protect free expression; it would increase certainty in the marketplace, and spur investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks.

I am gratified by the broad support this proposal has already received this morning — including from leading Internet and technology companies, founders and investors; broadband providers; consumer and public interest groups, civil rights organizations, and unions.

This proposed framework is rooted in ideas first articulated by Republican Chairmen Michael Powell and Kevin Martin, and endorsed in a unanimous FCC policy statement in 2005. Similar proposals have been supported in Congress on a bipartisan basis. And they are consistent with President Obama’s commitment to “keep the Internet as it should be – open and free.”

Their adoption would culminate recent efforts to find common ground — at the FCC, in Congress, and outside government, including approaches advanced by both Democrats and Republicans, and by stakeholders of differing perspectives. In particular, this proposal would build upon the strong and balanced framework developed by Chairman Henry Waxman, which garnered support from technology and telecommunications companies, big and small, as well as from consumer and public interest groups.

The animating force behind all of these efforts is a shared appreciation for the Internet’s wondrous contributions to our economy and our way of life.

[. . .]

(Original post on the White House Blog)

Posted by Aneesh Chopra on December 01, 2010

President Obama is strongly committed to net neutrality in order to keep an open Internet that fosters investment, innovation, consumer choice, and free speech. The announced action by FCC Chairman Genachowski, building on the work of Chairman Waxman’s collaborative effort to craft legislation in this area, advances this important policy priority.

We recognize that this announcement reflects a significant amount of effort on the part of numerous broadband providers, Internet applications developers, content providers, consumer groups, and others to finding a thoughtful and effective approach to this issue. Today’s announcement is an important step in preventing abuses and continuing to advance the Internet as an engine of productivity growth and innovation.

(Original post at ISOC)

“A key concept of the Internet is that it was not designed for just one application, but as a general infrastructure on which new applications could be conceived, as illustrated later by the emergence of the World Wide Web. It is the general purpose nature of the service provided by TCP and IP that makes this possible.”

A Brief History of the Internet

Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark,
Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch,
Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, Stephen Wolff

• Introduction
• Origins of the Internet
• The Initial Internetting
• Concepts
• Proving the Ideas
• Transition to Widespread Infrastructure
• The Role of Documentation
• Formation of the Broad Community
• Commercialization of the Technology
• History of the Future
• Footnotes
• Timeline
• References
• Authors

Introduction

The Internet has revolutionized the computer and communications world like nothing before. The invention of the telegraph, telephone, radio, and computer set the stage for this unprecedented integration of capabilities. The Internet is at once a world-wide broadcasting capability, a mechanism for information dissemination, and a medium for collaboration and interaction between individuals and their computers without regard for geographic location.

The Internet represents one of the most successful examples of the benefits of sustained investment and commitment to research and development of information infrastructure. Beginning with the early research in packet switching, the government, industry and academia have been partners in evolving and deploying this exciting new technology. Today, terms like “[protected]” and “http://www.acm.org” trip lightly off the tongue of the random person on the street. ¹

This is intended to be a brief, necessarily cursory and incomplete history. Much material currently exists about the Internet, covering history, technology, and usage. A trip to almost any bookstore will find shelves of material written about the Internet. ²

In this paper, ³ several of us involved in the development and evolution of the Internet share our views of its origins and history. This history revolves around four distinct aspects. There is the technological evolution that began with early research on packet switching and the ARPANET (and related technologies), and where current research continues to expand the horizons of the infrastructure along several dimensions, such as scale, performance, and higher level functionality. There is the operations and management aspect of a global and complex operational infrastructure. There is the social aspect, which resulted in a broad community of Internauts working together to create and evolve the technology. And there is the commercialization aspect, resulting in an extremely effective transition of research results into a broadly deployed and available information infrastructure.

The Internet today is a widespread information infrastructure, the initial prototype of what is often called the National (or Global or Galactic) Information Infrastructure. Its history is complex and involves many aspects – technological, organizational, and community. And its influence reaches not only to the technical fields of computer communications but throughout society as we move toward increasing use of online tools to accomplish electronic commerce, information acquisition, and community operations.

[. . .]

• David Isenberg: Towards an Open Internet
• Doc Searls: Rethinking Network Neutrality
• Jon Lebkowsky: Advocating for the Open Internet
• Paul Jones: Identifying the Internet (for the FCC)
• David Weinberger: Identifying the Internet
• Brough Turner: Seeking Federal Recognition for the Open Internet
• Kenneth Carter: Defining the Open Internet
• Rob Powell: Definitions, Dialogue, and the FCC
• Bill St. Arnaud: How will we know when the Internet is dead? – The Need for an Open Internet
• Paul Hyland Comments
• Michael Maranda: Network Clarity
• Stephen Downes: How Will We Know the Internet is Dead?

(Original post on ISOC-NY)

By Joly Macfie

Liberated links to the statement here:

• https://internetdistinction.com/statement/ (Our HTML version)
• http://static.arstechnica.com/openIntspecialized.pdf
• http://oti.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/profiles/attachments/Tech_Luminaries_Reply_Two_Underdeveloped_Issues.pdf
• http://www.panix.com/~jays/Seth.Johnson-Reply-Two.Underdeveloped.Issues-FCC-DA-10-1667A1.pdf

The actual submission at the FCC:

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020919757
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020919751

(Original article at Ars Technica)

By Matthew Lasar

Are we moving towards two Internets? Or are we devolving towards an Internet along with something that superficially resembles the ‘Net, but isn’t? A small battalion of noted broadband engineers, developers, and academics have sent the Federal Communications Commission a thank you letter for simply noticing this dichotomy—an “open” version of cyberspace that treats all packets equally, versus an emergent space where ISPs will spawn a range of priority accessed products that the agency calls “specialized services.”

“Your addressing this distinction in itself enables the analysis and pursuit of policy goals to proceed with a profound new level of clarity,” wrote Apple Computer cofounder Steve Wozniak, New America Foundation technologist Robb Topolski, and over 30 other writers on Thursday:

If you only establish a mandate to analyze the market in these terms, you will have moved the policy framework forward definitively. The prospect of technological developments making possible specialized treatment of some applications, without differentiating these practices from Internet service, has obscured the greater value of the general purpose platform that application-independent treatment of packets makes possible.

In other words, the FCC has built the conceptual framework necessary to notice when the open Internet has become closed.

[. . .]

(Original article at Computerworld)

By Grant Gross

IDG News Service – The U.S. Federal Communications Commission should allow for an open Internet separate from specialized services that may prioritize IP traffic, a group of Internet and technology pioneers recommended.

The document, filed in response to an FCC request for public comments on proposed network neutrality rules, steers clear of recommending what rules should apply to the open Internet. But the distinctions between the open Internet and specialized Internet Protocol services, if allowed, need to be “defined clearly,” the group of 32 Internet experts said in comments to the FCC.

“If a service provides prioritized access to a particular application or endpoint/destination, it is not an open Internet service,” the group said. “Representations as to capacity and speed for the Internet must describe only capacity and speed allocated to Internet service.”

[. . .]

(Original article at NetworkMusings)

By Robin Chase

Five years ago, when I first started focusing on the Internet, I attended a small meeting at the Harvard Berkman Center that was given by the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. I was dumbstruck by the irrationality of what he was saying. And the FCC – which acronym I had previously glossed over with little understanding or interest – became an arm of government that I realized I should care about.

The irrational ideas, so curious and intriguing and yes, dumb founding, to my outsider and newcomer self was that the FCC had special rules for telephone, and special rules for TV, and special rules for data, as if they weren’t all the same thing! Didn’t everyone know that it was all just 1s and 0s? totally interchangeable and free flowing over both the wired and wireless world? That it didn’t make sense to think of telephone as something different from Voice Over IP?

And then of course, I learned that I was the dumb one. The FCC’s structure stemmed from the long history of the evolution of the telephone over the 20th century, which had a lot to do with what was learned from dealing with railroads over the 19th century.

The result is a bureaucracy and regulatory structure that just doesn’t make any sense for the underlying technical reality, but has structured vast ecosytems of companies built to respond to the old reality, and little inclined to change business models and give up existing profit streams (a problem in the energy and transportation sectors too).

I recently signed onto a FCC comment written by Seth Johnson that enunciates the difference between the services and the Internet. The many signers include Steve Wozniak, Clay Shirky, David Isenberg, David Weinberger, and David Reed.

While the FCC letter reads pretty technically, David Reed wrote a beautiful essay that explains in terms that everyone can understand, the distinction between the internet and the services.

To give you a taste:

..the Internet was created to solve a very specific design challenge – creating a way to allow all computer-mediated communication to interoperate in any way that made sense, no matter what type of computer or what medium of communications (even homing pigeons have been discussed as potential transport media). The Open Internet was designed as the one communications framework to rule them all.

However, the FCC historically organizes itself around “services”, which are tightly bound to particular technologies. Satellite systems are not “radio” and telephony over radio is not the same service as telephony over wires.

…The Internet really is “one ring to rule them all” – a framework unto itself, one that cannot be measured against its “wirelessness” or its “terrestriality”…It was carefully organized to incorporate innovations in transport of information, along with innovations in uses of such transport…What would happen if the FCC were to begin to recognize that all communications are to a large extent interchangeable?

What would happen if the FCC recognized the technical and practical reality? Go read David’s piece and become informed in a dramatically faster and shorter period of time than it took me.

The Internet does not equal Triple Play.

David Reed offers some reflections in support of the joint statement:

Open Internet is not “owned” by anyone, but is instead collectively created by many innovators at the edges, contributing services, content, communicating among themselves, and sharing a common culture across traditional jurisdictions, language boundaries, etc. In other words, the Open Internet is not a closed “service platform” or a “walled garden”, but an open interchange that crosses cultures, languages, and other traditional barriers. It would be sad if ATT, Verizon, Comcast, Google, or any other corporation were deemed to have the right to “own” your participation in the Internet, or to decide which tiny subset of content, which tiny part of the world you are paying to communicate with.

What would have happened if to use the “English language”, to read books in English, you would have to get an account with the corporate owner of the English language? When you say that ATT’s “culture” is distinct from Verizon’s “culture” – as if a “culture” is a “bookstore” that chooses which books to carry, that is the result. And until now, that is what the FCC has said the Internet was – whatever ATT offers to its customers over its pipes may not be whatever Verizon offers to its customers over its pipes. The Internet is not a private bookstore, but until this proceeding, the FCC had not acknowledged that the Internet was anything more than a minor service type.

This statement to the FCC doesn’t say this quite so explicitly. But it celebrates the spark that the FCC has ignited. Let’s keep that spark burning, kindle it, and recognize the gift of fire that is the Open Internet.

[. . .]

(Original article on SiliconANGLE)

Posted by John Furrier

A group of industry pioneers and leaders have come together to advance the Open Internet and computer business.

The group filed a statement with the FCC as a response to a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled Further Inquiry into Two Under-developed Issues in the Open Internet Proceeding.

Seth Johnson mobilized and collaborated with prominent technical and business leaders in the computer, networking, and Internet industry. The Internet continues to drive new innovations and enabling a new global economy. The future Internet needs to remain open in order to preserve entrepreneurship and innovation.

Leaders such as Steve Wozniak cofounder of Apple Computer, Bob Frankston, inventor of the electronic spreadsheet, and many more including me (John Furrier, founder SiliconANGLE) are getting behind the Open Internet.

Other leaders include Clay Shirky, David Isenberg Ph.D, David Reed Ph.D, Tim Pozar, John T. Michell, Sascha Meinrath, Michael Maranda, Andrew Lippman, Paul Jones, Gordon Cook, Robin Chase, Kenneth Carter, Dave Burstein, Scott Bradner, Bill St. Arnaud, Gene Gaines, Dewayne Hendricks, Paul Hyland, and Jay Sulzberger.

Dr. David Reed writes a great post to share why he’s on board.

Here is the official statement:
On Advancing the Open Internet by Distinguishing it from Specialized Services

For Release: November 5, 2010
Contact: Seth Johnson ([protected])

Notice: Open Internet Advocates Urge the FCC On, Praise Increased Clarity

Numerous Internet and technology leaders issued a joint statement last night encouraging the FCC to expand its recent analysis of open Internet policy in a newly fruitful direction.

In the statement, they commend the agency’s recent request for input on “Two Underdeveloped Issues in the Open Internet Proceeding” for its making possible greater recognition of the nature and benefits of the open Internet — in particular, as compared to “specialized services.” In response to the FCC’s request, their submission illustrates how this distinction dispels misconceptions and helps bring about more constructive insight and understanding in the “net neutrality” policy debate.

Longtime network and computer architecture expert David Reed comments in a special blog posting: “It is historic and critical [to] finally recognize the existence of ‘the Open Internet’ as a living entity that is distinct from all of the services and the Bureaus, all of the underlying technologies, and all of the services into which the FCC historically has partitioned little fiefdoms of control.”

Another signer, John Furrier of SiliconANGLE, has publicized the statement, stating “the future Internet needs to remain open in order to preserve entrepreneurship and innovation.”

The statement’s signers are listed below. Please reply to me, Seth Johnson ([protected]), to request contact information for those available for comment.

Seth Johnson
Outreach Coordinator

Related Links:

The Joint Statement: On Advancing the Open Internet by Distinguishing it From Specialized Services:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41002510/On-Advancing-the-Open-Internet-by-Distinguishing-it-from-Specialized-Services

David Reed: A Statement from Various Advocates for an Open Internet – Why I Signed on:
http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/?p=47

SiliconANGLE Exclusive: Big Name Industry Pioneers & Experts Push FCC for Open Internet:
http://siliconangle.com/blog/2010/11/05/big-name-industry-pioneers-experts-push-fcc-for-open-internet/

The FCC’s Request for Input: Further Inquiry into Two Under-Developed Issues in the Open Internet Proceeding:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0901/DA-10-1667A1.pdf

Statement Signers

(Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.)

Janna Anderson, Founder and director of the Imagining the Internet Center, Elon University
Bill St. Arnaud, Green IT Consultant, St. Arnaud-Walker and Associates Inc
Scott Bradner, Harvard University, long time IETF and ISOC participant, ARIN board member and Network World columnist
Dave Burstein, Editor, DSL Prime
Kenneth Carter, Senior Research Fellow, Columbia Institute for Tele-Information, Columbia Business School
Robin Chase, CEO Meadow Networks, co-founder and former CEO of Zipcar, member, Dept of Commerce National Advisory Committee for Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Gordon Cook, Editor and publisher of The Cook Report on Internet Protocol, Technology, Economics and Policy since 1992
Bob Frankston, Telecommunications Analyst and Visionary
John Furrier, Founder Broadband Developments, Inc; and Founder Editor of SiliconANGLE.com
Gene Gaines, Gaines Group, telecommunications engineer, Open Internet activist
Robert Gregory, BSEE UCB, I.T. Director for a non-profit human services agency, and BSD, open source and IP network evangelist since 1980.
Dewayne Hendricks, CEO, Tetherless Access
Paul Hyland, CTO, Digital Operations, Education Week; member, USACM Council
David S. Isenberg, Ph. D., Principal Prosultant(sm), isen.com, LLC, former Senior Advisor to FCC Omnibus Broadband Initiative, and Author, “Rise of the Stupid Network”
Seth P. Johnson, Information Quality Specialist
Paul Jones, ibiblio.org and University of North Carolina
Dean Landsman, Digital Strategist/Connectivity Consultant. President: Landsman Communications Group
Jon Lebkowsky, President, EFF-Austin
Andrew Lippman, Sr Research Scientist, MIT Media Lab, associate director
Michael Maranda, Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
Sascha Meinrath, Director, Open Technology Initiative, New America Foundation; Co-Founder, MeasurementLab.net
Jerry Michalski, former managing editor, Release 1.0, and founder, Relationship Economy eXpedition
John T. Mitchell, Interaction Law
Steve Mossbrook, Founder and CEO, Wyoming.com
Bruce Perens, co-founder of the Open Source movement in software
Tim Pozar, Telecommunications Engineer and Community Broadband Activist
David P. Reed, Ph.D., Participant in the original design of the Internet Protocols and well-known expert in network and computing architecture
Clay Shirky, Interactive Telecommunications Program, New York University
Jay Sulzberger, Consulting statistician
Robb Topolski, Adjunct Technologist, Open Technology Initiative, New America Foundation
Brough Turner, Founder, netBlazr Inc., co-founder & former CTO of NMS Communications and of Natural MicroSystems, open spectrum advocate and lecturer on 3G/4G wireless
John G. Waclawsky Ph.D., Technology Advisor and Consultant, Chicago and Washington
David Weinberger, Ph.D., Senior Researcher at Harvard Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Steve Wozniak, Co-Founder of Apple Computer, Inc., Member, National Academy of Engineers

Comments on Advancing Open Internet Policy
Through Analysis Distinguishing Open Internet
from Specialized Network Services (continue reading…)