The Internet Distinction

(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.

[. . .]

(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