[A2k] Other Fine FTC Submissions

[Seth Johnson]

(. . . that I can't post now.  The last two "public comments" are
short enough for me to paste their texts herein. -- Seth)

But first, a couple of comments from me -- please skip below the
following paragraphs to see the listing of additional good
contributions to the FTC Workshop:

Yokubaitis's submitted documents as a presenter at the workshop are
insanely great, but in addition it was fun seeing his live commentary
on the FTC's "packet sniffing" protocol for the workshop itself, which
you can access from the workshop site if you can stand proprietary
video formats being sponsored by the government.  I've also listed
several very notable presentations from the workshop proper below,
though many do not appear to have their documents posted on the site.

Another presentation of special note is Barbara Tulipane's, though you
might not notice and see its significance.  She finally said, as the
very last speaker on the first day, what we of NY Fair Use wished to
make sure was said and heard by the FTC during this proceeding on the
first day, or their framing for the event would stand without
effective countering.

<Quick Background> We knew our hope of making this workshop actually
get on point, based on its framing, would be at the bare minimum to
make sure that they heard from the public in attendance on the first
day [ostensibly about defining the issues], that they could never
address the policy issues on the second day, unless they defined
things correctly and drew a distinction between the advantages of the
present platform according to present practices and standards, and the
nature of the non-neutral practices being planned.  This message would
have drawn a definitive point that would make the discussions on the
second day much more substantive. However, the FTC did not provide the
opportunity for the public in attendance to directly address them or
the panels, except by submitting "paper packet" questions [which we
observed were provided quite assiduous QoS treatment], so by the end
of the first day, the FTC appeared to be about to succeed in cementing
their framing for the issue.</Quick Background>

BUT!  Barbara Tulipane finally said, in connection with her
stakeholder group, largely the people who produce those infomercials
you see on TV, what we wished to see said.  She went through a litany
of the difficulties they had to go through to "get carriage" on
"closed networks" for their informercials, and contrasted that with
the "open Internet," and THEN said loud and clear the key thing: "You
have to draw a distinction between the Internet and Cable TV."  That
was us cheering her when she said that [as you can read in the
transcript -- I haven't viewed the video], because we knew *that*
would be the transformative statement to make in the proceedings.

Now, of course, for us, and anybody who actually codes for the
Internet, the analogy between her point and the experience of coders
and Internet application developers, and the relationship of this to
net neutrality, is direct and obvious.  Whereas for the FTC, it might
be more likely to be heard as only an expression of another
contending, subjective stakeholder interest.  But the point had been
made that the distinction needed to be made, and perhaps with our
cheering and the general sense I hope they picked up that the public
in attendance might have had some issues with their workshop protocols
and perhaps by extension with their framing, the whole proceeding
suddenly felt much more worth attending.

:-)

-- Seth


Submitted under Public Comments:

Bob Frankston
Educause and Internet2
Bill D. Herman
Center for Creative Voices in Media
Economics Students of Joseph Farrell (Who presented at the workshop --
See
http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/presentations/farrell.pdf)

Presentations at the Workshop:

Ronald B. Yokubaitis, Chairman, Data Foundry
> http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/presentations/yokubaitis1.pdf
> http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/presentations/yokubaitis2.pdf
Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Media Access Project
> http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/presentations/feld.pdf

Gary Bachula, Vice President for External Relations Internet2
Timothy Wu, Professor Columbia University Law School
Gigi B. Sohn, President Public Knowledge
Christopher Libertelli, Senior Director of Governmental and Regulatory
Affairs Skype Limited
Alan Davidson, Washington Policy Counsel Google
Barbara Tulipane, President and CEO Electronic Retailing Association
David Sohn, Staff Counsel Center for Democracy & Technology
Jeannine Kenney, Senior Policy Analyst Consumers Union



---

Bob Frankston

> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00054.htm
> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00054.pdf

Comments:

The title of the FTC workshop on "Broadband Connectivity Competition"
assumes that the status quo makes sense and we only need to fine tune
it. What struck me most about the workshop is the lack of a crisp
insight. There was a lot of talk about how complex the issues are and
lots of fascination with the details of the current Internet. But
there was a stunning failure to see though the complexity. We can
argue all we want about neutrality or we can recognize that bits are
inherently neutral and reframe policy in terms of basic connectivity.
Basic connectivity means we can create our own solutions rather than
being required to buy services from a provider. We would not need to
petition the FCC nor the FTC for neutrality. Attempting to bring a
service-based model in line with the principles of neutrality is
futile and counter-productive.

---

Educause and Internet2

> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00058.htm
> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00058.pdf
> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00059.pdf
> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00060.pdf
> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00061.pdf

Comments:

I submit the attached materials on behalf of Educause and Internet2.
Gary Bachula of Internet2 testified on the second day the session and
asked me to submit the attached article that appeared in the Wall
Street Journal the following day (2/15/07) entitled -- Yale on $0 per
day. The article notes that several large universities are
increasingly using the Internet to distribute their educational
materials for free. This material supports Gary's testimony that
maintaining an open Internet -- without tiering or any other
interference by network operators -- is essential for educational
institutions to meet their public interest mandate to increase
educational opportunities for the general public. I have also attached
some documents explaining the high-end, Internet-based research that
Internet2 is conducting today.

---

Bill D. Herman

> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00003.htm
> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00003.pdf

Comments:

To Whom It May Concern: As a contribution to the FTC workshop on
network neutrality, I am submitting my article, Opening
Bottlenecks: On Behalf of Mandated Network Neutrality. It was
published in December, 2006, in the Federal Communications Law
Journal. You can also download the article, in PDF format, at:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v59/no1/10- HermanFinal.pdf
If you have any questions about the article, please do not
hesitate to contact me by email at . Thank you for your
consideration of this issue. Sincerely, Bill D. Herman

---

Economics Students of Joseph Farrell

> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00050.pdf


This submission was compiled by the members of the Economics 122
seminar at the University of California, Berkeley, a group of
economics majors who have been studying the issue of net
neutrality under Joseph Farrell. No one was required to sign this
document. These comments reflect the consensus of all of the
signatories.

     It is our conclusion that creating policy that enforces net
neutrality would be the best option, as the current Internet is
essentially neutral and has worked tremendously well. However, we
realize that this particular policy objective may lead to net
inefficiency, even if it is in the best interest of consumers. As
such, we believe that regulation must be used to prevent
monopolistic abuse of the market and prohibit any form of control
based on content, such as simply blocking competitor=92s sites.

     In order to back up this view, we will explain our basic
thoughts on the virtues of neutrality and outline the essential
principle that we think must govern any regulation. This will be
followed by a brief assessment of different facets of the market
affected by net neutrality regulations, namely the issues of
disclosure, bandwidth management, setting a precedent in the
international market, and certain cases in we believe the
relaxation of neutrality may be appropriate.

     When we talk about net neutrality, we are referring to a
network that cannot give priority to certain packets over the
others, nor discriminate based on contents. When talk about
changes to neutrality, we are referring not to small changes in
select areas, but rather the core of broadband service.

     When we talk about neutrality, we are of course referring to
a network that cannot read packets or discriminate based on their
contents; this is a =93neutral network.=94 When we are talking about
maintaining neutrality, we are referring not to small changes in
select areas, but rather the core of broadband service.

     Our basic concerns are as follows. The internet has been
extremely successful as a neutral network. Because its success,
changes should be avoided unless excellent reasons can be given
for them, and we do not believe that such reasons exist for
abandoning neutrality. Furthermore, the market for broadband
service is not sufficiently competitive to be allowed to function
without regulation, especially as most consumers must enter a
binding contract and only have access to one broadband provider.

     That said, we acknowledge that there are gains that may be
attainable, and that corporations have interests as well. If this
is to be the case, heavy regulation is necessary to protect
consumers.

     One of the most important goals of any regulation should be
the protection of an essential market principle: companies cannot
charge their competitor=92s customers. This is also known as the
Terminal Access Problem. Regulation must ensure that this
principle be maintained, or else there will be tremendous
inefficiency for consumers.

     This brings us to the issue of disclosure. Basically,
disclosure, as it pertains to net neutrality, should mean the
making apparent of facts otherwise hidden or not easily
ascertainable.

     If non-neutrality is allowed, it should be used to ensure
that bandwidth be available as needed in crisis situations (VOIP
during natural disasters, for example). Some intelligent
protection against viruses is also a worthwhile goal.
Additionally, the enforcement of major laws (child pornography,
as an obvious example) should also a goal of a non-neutral
network.

     One of the major advantages of a neutral network is that in
order to improve service, it is necessary to improve everyone=92s
access. In a non-neutral network, providers can create fast and
slow lanes and charge people differentially. This creates a
material disincentive to innovate, as the company need not
develop new systems if it charges for existing services.
Regulation must ensure that innovation continues, either by
mandating minimum access speeds or by regulating prices in some
fashion.

     It is also important that the FTC keep in mind America=92s
market power and the repercussions that any decision will have
for the international community.

     Network neutrality is a concept principle that has enabled
globalization, facilitated trade and promoted the growth of
various developing and emerging countries around the world
because of its fair and equal practice. It is important to
recognize the repercussions the decision made may have for other
countries.

     We would like to thank for considering our views and hope
the FTC will keep the interest of consumers such as ourselves in
mind. Internet service, due its structure, lends itself easily to
monopoly and it is imperative that serious, effective regulation
exist to protect the interest of consumers and ensure optimal
efficiency.


The students of Economics 122, University of California, Berkeley

Benjamin Shartsis
Oscar Cabot
Chris Johnson
Logan W. Jager
Martin Kurtovic
Qingyun Tang
Ajay Krishnamurthy

---

Center for Creative Voices in Media

> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00043.pdf

Center for Creative Voices in Media

February 28, 2007

Ms. Maureen K. Ohlhausen
Office of Policy Planning
Federal Trade Commission
Washington, DC

RE: Comments on "Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy"

Dear Ms. Ohlhausen:

On behalf of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, please include
this letter and attachments in the public comments in the FTC=92s
"Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy" proceeding. The Center for
Creative Voices in Media has been a leading voice for creative media
artists in the Network Neutrality policy debate. Creative Voices is a
nonpartisan nonprofit 501(c)(3) group dedicated to preserving free
speech, free expression, and independent and diverse creative voices
in our nation=92s media. Members of the Board of Advisors of Creative
Voices include Warren Beatty, Peggy Charren, Blake Edwards, Sissy
Spacek, Steven Bochco, and other Oscar, Emmy, Peabody, Tony, and other
award-winning members of the creative community.

Writers, directors, producers, performers, musicians, and other
talented professionals in the literary and entertainment arts give
life to our nation=92s popular and literary arts -- educating the
public, enriching the culture, and helping safeguard our democracy.

But our ability to create and produce our best work, and then
distribute that work to the American public, has often been restricted
by lack of access to the means of distribution. Film and television
production and distribution are tremendously expensive, and usually
tightly controlled by a handful of media conglomerates.

In conjunction with technological advances in video production, the
broadband Internet promises to dramatically reduce the cost of
production and distribution of video content. Creative media artists
view these changes as a tremendously exciting opportunity to directly
reach their audience =96 the American people =96 with the best content
they can possibly create.

Yet that exciting opportunity may not come to pass if the cable and
telephone companies that overwhelmingly dominate the market for
broadband distribution can pick and choose who will get distribution
over their =93pipes=94 based on discriminatory fees for so-called
=93priority=94 service.

Such a system would essentially turn these broadband service providers
into gatekeepers able to powerfully influence or manipulate artistic
content, pick and choose which creative artists get broadband
distribution, the quality of that distribution, and the audience the
artists can reach =96 not unlike the oligopolistic broadcast and cable
television distribution system. Such a closed, crabbed broadband
Internet would not be in the interests of creative media artists or
their audience =96 the American public. Artists must have the freedom to
distribute their works over the broadband Internet, and the American
public must have the freedom to choose from among those works, rather
than have the cable and telephone broadband providers who
overwhelmingly control the market for broadband deny those freedoms
and make those choices for them.

I enclose an article I wrote titled, The Future Internet: Open or
Closed? that appeared in Produced By, the monthly magazine of the
Producers Guild of America. Other versions of this article have
appeared in the Journal of the Caucus of Television Producers, Writers
& Directors, and The Independent, the monthly magazine of the
Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers. We also recently
published a shorter piece on Network Neutrality in the current issue
of Written By, the journal of the Writers Guild of America, west.

In addition, we attach letters from the prestigious Caucus for
Television Producers, Writers & Directors to FCC Commissioner Michael
J. Copps and to legislators on Capitol Hill that stress the importance
of Net Neutrality not only to independent producers, writers, and
directors of film, television, and video programming, but to the
American public.

Thank you for holding this proceeding and allowing us to comment. If
you would like to discuss this further or would like additional
information, please don=92t hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Rintels
Executive Director

Attachments (See
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00043.pdf)