[A2k] My FCC Comments on Preserving the Open Internet

[Seth Johnson]

(I describe a minimal approach that the FCC may take even if it is
found they do not have regulatory authority to categorize Internet as
telecommunications.  -- Seth)



> http://www.scribd.com/doc/25267644/Seth-Johnson-Comments-on-Preserving-th=
e-Open-Internet
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=3D7020378855


Assure the Principle of an Open Internet in Broadband
by Designating a General Purpose Platform
as a Category of Advanced Telecommunications Capability


By Seth Johnson

January 14, 2010



I submitted substantially the same comments under NBP Public Notice
#1, on defining the term =93broadband.=94  The same points relate to
preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices.


Two Categories of =93Advanced Telecommunications Service=94

The National Broadband Plan must define "broadband" according to a
proper and full concept of what capabilities constitute "advanced
telecommunications service." Broadband in this conception is
constituted of two things:

  1. a general purpose platform (in this document generally
     associated with the term "Internet" and its consensus
     protocols) which is optimized for maximum flexibility
     and application innovation, and

  2. certain other functions that may optimize particular
     applications but that may compromise the flexibility of
     the general purpose platform.


These Categories are Efficacious Even Without FCC Authority to Mandate
Network Neutrality

Even if it were found that the FCC lacks regulatory authority to
impose requirements for network neutrality,   it can still establish
correct principles by simply defining and tracking broadband offerings
that fall into a category of a general purpose platform that serves
the purpose of supporting application innovation, based on a number of
principles expressed in protocols, distinguishing these offerings from
more specialized types of service that may optimize particular
applications at the expense of the general purpose platform.  Such a
categorization would allow the performance of such a platform to be
identified and compared against other types of offerings.  The manner
in which the Internet protocols provide an optimally flexible platform
produces network neutrality as an emergent phenomenon.


Delineating the General Purpose Platform

RFCs 1958, 2775, 3724, 4084, and 4924 illustrate how to distinguish
protocols that provide for a general purpose platform from other types
of protocols that may undermine principles that provide for a
maximally flexible platform for end-user innovation, such as the
end-to-end principle, permissionlessness, best efforts delivery of
packets, and the transmission of Internet datagrams regardless of the
application they are supporting.

The principle of transmitting Internet datagrams without regard for
the applications they support also provides for "network neutrality"
as an emergent phenomenon.

RFC 4924, "Reflections on Internet Transparency"
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4924.txt) describes the matter as
follows:

  A network that does not filter or transform the data that
  it carries may be said to be "transparent" or "oblivious"
  to the content of packets. Networks that provide oblivious
  transport enable the deployment of new services without
  requiring changes to the core. It is this flexibility that
  is perhaps both the Internet's most essential
  characteristic as well as one of the most important
  contributors to its success.

  "Architectural Principles of the Internet" [RFC1958],
  Section 2 describes the core tenets of the Internet
  architecture:

    However, in very general terms, the community believes
    that the goal is connectivity, the tool is the Internet
    Protocol, and the intelligence is end to end rather than
    hidden in the network.

    The current exponential growth of the network seems to
    show that connectivity is its own reward, and is more
    valuable than any individual application such as mail or
    the World-Wide Web. This connectivity requires technical
    cooperation between service providers, and flourishes in
    the increasingly liberal and competitive commercial
    telecommunications environment.

  "The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End:
  Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture"
  [RFC3724], Section 4.1.1 describes some of the desirable
  consequences of this approach:

    One desirable consequence of the end-to-end principle is
    protection of innovation. Requiring modification in the
    network in order to deploy new services is still
    typically more difficult than modifying end nodes. The
    counterargument - that many end nodes are now
    essentially closed boxes which are not updatable and
    that most users don't want to update them anyway - does
    not apply to all nodes and all users. Many end nodes are
    still user configurable and a sizable percentage of
    users are "early adopters," who are willing to put up
    with a certain amount of technological grief in order to
    try out a new idea. And, even for the closed boxes and
    uninvolved users, downloadable code that abides by the
    end-to-end principle can provide fast service
    innovation. Requiring someone with a new idea for a
    service to convince a bunch of ISPs or corporate network
    administrators to modify their networks is much more
    difficult than simply putting up a Web page with some
    downloadable software implementing the service.

RFC 4924 then proceeds to list developments that may affect the
advantages of the Internet's general purpose design based the
end-to-end principle and the transmitting of packets without regard
for the application they are supporting, including:

  - Application Restrictions
  - Quality of Service (QoS)
  - Application Layer Gateways (ALGs)
  - IPv6 Address Restrictions
  - DNS Issues
  - Load Balancing and Redirection
  - Security considerations


In addition, RFC 4084, "Terminology for Describing Internet
Connectivity" (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4084.txt) provides a
useful description of what constitutes "full Internet connectivity,"
considering this question with regard to its design for flexibility,
including stipulations about functions that should be disclosed to the
purchaser if they are deployed.  RFCs 1958, 2775, and 3724 more fully
describe these issues that arise as various functions are proposed
that may affect the Internet's design for greatest flexibility.


A Similar Approach: the Dynamic Platform Standards Project Proposal

A similar schema is presented by The Dynamic Platform Standards
Project's legislative proposal for an "Internet Platform for
Innovation Act" (http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html), which is
designed to delineate the technical principles that provide for the
special advantages of the design of the Internet Protocol.  The DPS
proposal provides a technical characterization of the general purpose
platform as it is provided by the Internet Protocol, including its
provision of uniform treatment of packet flow, and similarly allows
the advantages of this kind of platform to be distinguished from other
types of offerings.


The General Purpose Platform in Relation to the National Broadband
Plan

Recognizing and treating this general purpose platform as a distinct
category allows the particular advantages for which it was designed to
be acknowledged and provided for within the regulatory scheme while
other telecommunications functions may be offered by network providers
under the general term of "broadband" (and may also become part of
consensus standards).

This document only seeks to present some general comments regarding
the relevance of the general purpose platform to the questions the FCC
originally raised in its request for input on defining the term
=93broadband=94 as well as the present question of preserving the open
Internet.  Here we refer chiefly to the design of the Internet
according to consensus standards.  However, it is worth noting that a
general purpose platform can also be afforded by means of the
principle of common carriage.  Indeed, some might hold that the
general scheme of digitizing communications into packets delivered on
a best efforts basis regardless of application, in accordance with the
Internet Protocol, is a natural outcome and a self-evidently necessary
means for providing for interoperability and flexibility among the
autonomous routers that were originally administered by thousands of
competing Internet Service Providers on the basis of a common carriage
principle.

National Goals: The general purpose platform must be a key component
of the plan for using broadband infrastructure and services in
advancing the full range of national purposes enumerated in section
6001 (k) (1) of the ARRA, and must be recognized as a key
consideration in what constitutes "broadband capability."  The status
of deployment of "broadband" in your reporting should present the
deployment of a general purpose platform as a distinct category from
other types of advanced telecommunications service which may also be
deployed, using the consensus definitions given in relevant RFCs as an
analytical aid.

Utilization and Affordability: A flexible, general purpose platform
also contributes to the strategy for maximizing utilization since a
platform that optimizes flexibility to make possible a proliferation
of innovative applications incentivizes participation in
connectivity.  The general purpose platform should also be borne in
mind in relation to the strategy for affordability, which should be
developed with consideration of the issues of recourse and enforcement
that arise in the context of public expeditures when contractual
expectations related to such a platform are not met.

Adapting Reporting Categories over Time: In order to maintain a clear
distinction in your reporting between this general purpose, neutral
platform and optimized telecommunications services that may diverge
from the principles that provide for optimum flexibility and neutral
transport, the FCC should engage in a dynamic process of adapting
benchmarks over time while preserving the principle of delineating
general purpose connectivity, consulting with experts and the public
on the following questions:

  1. what constitutes the general purpose platform,

  2. what innovations are recognized as not interfering with
     general purpose,

  3. which may interfere with general purpose but are of
     value to some purchasers, and

  4. in this last category, which functions should associate
     with a category of more limited "consumer connectivity"
     rather than general purpose Internet connectivity.

Additional Considerations: In addition, the FCC should consult with
experts and the public on which functions or features should require
explicit notice and consent given privacy considerations (as well as
what form of consent is adequate for that purpose). Some additional
important considerations the FCC should be mindful of are the
implications of packet inspection, packet discrimination, data
collection and end-user privacy, as well as the question of whether
advertised services perform as specified, perhaps taking input from
other appropriate agencies.  Recourse and enforcement related to these
concerns may be appropriate considerations.


Additional Points on Benchmarks:

  - Benchmarks should exhibit and track the rapid evolution
    both of the general purpose platform of the Internet and
    of broadband as a general term that may include other
    types of offerings.

  - The widespread adoption of new Internet-based
    applications will affect what "advanced" means to
    purchasers of broadband, but this should not be
    construed as indicating that special optimization
    features should be simply identified with =93advanced
    telecommunications services=94 without addressing or
    recognizing how they may impact the general purpose
    platform.

  - "Dependability" and "experiential" metrics must be
    considered carefully in relationship to the advantages
    of a maximally flexible general purpose communications
    platform, as some functions that may improve these
    aspects for particular purposes may impair the general
    purpose character of the platform.

  - In considering "the availability of advanced
    telecommunications capability to all Americans",
    broadband infrastructure data may be more objective than
    subscriber data, but data should be collected regarding
    general purpose connectivity as a distinct category, and
    the analysis should present availability not only in
    terms of the ease with which high speed can be deployed,
    but in terms of categories of types of connectivity
    including general purpose.  Similar considerations apply
    in the analysis of utilization.


"Broadband" and "advanced telecommunications capability" may be
defined by statute as independent of "any transmission media or
technology," but this does not mean that an analysis of advanced
telecommunications capability should exclude describing the
characteristic of a general purpose platform as a key category.

Thank you.


Seth Johnson