[Ecommerce] DPS Project Submission for the FTC's Net Neutrality Workshop
Seth Johnson
seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org
Fri Mar 16 11:55:10 2007
(Submission of the Dynamic Platform Standards Project for the FTC's
workshop on "Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy"
[http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/index.html] -- Seth)
> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00038.htm
> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00038.pdf
Comments:
Dear Sirs and Madams,
Attached please find a portable document format file of texts
associated with the Dynamic Platform Standards Project. These
materials may also be found at http://www.dpsproject.com. They
include a legislative proposal that you should find constructive.
The DPS Project is based on a recognition of the *flexibility* of the
Internet Protocol layer of the Internet. This layer was designed
specifically so that it would function as a generic medium that would
support communications in any structure and form. It is specifically
not tailored for any particular "service" or "application," but rather
for allowing the broadest variety of formats and transmission patterns
possible, much like the Random Access Memory one finds in a computer
is designed to store and execute any structure of logical code one
wishes to devise.
This design for flexibility in the technical behavior of routers
following the Internet Protocol also results in the uniform treatment
of information flow which is the characteristic most regularly
mentioned in the "net neutrality" discussion.
The various practices proposed to begin shaping transmissions based on
particular applications will reverse the genericity of the Internet
Protocol layer. They will inherently undermine the flexibility of the
Internet for supporting the development of diverse applications that
make use of the Internet Protocol platform.
The advantages of the present platform must be recognized and
addressed independently in terms of how they may be affected by the
practices that "network neutrality" advocates are concerned about,
before any cogent policy discussion can occur. If this distinction is
not drawn then confusion will be the only result.
Seth Johnson
Coordinator,
Dynamic Platform Standards Project
(See attached materials at
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/broadbandwrkshop/527031-00038.pdf, from
http://www.dpsproject.com)
---
Facing Reality on Net Neutrality
Is there a place for fresh thinking and new recommendations in
the infamous "network neutrality" debate? The advocates below
suggest there is. In the following document we recommend the
prosecution of distorted offerings of Internet connectivity as
"deceptive practice."
When several incumbent telephone carriers announced their plans
to give preferential treatment to favored Internet sites, a wide
range of Internet users and designers felt in their guts that it
somehow violated the very meaning of the term "Internet." On the
other hand, many of these people feel uncomfortable letting
Congress set parameters for Internet service. It is safer to deal
with Internet offerings as a market issue, not to legislate
fundamental protocols or router behavior.
As a way to break the impasse, we offer the following draft
language. We believe the gut feeling -- that one cannot
discriminate and still call the service "Internet" -- is founded
in reality. The very term "Internet" suggests that participants
assume their traffic will be passed without interference; the
concept is backed up by over thirty years of standards and ISP
behavior.
In effect, under the present circumstances, the system of
developing specifications, which involves the writing and review
of formal documents known as RFCs, which has held since the
beginning of the Internet, would be tossed out by a few large
providers and equipment manufacturers and replaced by corporate
fiat. The loss of an open, consistent, and predictable platform
would also crimp innovation at higher levels.
Thus, we recommend that Congress clarify the meaning of offering
Internet connectivity and set up rules for the Federal Trade
Commission to enforce the definition.
---
Legislative Proposal: =93The Internet Platform for Innovation Act
of 2006=94
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Internet Platform for
Innovation Act of 2006".
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Internet is the most successful means of
communication ever developed, connecting people of all
walks of life across the globe and enabling
unprecedented flexibility in applications and
unfettered exchange of information and ideas.
(2) The success of the Internet is built on the
establishment of certain commonly observed principles
of practice, expressed in =93Internet protocols,=94
governing the manner in which transmissions are
exchanged. Interoperation among competing Internet
providers on the basis of these principles assures that
the Internet remains a generic, flexible platform that
supports innovation and free expression.
(3) This flexible platform, commonly referred to as the =93IP
layer=94 of the Internet, enables users to independently
develop innovative applications by devising rules and
conventions describing how information transmitted
between connected users will be interpreted in order to
serve diverse purposes. The vast collection of
applications that have been freely created in this
manner is commonly referred to as the =93application
layer=94 of the Internet.
(4) The Internet protocols that created this architecture
have been developed and maintained by globally
recognized standards bodies through participatory
processes that work to develop optimal engineering
designs and establish the consensus necessary for
interoperability.
(5) Among the commonly-observed principles of practice that
govern Internet transmissions are the following:
a) Transmissions are broken down into small pieces
referred to as "packets," comprised of small
portions of the overall information useful to the
users at each transmission's endpoints. A small set
of data is prefixed to these packets, describing the
source and destination of each packet and how it is
to be treated.
b) Internet routers transmit these packets to various
other routers, changing routers freely as a means of
managing network flow.
c) Internet routers transmit packets independently of
each other and independently of the applications
that the packets are supporting.
(6) These principles governing the IP layer establish a
technical behavior that not only assures the platform's
flexibility, but also assures its reliability,
availability, universal accessibility, and uniform
treatment of information flow. The IP layer assures
that all applications may compete on a level basis of
connectivity, be they commercially developed by a major
corporation and made available to millions, or non-
commercial applications developed by individuals and
offered at no charge.
(7) These principles of practice are commonly understood
and recognized as features of existing, commonly-
observed communications standards defining the behavior
of the Internet transport.
(8) This settled understanding of the Internet, based on
an architecture created by well-recognized standards
bodies, leading to user expectations about the
accessibility and behavior of the Internet, is what
"the Internet" has come to mean to users in the United
States and around the world.
(9) Network providers who analyze and interpret the types
of applications being conveyed within packets at the IP
layer in order to offer special service features
(including but not limited to prioritized delivery)
intrinsically favor particular application designs that
they recognize over competing ones. This practice
therefore works at odds with the flexibility and other
desirable features of the IP layer brought about by the
above-described principles of practice. They depend,
for their success, on the neutral platform afforded at
the IP layer, even as they upset the neutrality of the
IP layer to benefit services best offered at the
application layer.
(10) Network providers who offer special treatment for
specific types of applications by identifying the
applications being conveyed by packets, presently face
competition from providers who provide neutral networks
by means of the above principles, as well as from the
diversity of applications, flexibility, uniform
treatment of information flow, availability and access
made possible by these networks.
(11) If network providers in the United States were given
support in legislation for presenting as "Internet"
services that diverge from the above global principles
of practice, as they offer special treatment of packet
transmissions on the basis of identifying particular
types of applications, the result would be to:
a) supplant and undermine the consensus authority
currently accorded to existing international
protocols and standards-making processes;
b) impair innovation and competition by undermining the
flexibility and other desirable features afforded by
the technical behavior of the Internet transport as
described above;
c) deny consumers the expectation of quality and
breadth of service globally associated with the
Internet; and
d) suppress freedom of speech within the United States,
while the people of other nations continue to enjoy
unabridged Internet communications;
(12) It is in the national interest to
a) support the international consensus authority that
gave rise to the current IP layer and associated
protocols;
b) encourage innovation in the applications layer of
the Internet through the flexibility, reliability,
availability, and accessibility afforded by the
commonly established principles of practice
expressed in existing consensus standards for the IP
layer; and
c) assure consumers in the United States that the
globally accessible and open architecture of the
Internet will be preserved even as some Internet
access providers may choose to compete in offering
additional features to their customers.
SEC. 3. DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN PROVIDING INTERNET ACCESS.
(1) Definitions.=97 As used in this Section:
(A) Internet.=97 The term =93Internet=94 means the worldwide,
publicly accessible system of interconnected
computer networks that transmit data by packet
switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP),
some characteristics of which include:
i) Transmissions between users who hold globally
reachable addresses, and which transmissions are
broken down into smaller segments referred to as
"packets" comprised of a small portion of
information useful to the users at each
transmission's endpoints, and a small set of
prefixed data describing the source and
destination of each transmission and how the
packet is to be treated;
ii) routers that transmit these packets to various
other routers on a best efforts basis, changing
routers freely as a means of managing network
flow; and
iii) said routers transmit packets independently of
each other and independently of the particular
application in use, in accordance with globally
defined protocol requirements and
recommendations.
(B) Internet access.=97 The term =93Internet access=94 means
a service that enables users to transmit and receive
transmissions of data using the Internet Protocol in
a manner that is agnostic to the nature, source or
destination of the transmission of any packet. Such
IP transmissions may include information, text,
sounds, images and other content such as messaging
and electronic mail.
(2) Any person engaged in interstate commerce that charges
a fee for the provision of Internet access must in fact
provide access to the Internet in accord with the above
definition, regardless whether additional proprietary
content, information or other services are also
provided as part of a package of services offered to
consumers.
(3) Network providers that offer special features based on
analyzing and identifying particular applications being
conveyed by packet transmissions must not describe
these services as "Internet" services. Any
representation as to the speed or =93bandwidth=94 of the
Internet access shall be limited to the speed or
bandwidth allocated to Internet access.
(4) Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice- A violation of
paragraphs 2 or 3 shall be treated as a violation of a
rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice
prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). The
Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the
same manner, by the same means, and with the same
jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and
provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were
incorporated into and made a part of this Act.