[Upd-discuss] Comments due -- "Broadband" as General Purpose Platform

[Seth Johnson]

Comments are due to the FCC by Thursday.  Please skip to my submission
below this prefatory note, then return and read this.  Please send in
a strong comment stating at minimum that a general-purpose platform
for application innovation needs to be recognized in the policy.  Go
to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ and use GN Docket Nos. 09-47,
09-51,and 09-137.

Key snippet: "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.'"

This submission recommends that the general purpose Internet platform
be recognized as a distinct type of advanced telecommunications
service offering in the National Broadband Plan, and presents the
relevant RFCs. It is a minimal move that would keep the right
principles in place for an FCC that is regulation-shy.


If the administration is regulation-shy, you need to at least get the
right principles in place to assure the policy supports NN.  Currently
the draft form of the National Broadband Plan (NBP) fails to recognize
that QoS and NN are a tradeoff
(http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295259A1.pdf). 
IETF has recognized that QoS is at odds with the principles that
support the general purpose Internet platform, but has failed to make
a point of drawing the distinction between protocols that support a
general purpose platform, which are consistent with NN, and protocols
that may optimize particular applications but which tend to undermine
the general purpose platform.

General purpose connectivity is an advanced telecommunications
service.  The NBP needs at minimum to recognize the general purpose
platform in distinction from tailored services that optimize
particular applications.  Distinguishing the two categories will keep
the principle in place, even if the FCC is "regulation-shy."  A
one-sided QoS-without-recognizing-its-implications policy by the FCC
will be a victory for those opposed to NN, establishing that a
supposedly transformational administration recognizes that view
instead of presenting the real picture.  A transformational
administration on NN must at bottom express the point that most forms
of QoS are not consistent with NN or real general purpose connectivity
and application innovation.

My recommendation below frames this point with reference to the
relevant RFCs. It presents the bare minimum, which would be to
identify and track a general purpose platform distinctly from other
forms of broadband connectivity in their reporting.  Certainly lots of
other policies that are more deterministic -- recategorize Internet as
telecomm, structural separation, unbundling, common carriage, etc. --
but none of these seem to be anywhere with this administration yet
(one proposal that seems to have some purchase is one Sascha
Meinrath's working on to lay fiber alongside Federally subsidized
highways).  The key move right now is to make sure the NBP expresses
the technically sound point, that we can work on the basis of going
forward, that application innovation depends on a general purpose
platform that provides for NN.  -- Seth

Comments - NBP Public Notice #1

GN Docket Nos. 09­47, 09­51, and 09­137


Regarding the Definition of "Broadband"

By Seth Johnson


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.


See RFC 4924, "Reflections on Internet Transparency" 
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4924.txt):

    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 proceeds to list developments that may affect the 
advantages of the Internet's general purpose design based on 
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


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

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.

The Dynamic Platform Standards Project's legislative 
proposal for an "Internet Platform for Innovation Act" 
(http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html) recognizes the 
advantages of the design of the Internet Protocol. The DPS 
proposal provides a technical characterization of the 
general purpose platform provided by the Internet Protocol, 
including its provision of uniform treatment of packet flow.

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 eventually become part 
of consensus standards).

This document only seeks to present some initial comments 
regarding the relevance of the general purpose platform to 
the questions raised in this request for public input. 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.

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. 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.

A clear distinction should be maintained in your reporting 
and pursuit of national goals, between this general purpose, 
neutral platform and optimized telecommunications services 
that may diverge from the principles that provide for 
optimum flexibility and neutral transport. As part of the 
dynamic process of adapting benchmarks over time, the FCC 
should consult with experts and the public on

   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 become a 
      basis for a category of "consumer connectivity" rather 
      than general purpose Internet connectivity.


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.

General comments 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 that some providers may 
offer must equate with advanced telecommunications without 
consideration of their impact on 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 in those terms in addition to the ease 
with which high speed can be deployed. 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

(From
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7020037177
)