URGENT Net Neutrality Action TODAY: Please send/fax these materials
Seth Johnson <[email protected]> Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:10:43 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.peer-to-peer.p2p-hackers,gmane.comp.misc.free-software-business |
|---|---|
| Organization | Real Measures |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Please send the following materials on net neutrality TODAY to
Senators on the Commerce and Judiciary Committees. =20
Send me a note if you'd like rich text files of these materials.
Commerce resumes markup on the Stevens Bill tomorrow morning. We
are working to make sure that language that addresses the nature
of network neutrality is in front of as many of the interested
legislators as possible. We believe that our proposal can move
all parties to a fuller, more constructive understanding of this
issue.
PLEASE FAX these materials or similar to the contacts below. If
you compose your own cover notes, I recommend including:
1) a mention of Steve Wozniak's endorsement,
2) something saying this proposal shows the real definition of
net neutrality, and
3) a statement that net neutrality language needs to talk about
the transport layer, not just "applications, content and
services" -- that that basically means use the word "packet."
The Judiciary Committee has claimed it has oversight over the
matters covered by the Stevens Bill, so there's a tiny text
modification you can use in sending the same materials to them --
just replace the opening of the cover letter below with:
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Dirksen Senate Office Building 224
Dirksen Senate Office Building 147
Washington, D.C. 20510-2603
Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
Please see the attached proposed legislative language for=20
assuring "network neutrality." We think that the Judiciary=20
Committee will find it particularly interesting in light of the=20
current discussion related to the Stevens Bill, currently in=20
the Commerce Committee.
Thanks, all!
:-)
Seth
Suggested Text to Send:
See below the following logistical details.
Targets:
1) Your own Senators
You can get detailed info for any Senator by replacing the "NYJR"
in the following link with appropriate values for the particular
Senator. NYJR stands for New York's Junior Senator -- Hillary
Clinton. So plug in the appropriate state and "graduating class"
for the Senator you want:
> http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newmemberbio.cgi?lang=3D&memb=
er=3DNYJR&site=3Dctc
(These links have fax numbers for the committees as well as the
individual members, and links to more detailed info about the
members)
2) Senate Commerce Committee
Majority Fax: 202-224-1259
Minority Fax: 202-228-0303
> http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=3Dctc&l=
ang=3D&commcode=3Dscommerce
Ted Stevens (R-AK) [Chairman] Fax: 202-224-2354
Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) [Ranking Member] Fax: 202-224-6747
3) Senate Judiciary Committee
Majority Fax: 202-224-9102
Minority Fax: 202-224-9516
> http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=3Dctc&l=
ang=3D&commcode=3Dsjudiciary
Arlen Specter (R-PA) [Chairman] Fax: 202-228-1229
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) [Ranking Member] Fax: 202-224-3479
4) The Sponsors of Snowe-Dorgan
Sen Snowe, Olympia [] Fax: 202-224-1946
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] Fax: 202-228-2382
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] Fax: 202-228-0282
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] Fax: 202-224-1083
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] Fax: 202-224-1193
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] Fax: 202-224-6747
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] Fax: 202-224-3479
Sen Obama, Barack [IL] Fax: 202-228-4260
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] Fax: 202-228-2717
Here are the rest of the Commerce Committee members with fax
numbers:
John McCain (R-AZ) 202-228-2862
Conrad R. Burns (R-MT) 202-224-8594
Trent Lott (R-MS) 202-224-2262
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) 202-224-0776
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) 202-224-1946
Gordon Smith (R-OR) 202-228-3997
John Ensign (R-NV) 202-228-2193
George Allen (R-VA) 202-224-5432
John Sununu (R-NH) 202-228-4131
James DeMint (R-SC) 202-228-5143
David Vitter (R-LA) 202-228-5061
Minority:
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D-WV) 202-224-7665
John F. Kerry (D-MA) 202-224-8525
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) 202-224-1193
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 202-228-2382
Bill Nelson (D-FL) 202-228-2183
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) 202-228-0514
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) 202-228-4054
Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-228-0012
Mark Pryor (D-AR) 202-228-0908
Here are the rest of the Judiciary Committee members with fax
numbers:
Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) 202-224-6331
Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) 202-224-6020
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 202-224-2207
Mike DeWine (R-OH) 202-224-6519
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 202-224-3149
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) 202-224-3808
John Cornyn (R-TX) 202-228-2856
Sam Brownback (R-KS) 202-228-1265
Tom Coburn (R-OK) 202-224-6008
Minority:
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) 202-224-2417
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) 202-224-0139
Herb Kohl (D-WI) 202-224-9787
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) 202-228-3954
Russell D. Feingold (D-WI) 202-224-2725
Charles Schumer (D-NY) 202-228-3027
Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) 202-228-0400
My Cover Letter and other materials:
June 26, 2006
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate
Dirksen Senate Office Building 508
Dirksen Senate Office Building 558
Washington, D.C. 20510-2603
Dear Members of the Senate Commerce Committee:
Please see the attached proposed legislative language for
assuring "network neutrality."
This proposal has been endorsed by numerous technology,
telecommunications and legal professionals, including co-founder
of Apple Computer, Steve Wozniak, and one of the original
developers of the Internet's fundamental protocols, David Reed.
We designed this legislative approach to preserve the nature of
the Internet itself, while distinguishing it from the unique
types of networks being proposed. It incorporates a correct
definition for the term "network neutrality."
The right definition for "network neutrality" keeps the Internet
platform flexible and reliable for everybody. It cannot merely
talk about "applications, content or services" alone, but must
talk about how information is transmitted in "packets"
independently of how the information is being used. Any other
approach will end the flexibility of the Internet and in fact end
"network neutrality." S2917 comes the closest to meeting this
goal, but still requires language to be added referring to the
way information is transmitted in packets.
If you enact legislation that authorizes broadband providers to
break the principle of "network neutrality" as they purport to
provide =93the Internet=94 -- and not follow the standards that
define the Internet -- the effects will be far-ranging and
disastrous.
The effects don't only relate to the offering of =93tiered
services.=94 Most critically, the enacting of such policy
overrides the standards-making processes that establish the rules
assuring the sound design of the Internet. It not only impacts
areas of free speech and the potentials presently available to
Internet users, it affects the ability for the Internet to
support a wide variety of applications, and shapes the Internet
in such a way as to favor the designs offered by the broadband
providers, as opposed to innovative designs. It also affects the
ability for global Internet providers to interoperate.
We think that this legislative approach will be a revelation to
many in the discussion related to network neutrality, and we
think that it provides a way for all parties to come to
understanding of what the best policy is for innovation, freedom
and the appropriate treatment of the unprecedented type of public
medium for communications that the Internet has brought to us
all. Thank you for your kind and careful consideration.
Cordially,
Seth Johnson
Corresponding Secretary
New Yorkers for Fair Use
(212) 543-4266
---
Preserve the Internet Standards for Net Neutrality:
Introduction and Summary for the Proposed
"Internet Platform for Innovation Act of 2006"
=20
Attached is a fresh approach to "network neutrality." It
recognizes that the Internet is, in fact, neutral. Neither slick
promotions offering =93premium=94 or =93exclusive=94 services, nor
thoughtful legislation, can change that. Any service offered by
one of the many networks that form a part of the =93network of
networks=94 called =93the Internet=94 which favors the delivery of some
data packets over others based on their content, source or
destination, is simply not =93the Internet.=94 To pass off access to
specially modified networks as =93Internet access=94 is false and
deceptive.
In over thirty years of global standards and Internet service
provider behavior, Internet participants have come to assume that
their traffic will be passed without interference. Because the
global =93Internet Protocols=94 of the Internet are based on this
concept, neutrality is inherent in it. So, when Congress seeks
to preserve network neutrality, it need not do so by =93regulating
the Internet,=94 as it would be difficult and unnecessary to
legislate fundamental global protocols of Internet router
behavior. Rather, it is far better to allow Internet-connected
services and specially-tailored networks (even if perceived as
more valuable to some) to compete freely in the marketplace,
regulating those who would misrepresent them as =93Internet=94
services or =93Internet access.=94 This has the critical advantage
of not allowing the standards to be overridden by these custom
modifications. Without standards, there is no competition or
ability to connect between networks.
For as long as we have had an Internet, we have also had =93local
area networks,=94 or LAN=92s, typically operated within a single
company. Today, major network access providers have the
capability of offering very large LAN=92s, and even networks of
LAN=92s, which may look a lot like the Internet to many
unsuspecting consumers. If such LAN providers happen to be the
only viable choice for Internet access, they will have the power,
working with a few major corporations, to replace the Internet
access for millions of Americans with access to a =93walled garden=94
containing only such portion of the Internet as they allow, and
in which only those companies willing and able to pay will be
able to have access - or best access - to their subscribers. It
may be the case that some consumers will prefer the more limited
access being offered, but such offers must compete on their own
merits, and not at the loss of an open, consistent, and
predictable platform for the transport of innovative products and
services by all. Conversely, if networks that treat applications
specially wish to create a global network consistent with their
practices, they can enter into appropriate processes and work to
develop standards.
Thus, this proposal recommends that Congress authorize the
Federal Trade Commission to enforce a prohibition on false and
deceptive representations pertaining to =93Internet access=94 while
leaving innovative networks free to develop their own proprietary
services, so long as their nature is not misrepresented. This
approach will enable consumers to make informed comparisons among
the Internet access being offered as distinct from other products
and services offered by their Internet access providers, while
assuring that anyone who purchases true Internet access will get
what they bargained for - access to the global Internet,
unfettered communications throughout the globe, and access by
myriad competitors, individuals, advocates, and news sources
whose products, services and communications can be made available
to them on a level playing field.
---
Endorsers' Statement
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.
Two Types of Neutrality
So far, much of the argument over "net neutrality" has been over
whether service providers should be allowed to favor one
application, destination or Internet service over another. This
is Net neutrality at the application layer. But the real issue is
the neutrality of the IP layer where routers treat alike bits
from every type of application. This neutrality is what makes the
Internet flexible -- while it also assures uniform treatment of
information flow. If this neutrality is not maintained, the
Internet will be changed fundamentally. It will no longer be the
flexible, open platform that allows anyone with a good idea to
compete on a level ground.
IP-layer neutrality is not a property of the Internet. It is the
Internet. The Internet is a set of agreements (protocols) that
enable networks to work together. The heart of the Internet
protocol is the agreement that all data packets will be passed
through without regard to which application created them or
what's inside of them. This reliable, uniform treatment of
packets is precisely what has made the Internet a marketplace of
innovation so critical to our economy.
Providers certainly should be allowed to develop services within
their own networks, treating data any way they want. But that's
not the Internet. If they want to participate in the Internet,
they need to follow the protocols that have been developed over
the course of more than thirty years through consensus standards
processes. Nor should they be permitted to single-handedly
subvert the authority of the processes that have developed and
maintained the Internet.
We call on Congress to end the confusion and protect not only the
Internet but the tens of millions of American citizens who need
to know that when they buy Internet access, they're getting
access to the real Internet. Network providers who offer services
that depend on violating IP-layer neutrality should be prohibited
from labeling those services as "Internet," as their doing so
will only undermine the weight of consensus authority presently
accorded to the existing standards. The term "Internet"
represents specific standards that provide IP-layer neutral
connectivity that supports the openness of access and innovation
that have been the defining characteristics of the Internet since
its origins.
To that end, we present the attached draft legislative language
and call for concerned citizens and members of Congress to offer
their support for passing it into law.=20
Signed,
(Affiliations listed for identification only)
John Bachir, Lead Developer, Lyceum
Daniel Berninger, Senior Analyst, Tier1 Research
Dave Burstein, Editor, DSL Prime
Steven Cherry, Senior Associate Editor, IEEE Spectrum
Gordon Cook, Editor, Publisher and Owner since 1992 of the=20
COOK Report on Internet Protocol
Susan Crawford, Associate Professor of Law, Cardozo Law School
Cynthia H. de Lorenzi, Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy
Ray English, Director of Libraries, Oberlin College
Miles R. Fidelman, President, The Center for Civic Networking
Richard Forno (bio: http://www.infowarrior.org/rick.html)
Bob Frankston, Telecommunications Analyst and Visionary
Paul Ginsparg, Cornell University
Lucas Gonze, founder, Webjay
Bob Gregory, I. T. Manager, Community Action Opportunities
Michael Gurstein, Chair: Community Informatics Research=20
Network (CIRN)
Dewayne Hendricks, CEO, Dandin Group
Paul Hyland, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
David S. Isenberg, Ph.D., Founder & CEO, isen.com, LLC
Saleem Jahangeer, Ph.D.
Seth Johnson, New Yorkers for Fair Use
Paul Jones, School of Information and Library Science,=20
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Peter D. Junger, Professor of Law Emeritus, Case Western=20
Reserve University
Joe Karaganis, Social Science Research Council
Bruce Kushnick, chairman, Teletruth
Michael Maranda, President, Association For Community=20
Networking
Kevin Marks, mediAgora
Sascha Meinrath, Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network,=20
Free Press
Edward Mills, Independent Technology Consultant
John Mitchell, InteractionLaw
Steve Mossbrook, President, Wyoming.com
Kenneth G. Olthoff, EFF Austin Advisory Board
Andy Oram, Editor, O'Reilly Media
Dave Pentecost, documentary television producer
Bruce Perens, VP Sourcelabs, Co-founder of the Open Source=20
initiative
Jan L. Peterson, Software Developer
David P. Reed, contributor to original Internet Protocol=20
design
David Rosen, Ed.D., Senior Associate, Newsome Associates
Lawrence Rosen, Rosenlaw & Einschlag; Stanford University=20
Lecturer in Law
Pamela Samuelson, Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor=20
of Law, UC Berkeley
Clay Shirky, Interactive Telecommunications Program, New York=20
University
Jay Sulzberger, New Yorkers for Fair Use
Rahul Tongia, Ph.D., Systems Scientist, School of Computer=20
Science (ISRI) / Dept. of Engineering & Public Policy,=20
Carnegie Mellon University
Siva Vaidhyanathan, Department of Culture and Communication,=20
New York University
Eric F. Van de Velde, Ph.D., Director, Library Information=20
Technology, California Institute of Technology
Esme Vos, Founder, Muniwireless
David Weinberger, Fellow, Harvard Berkman Center
Michael J. Weisman, JD, LLM, Technology and Intellectual=20
Property Law and Policy
Steve Wozniak, Co-Founder of Apple Computer, Inc., Member,=20
National Academy of Engineers
Brett Wynkoop, Wynn Data Ltd.
Contact:
Seth Johnson
(212) 543-4266
[email protected]
---
Legislative Proposal: =93The Internet Platform for Innovation Act
of 2006=94
=20
(See http://www.dpsproject.com)
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Internet Platform for=20
Innovation Act of 2006".
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Internet is the most successful means of=20
communication ever developed, connecting people of all=20
walks of life across the globe and enabling=20
unprecedented flexibility in applications and=20
unfettered exchange of information and ideas.
(2) The success of the Internet is built on the=20
establishment of certain commonly observed principles=20
of practice, expressed in =93Internet protocols,=94=20
governing the manner in which transmissions are=20
exchanged. Interoperation among competing Internet=20
providers on the basis of these principles assures that=20
the Internet remains a generic, flexible platform that=20
supports innovation and free expression.
(3) This flexible platform, commonly referred to as the =93IP=20
layer=94 of the Internet, enables users to independently=20
develop innovative applications by devising rules and=20
conventions describing how information transmitted=20
between connected users will be interpreted in order to=20
serve diverse purposes. The vast collection of=20
applications that have been freely created in this=20
manner is commonly referred to as the =93application=20
layer=94 of the Internet.
(4) The Internet protocols that created this architecture=20
have been developed and maintained by globally=20
recognized standards bodies through participatory=20
processes that work to develop optimal engineering=20
designs and establish the consensus necessary for=20
interoperability.
(5) Among the commonly-observed principles of practice that=20
govern Internet transmissions are the following:
a) Transmissions are broken down into small pieces=20
referred to as "packets," comprised of small=20
portions of the overall information useful to the=20
users at each transmission's endpoints. A small set=20
of data is prefixed to these packets, describing the=20
source and destination of each packet and how it is=20
to be treated.
b) Internet routers transmit these packets to various=20
other routers, changing routers freely as a means of=20
managing network flow.
c) Internet routers transmit packets independently of=20
each other and independently of the applications=20
that the packets are supporting.
(6) These principles governing the IP layer establish a=20
technical behavior that not only assures the platform's=20
flexibility, but also assures its reliability,=20
availability, universal accessibility, and uniform=20
treatment of information flow. The IP layer assures=20
that all applications may compete on a level basis of=20
connectivity, be they commercially developed by a major=20
corporation and made available to millions, or non-
commercial applications developed by individuals and=20
offered at no charge.
(7) These principles of practice are commonly understood=20
and recognized as features of existing, commonly-
observed communications standards defining the behavior=20
of the Internet transport.=20
(8) This settled understanding of the Internet, based on=20
an architecture created by well-recognized standards=20
bodies, leading to user expectations about the=20
accessibility and behavior of the Internet, is what
"the Internet" has come to mean to users in the United=20
States and around the world.
(9) Network providers who analyze and interpret the types=20
of applications being conveyed within packets at the IP=20
layer in order to offer special service features=20
(including but not limited to prioritized delivery)=20
intrinsically favor particular application designs that=20
they recognize over competing ones. This practice=20
therefore works at odds with the flexibility and other=20
desirable features of the IP layer brought about by the=20
above-described principles of practice. They depend,=20
for their success, on the neutral platform afforded at=20
the IP layer, even as they upset the neutrality of the=20
IP layer to benefit services best offered at the=20
application layer.
(10) Network providers who offer special treatment for=20
specific types of applications by identifying the=20
applications being conveyed by packets, presently face=20
competition from providers who provide neutral networks=20
by means of the above principles, as well as from the=20
diversity of applications, flexibility, uniform=20
treatment of information flow, availability and access=20
made possible by these networks.
(11) If network providers in the United States were given=20
support in legislation for presenting as "Internet"=20
services that diverge from the above global principles=20
of practice, as they offer special treatment of packet=20
transmissions on the basis of identifying particular=20
types of applications, the result would be to:
a) supplant and undermine the consensus authority=20
currently accorded to existing international=20
protocols and standards-making processes;
b) impair innovation and competition by undermining the=20
flexibility and other desirable features afforded by=20
the technical behavior of the Internet transport as=20
described above;
c) deny consumers the expectation of quality and=20
breadth of service globally associated with the=20
Internet; and
d) suppress freedom of speech within the United States,=20
while the people of other nations continue to enjoy=20
unabridged Internet communications;
(12) It is in the national interest to
a) support the international consensus authority that=20
gave rise to the current IP layer and associated=20
protocols;
b) encourage innovation in the applications layer of=20
the Internet through the flexibility, reliability,=20
availability, and accessibility afforded by the=20
commonly established principles of practice=20
expressed in existing consensus standards for the IP=20
layer; and
c) assure consumers in the United States that the=20
globally accessible and open architecture of the=20
Internet will be preserved even as some Internet=20
access providers may choose to compete in offering=20
additional features to their customers.=20
SEC. 3. DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN PROVIDING INTERNET ACCESS.=20
(1) Definitions.=97 As used in this Section:=20
(A) Internet.=97 The term =93Internet=94 means the worldwide,=20
publicly accessible system of interconnected=20
computer networks that transmit data by packet=20
switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP),=20
some characteristics of which include:
i) Transmissions between users who hold globally=20
reachable addresses, and which transmissions are=20
broken down into smaller segments referred to as=20
"packets" comprised of a small portion of=20
information useful to the users at each=20
transmission's endpoints, and a small set of=20
prefixed data describing the source and=20
destination of each transmission and how the=20
packet is to be treated;=20
ii) routers that transmit these packets to various=20
other routers on a best efforts basis, changing=20
routers freely as a means of managing network=20
flow; and=20
iii) said routers transmit packets independently of=20
each other and independently of the particular=20
application in use, in accordance with globally=20
defined protocol requirements and=20
recommendations.
(B) Internet access.=97 The term =93Internet access=94 means=20
a service that enables users to transmit and receive=20
transmissions of data using the Internet Protocol in=20
a manner that is agnostic to the nature, source or=20
destination of the transmission of any packet. Such=20
IP transmissions may include information, text,=20
sounds, images and other content such as messaging=20
and electronic mail.
(2) Any person engaged in interstate commerce that charges=20
a fee for the provision of Internet access must in fact=20
provide access to the Internet in accord with the above=20
definition, regardless whether additional proprietary=20
content, information or other services are also=20
provided as part of a package of services offered to=20
consumers.
(3) Network providers that offer special features based on=20
analyzing and identifying particular applications being=20
conveyed by packet transmissions must not describe=20
these services as "Internet" services. Any=20
representation as to the speed or =93bandwidth=94 of the=20
Internet access shall be limited to the speed or=20
bandwidth allocated to Internet access.=20
(4) Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice- A violation of=20
paragraphs 2 or 3 shall be treated as a violation of a=20
rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice=20
prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal=20
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). The=20
Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the=20
same manner, by the same means, and with the same=20
jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and=20
provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were=20
incorporated into and made a part of this Act.
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences