Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dana Blankenhorn <dana () a-clue com>
Date: June 20, 2006 2:40:29 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal

I so admire the people behind the bill, and I hate to disagree with  
them, but I do...

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2006/06/dont_call_it_in.html

Don't Call it Internet Then
A group of very clever folks -- David Reed, Bob Frankston, Bruce  
Kushnick, John Mitchell, Dave Weinberger (left), Rahul Tongia, Andy  
Oram, Steve Cherry, Dewayne Hendricks, John Bachir, Paul Jones and  
others -- have gotten together to back a "solution" of the network  
neutrality act dubbed the Internet Platform for Innovation Act of 2006.

Here's the full bill.

Short version.

Define the Internet as neutral, and take away the right of non- 
neutral Bell and cable offerings to call what they sell "Internet"  
service.

I think of it as magic fairy dust.

First, it ain't gonna pass. Second, even if it does, it doesn't  
matter unless there is real competition in the marketplace, so people  
can choose "real" Internet service without penalty.

May I offer something equally simple, concise and (maybe even)  
passable? That is, take away their monopoly right of way. Pass a bill  
which states states, cities and other units of government must make  
poles and other right-of-way available to competing service providers.

Short Version. Take away their monopoly.

I compare the situation to what we face with oil refineries. As you  
may know, gas prices are high, and refinery prices are way up. No new  
refinery capacity has come on-stream for 25 years. There is no  
competition in the market, and no incentive for refiners to create  
new capacity.

The solution: open up the market. Open the market to other forms of  
energy with a price floor under which all forms of energy can find a  
market, then offer a higher floor to non-carbon processes. Get rid of  
the subsidies the oil companies now enjoy.

The same solution is needed here. The difference between energy and  
Internet service is that, in Internet service, the cost of  
provisioning actually is going down, thanks to Moore's Law. The cost  
of running a bit over fiber continues to go down. The cost of running  
a bit over the air continues to go down. This is no longer 30-year  
property (like a refinery). it's fast becoming three-year property,  
even one-year property. You don't write your PC off over five years  
anymore -- when it breaks or gets too slow for the new software you  
buy a new one.

The Intenet solution, in other words, is simpler. There are ample new  
supplies of real Internet bits available. They don't need subsidy.  
All they need is an opportunity to come to market.

Once they do the competition will change the Bells' incentives, and  
force them to offer more bits, at lower prices, or go out of business.

Once this kind of solution was called conservative. Today's  
conservatives, unfortunately, are too busy sucking at the corporate  
teat to recall what they're supposed to be about. (See above for an  
example.)

Frankly I don't care what you call it.

I call it setting the market free.

Dana Blankenhorn   dana () voic us
editor    www.voic.us


----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
To: <ip () v2 listbox com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:59 PM
Subject: [IP] Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal


> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;  
> format=flowed
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson () RealMeasures dyndns org>
> Date: June 20, 2006 12:29:19 PM EDT
> To: ecommerce () lists essential org, broadcast-
> discuss () lists essential org, A2K () lists essential org, upd-
> discuss () lists essential org, commons-law () sarai net
> Subject: [Upd-discuss] Summary for Congress of Our NN Act Proposal
>
>
> John Mitchell has just produced a wonderful summary of our
> proposed legislative approach for Congressional staff.  See
> below.
>
>
> Seth
>
>
> > http://www.dpsproject.com/CongressSummary.html
>
>
> Introduction and Summary for Congressional Staff
>
> (Click here for the proposed "Internet Platform for Innovation
> Act of 2006" [http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html])
>
> Attached is a fresh approach to "network neutrality."  It
> recognizes that the Internet is, in fact, neutral.  Neither slick
> promotions offering "premium" or "exclusive" services, nor
> thoughtful legislation, can change that.  Any service offered by
> one of the many networks that form a part of the "network of
> networks" called "the Internet" which favors the delivery of some
> data packets over others based on their content, source or
> destination, is simply not "the Internet."  To pass off access to
> specially modified networks as "Internet access" 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 "Internet Protocols" 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 "regulating
> the Internet," 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 "Internet"
> services or "Internet access."  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 "local
> access networks," or LAN's, typically operated within a single
> company.  Today, major network access providers have the
> capability of offering very large LAN's, and even networks of
> LAN's, 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 "walled garden"
> 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 "Internet access" 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.
>
>     * Introduction and Summary for Congressional Staff
> (http://www.dpsproject.com/CongressSummary.html)
>     * Facing Reality on Net Neutrality (http://dpsproject.com/)
>     * Two Types of Neutrality
> (http://www.dpsproject.com/twotypes.html)
>     * Proposal: The Internet Platform for Innovation Act of 2006
> (http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Upd-discuss mailing list
> Upd-discuss () lists essential org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as dana () a-clue com
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date:  
> 6/19/2006

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/