Um, the panel was perplexed by Brett's question. :-) They seemed to get my point pretty well. Maybe the full implications haven't dawned on them -- but John Horrigan, when I spoke to him afterwards, completely got my point that a general purpose platform should be understood to be an "advanced telecommunications service" -- and that NN derives from the design that gives us that.
Indeed, I would say that the general purpose platform that the IP layer gives us is the *most* advanced telecommunications service. I often say that I want a computer more than I want a graphics card! Seth -----Original Message----- From: "Matthew Senate" <[email protected]> To: "Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in particular" <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:23:46 -0800 Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Video: Broadband Breakfast on FCC Reporting and Analysis > Also, > > For Brett Glass followers--he asks a question immediately > following Seth. > The response is pretty much "I'm perplexed by your question." > > > > > Hello all -- Last week I went to this month's Broadband > Breakfast, > > which was attended by Paul de Sa, John Horrigan and Michelle > Connolly, > > three current and former FCC staffers working in the area of > > reporting, analysis and strategy and policy planning. de Sa > is the > > Chief of the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis > and was > > the keynote speaker. > > > > You can find my participation at 40 mins and 40 seconds in at > the > > following video link: > > > > Setting the Table for the National Broadband Plan: Collecting > and > > Using Broadband Data: How Will We Improve the Process? > >> > http://broadbandbreakfast.com/2010/02/broadband-breakfast-club- > on-collecting-and-using-data-now-online/ > > > > > > My mission was to impress on them that they should delineate > a general > > purpose platform category in their analyses, and to make sure > they > > understand that this is a way of assuring the principle of a > neutral > > Internet even if the FCC turns out not to have the authority > to set a > > rule for net neutrality. It also prevents the muddying of > the waters > > that comes from the "reasonable network management" framing > and the > > debates over the role of Quality of Service. > > > > Hopefully I managed to get them to recognize the usefulness > of doing > > this. > > > > I provided them with copies of my independent submission to > the FCC on > > this concept, which you can access here: > >> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020378855 > >> > http://www.scribd.com/doc/25267644/Seth-Johnson-Comments-on-Pre > serving-the- > > > > I also provided copies of the pages of the Dynamic Platform > Standards > > Project website: > >> http://www.dpsproject.com > > > > > > Since this was the right context for it, I laid copies on the > table at > > the entrance of the "Executive Summary" and "Implications for > > Broadband" portions of Bruce Kushnick's "History, Financial > > Commitments and Outcomes of Fiber Optic Broadband Deployment > in > > America: 1990-2004:" > >> http://www.newnetworks.com/FCCCITIbroadband.pdf > > > > > > Seth > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
