Please send the following materials on net neutrality TODAY to Senators on the Commerce and Judiciary Committees.
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 assuring "network neutrality." We think that the Judiciary Committee will find it particularly interesting in light of the current discussion related to the Stevens Bill, currently in 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=&member=NYJR&site=ctc (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=ctc&lang=&commcode=scommerce 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=ctc&lang=&commcode=sjudiciary 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 the Internet -- 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 tiered services. 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" 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 area networks, or LANs, typically operated within a single company. Today, major network access providers have the capability of offering very large LANs, and even networks of LANs, 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. --- 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. 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 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 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, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Peter D. Junger, Professor of Law Emeritus, Case Western Reserve University Joe Karaganis, Social Science Research Council Bruce Kushnick, chairman, Teletruth Michael Maranda, President, Association For Community Networking Kevin Marks, mediAgora Sascha Meinrath, Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, 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 initiative Jan L. Peterson, Software Developer David P. Reed, contributor to original Internet Protocol design David Rosen, Ed.D., Senior Associate, Newsome Associates Lawrence Rosen, Rosenlaw & Einschlag; Stanford University Lecturer in Law Pamela Samuelson, Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law, UC Berkeley Clay Shirky, Interactive Telecommunications Program, New York University Jay Sulzberger, New Yorkers for Fair Use Rahul Tongia, Ph.D., Systems Scientist, School of Computer Science (ISRI) / Dept. of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University Siva Vaidhyanathan, Department of Culture and Communication, New York University Eric F. Van de Velde, Ph.D., Director, Library Information Technology, California Institute of Technology Esme Vos, Founder, Muniwireless David Weinberger, Fellow, Harvard Berkman Center Michael J. Weisman, JD, LLM, Technology and Intellectual Property Law and Policy Steve Wozniak, Co-Founder of Apple Computer, Inc., Member, National Academy of Engineers Brett Wynkoop, Wynn Data Ltd. Contact: Seth Johnson (212) 543-4266 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Legislative Proposal: The Internet Platform for Innovation Act of 2006 (See http://www.dpsproject.com) 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 Internet protocols, 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 IP layer 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 application layer 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. As used in this Section: (A) Internet. The term Internet 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. The term Internet access 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 bandwidth 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. _______________________________________________ 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
