Net neutrality: ‘establishing correct principles’
p2pnet news view P2P | Politics:- January 14 was the last day for initial public comment submissions on the US Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality proposals.
And that was the day Seth Johnson sent in a paper in he describes as a minimal approach “the FCC may take even if it is found they do not have regulatory authority to categorize Internet as telecommunications”.
His Assure the Principle of an Open Internet in Broadband by Designating a General Purpose Platform as a Category of Advanced Telecommunications Capability is in full below >>>
I submitted substantially the same comments under NBP Public Notice #1, on defining the term “broadband.” The same points relate to preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices.
Two Categories of “Advanced Telecommunications Service”
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.
These Categories are Efficacious Even Without FCC Authority to Mandate Network Neutrality
Even if it were found that the FCC lacks regulatory authority to impose requirements for network neutrality, it can still establish correct principles by simply defining and tracking broadband offerings that fall into a category of a general purpose platform that serves the purpose of supporting application innovation, based on a number of principles expressed in protocols, distinguishing these offerings from more specialized types of service that may optimize particular applications at the expense of the general purpose platform. Such a categorization would allow the performance of such a platform to be identified and compared against other types of offerings. The manner in which the Internet protocols provide an optimally flexible platform produces network neutrality as an emergent phenomenon.
Delineating the General Purpose Platform
RFCs 1958, 2775, 3724, 4084, and 4924 illustrate how to distinguish protocols that provide for a general purpose platform from other types of protocols that may undermine principles that provide for a maximally flexible platform for end-user innovation, such as the end-to-end principle, permissionlessness, best efforts delivery of packets, and the transmission of Internet datagrams regardless of the application they are supporting.
The principle of transmitting Internet datagrams without regard for the applications they support also provides for “network neutrality” as an emergent phenomenon.
RFC 4924, “Reflections on Internet Transparency” (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4924.txt) describes the matter as follows:
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 then proceeds to list developments that may affect the advantages of the Internet’s general purpose design based 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
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.
A Similar Approach: the Dynamic Platform Standards Project Proposal
A similar schema is presented by The Dynamic Platform Standards Project’s legislative proposal for an “Internet Platform for Innovation Act” (http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html), which is designed to delineate the technical principles that provide for the special advantages of the design of the Internet Protocol. The DPS proposal provides a technical characterization of the general purpose platform as it is provided by the Internet Protocol, including its provision of uniform treatment of packet flow, and similarly allows the advantages of this kind of platform to be distinguished from other types of offerings.
The General Purpose Platform in Relation to the National Broadband Plan
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 also become part of consensus standards).
This document only seeks to present some general comments regarding the relevance of the general purpose platform to the questions the FCC originally raised in its request for input on defining the term “broadband” as well as the present question of preserving the open Internet. 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.
National Goals: 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.
Utilization and Affordability: 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.
Adapting Reporting Categories over Time: In order to maintain a clear distinction in your reporting between this general purpose, neutral platform and optimized telecommunications services that may diverge from the principles that provide for optimum flexibility and neutral transport, the FCC should engage in a dynamic process of adapting benchmarks over time while preserving the principle of delineating general purpose connectivity, consulting with experts and the public on the following questions:
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 associate
with a category of more limited “consumer connectivity”
rather than general purpose Internet connectivity.
Additional Considerations: 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.
Additional Points 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 othertypes 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 should be simply identified with “advanced telecommunications services” without addressing or recognizing how they may impact 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 not only in
terms of the ease with which high speed can be deployed, but in terms of categories of types of connectivity
including general purpose. Similar considerations apply in the analysis of utilization.
Johnson adds:
” ‘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.”
..… and identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
January, 2010
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/feed
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
