Slashdot Mirror

Yes. I listened to what he said, and then read the article -- the guy got it wrong, wrong, wrong. What I heard him say is that net neutrality is defined by diffferent people different ways, and if you define it one way -- to mean nothing interesting can happen and no innovation can take place unless it is on the Internet -- then he is against it. He believes people ought to be free to develop innovative things on their own LANs, but if they use the Internet for it then everyone else should be able to participate in it (which is what others mean by net neutrality, though he did not say that), otherwise, you have fragmentation (he said that), which he opposes. For a lot of people, that "fragmentation" is precisely what net neutrality seeks to avoid. The DPS project (which supports a particular brand of net neutrality) would seem to get a boost from his speech, but for people who misrepresent his position as being in favor of Internet privatization and fragmentation -- which is not "the Internet" at all, and which he opposed. He is all for net neutrality if you define it as does the DPS Project, http://www.dpsproject.com/.

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 unique 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.

Is there a place for fresh thinking and new recommendations in the infamous "network neutrality" debate?

Seth Johnson, David P Reed, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Pamela Samuelson, David Weinberger, Andy Oram and others [including me] have issued a new proposal on designed to "Preserve the Internet Standards for Net Neutrality."

The authors point out that "IP-layer neutrality is not a property of the Internet. It _is_the Internet." Then go on to say that "Providers certainly should be allowed to develop services within their own networks, treating data any way they want. But that's not the Internet."

Explanations are provided for CongressCriters, lawyers and lawmakers and human folks.

Is there a place for fresh thinking and new recommendations in the infamous "network neutrality" debate?

Seth Johnson, David P Reed, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Pamela Samuelson, David Weinberger, Andy Oram and others [including me] have issued a new proposal on designed to "Preserve the Internet Standards for Net Neutrality."

The authors point out that "IP-layer neutrality is not a property of the Internet. It _is_the Internet." Then go on to say that "Providers certainly should be allowed to develop services within their own networks, treating data any way they want. But that's not the Internet."

Explanations are provided for CongressCriters, lawyers and lawmakers and human folks.

Is there a place for fresh thinking and new recommendations in the infamous "network neutrality" debate?

Seth Johnson, David P Reed, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Pamela Samuelson, David Weinberger, Andy Oram and others [including me] have issued a new proposal on designed to "Preserve the Internet Standards for Net Neutrality."

The authors point out that "IP-layer neutrality is not a property of the Internet. It _is_the Internet." Then go on to say that "Providers certainly should be allowed to develop services within their own networks, treating data any way they want. But that's not the Internet."

Explanations are provided for CongressCriters, lawyers and lawmakers and human folks.

Is there a place for fresh thinking and new recommendations in the infamous "network neutrality" debate?

Seth Johnson, David P Reed, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Pamela Samuelson, David Weinberger, Andy Oram and others [including me] have issued a new proposal on designed to "Preserve the Internet Standards for Net Neutrality."

The authors point out that "IP-layer neutrality is not a property of the Internet. It _is_the Internet." Then go on to say that "Providers certainly should be allowed to develop services within their own networks, treating data any way they want. But that's not the Internet."

Explanations are provided for CongressCriters, lawyers and lawmakers and human folks.

Is there a place for fresh thinking and new recommendations in the infamous "network neutrality" debate?

Seth Johnson, David P Reed, Siva Vaidhyanathan, Pamela Samuelson, David Weinberger, Andy Oram and others [including me] have issued a new proposal on designed to "Preserve the Internet Standards for Net Neutrality."

The authors point out that "IP-layer neutrality is not a property of the Internet. It _is_the Internet." Then go on to say that "Providers certainly should be allowed to develop services within their own networks, treating data any way they want. But that's not the Internet."

Explanations are provided for CongressCriters, lawyers and lawmakers and human folks.