Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Hello folks, please consider endorsing this legislative proposal
on net neutrality. It's a bit different from the others you may
have heard of . . .

http://www.dpsproject.com

This bill focuses on net neutrality in terms of the IP protocol,
rather than the "equal treatment" and "nondiscrimination"
application-layer policy approaches you usually hear about.

One of the Intro pages from the site above, and the legislative
Language, are pasted below.

Coverage on Infoworld:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/06/20/79453_HNnetneutrality_1.html

David Weinberger on Stevens and a Commentary by David Reed:

http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/sen_stevens_and_david_reed_on.html

Here's a link to a research paper by Dave Clark, et al. that
identifies the IP protocol as the "spanning layer" that assures
innovation across hardware and protocols:

http://www.isi.edu/newarch/iDOCS/final.finalreport.pdf

Seth Johnson

2

So how does all this mumbo-jumbo square up with the common practices of
blocking SMTP and the 135-139/445 ports to protect your own infrastructure from
the mass of malware that results if you don't block it? And does this mean
that my Verizon DSL isn't 'The Internet' because the customer side of the modem
hands me a DHCP address in RFC1918 space? For bonus points - is the DSL *still*
"not the Internet" if I bring my own DSL modem or hand-configure the DSL one to
mitigate the effects of NAT brain damage?

What percentage of cable and DSL access is an "unfair or deceptive act"
per the definition of this?

3

The proposal is designed to straighten out the current misguided
discourse on NN, which actually would end up ending NN either way
-- the "pro-NN" legislative proposals would essentially say
similar applications need to be treated the same, thereby
authorizing the breaking of the separation of layers.

Our point is, as I think you see, that the merits of the
Internet's design are for application flexibility as provided by
the nature if the transport, and this design needs to be
recognized in policy that intends to enforce neutrality, because
that design will be lost as a result of the current discussion.

Many observe that present practices already block or disfavor
certain applications. We want those practices to be the
substance of the discussion, and the discussion should be on the
right basis. The proposal is designed to accomplish that (and we
believe we have already had that effect -- Snowe and Dorgan may
have modified their amendment to the Stevens Bill, withdrawing
their original proposal and introducing a simple additional
principle to the FCC's list, in response to the concerns we
expressed that they would unintentionally actually end up ending
NN. And, while common carrier is not necessarily the only
solution, we think that the consumer groups pursuing NN settled
on a position of going back to common carrier a la Internet II
as a result of the concerns we raised).

A lot of times, we've found many people looking at NN in more
deterministic or behavioral terms, as in rules about practices
that network providers must obey. The thing to "get" about this
proposal is that if it passed, the result is really to preserve
and separate the standards. If everybody proceeded to offer the
same services, with little tiny asterisked notices in their
advertising that "this is not Internet per US Code XXX" we'd
still achieve the critical outcome.

We think it's the right position to present, and it's critical
that it be presented now. Of course, we can't exactly fault
people who are engaged in the discussion at the level of what
existing practices are.

NANOG folks would either sign out of simple dedication end-to-end
purity, or knowing that starting from this place, other issues
will be addressed appropriately. And note, it is designed not to
legislate engineering -- only to say that what may be called
Internet needs to actually follow the standard, described here in
abstract terms in terms of the router behavior. This preserves
the standards against their being trumped by incumbents who are
asserting they can go ahead and offer priced, tiered services,
and against letting local peering policies of certain incumbents
(or port blocking practices of "consumer internet," etc.) from
gaining priority due to their position in the market.

Seth

4

Based on this link . . .

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2138772

. . . it would appear that we were successful in correcting the
language of the amendment that Snowe and Dorgan presented:

Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)
proposed an amendment to the bill to "ensure fair treatment of
all Internet content." The amendment incorporated the following
non-discriminatory principle: "to promote broadband deployment,
and presence and promote the open and interconnected nature of
the Internet, a broadband service provider shall not discriminate
Internet traffic based on source, ownership, or destination of
such traffic as part of any publicly available Internet
offering." It was defeated in the Committee with a tie vote of
11-to-11.

This language is much, much better than what they originally had.

When HR 5217 came out of the House Judiciary Committee, we
quickly put out word that all the existing NN proposals, both
House and Senate side, would actually end net neutrality if they
were passed (less conveniently for the broadband providers than
what they were saying they wanted to do, but just as certainly)
(HR5273[Markey], HR5417[Sensenbrenner], S2360[Wyden] and
S2917[Snowe]).

They all basically came down to saying "applications, content and
services" were to be either treated equally or
non-discriminatorily -- meaning, break the separation of layers
by identifying applications that would be treated the same.

We recruited support for the legislative proposal at
http://www.dpsproject.com and blitzed people both in the movement
actively in motion and on the Hill with it, saying they would end
net neutrality, that this was the right definition, and using the
line: "Packets, not Applications, Content and Services."

During the markup for the Stevens Bill, Snowe and Dorgan withdrew
their original language and introduced a new amendment, the full
language of which I haven't yet found anywhere, but the language
quoted in the article above is indeed way better than what they
had in their original Bill.

Nothing about "applications, content or services." Just
"Internet traffic" and "source, ownership or destination of such
traffic."

My remaining concern is whether "not discriminat[ing] Internet
traffic" on the given bases is clear enough.

The NN movement and its legislative sponsors now seem to be
talking the right language. We seem to have been quite
successful.

We still have to watch to see what language comes out as the
Steven Bill progresses. I still haven't seen the actual
amendment that was presented during the markup for the Stevens
Bill.

Seth

Seth Johnson wrote:

5

* Seth Johnson:

         (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:

So I put all my customers behind a NAT device (or just a stateful
packet filter). They are no longer publicly accessible, and hence not
subject to the provisions of this section. Fixing that would probably
require companies to open up their corporate networks, which is a
non-starter.

(I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that
Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corporate
networks, by the way.)

6

eBay and Google aren't selling transit.

  - mark

7

* Mark Newton:

8

Eh? Of course they are. They're selling transit to their cable
modem customers, surely?

- mark

9

Hi,

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.

So, what happened to "my network, my rules"?

Perhaps I'm not seeing the point here, but what on earth does a
government has to do with the question wether or not a service provider
implements QoS on his network?

Thanks,

10

* Mark Newton:

> * Mark Newton:
> > > (I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that
> > > Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corporate
> > > networks, by the way.)
> > eBay and Google aren't selling transit.
>
> Neither is your local cable company. :sunglasses:

Eh? Of course they are. They're selling transit to their cable
modem customers, surely?

Quote from a typical terms of service agreement:

(b) Subscriber will not resell the Service, or any portion thereof, or
otherwise charge others to use the Service, or any portion
thereof. The Service is for personal use only, and Subscriber agrees
not to use the Service for operation as an Internet Service Provider,
to host web sites for other parties or for any other business
enterprise or to connect the Cable modem to any server or to any
computer outside of the Subscriber's premises.

(c) Without Time Warner Cable 's prior written approval, Subscriber
shall not post or transmit through the Service any material that
constitutes or contains advertising or any solicitation with respect
to products or services, nor shall Subscriber transmit bulk e-mail
without prior written permission from Time Warner Cable.

IP transit has no such restrictions.

11

I think you're missing the point, Florian. Regardless of any
retail restrictions, the fact still remains that your local
Cable company is selling connectivity to other peoples'
autonomous systems.

That's transit.

And that's what eBay and Google don't sell.

  - mark

12

So, what happened to "my network, my rules"?

Perhaps I'm not seeing the point here, but what on earth does a
government has to do with the question wether or not a
service provider
implements QoS on his network?

The government supplies them with laws virtually making them a monopoly
in Internet transit to consumer users. It they get a protected status
in the marketplace, the consumers deserve protection from them (the
telcos).

-joe

13

* Mark Newton:

I think you're missing the point, Florian. Regardless of any
retail restrictions, the fact still remains that your local
Cable company is selling connectivity to other peoples'
autonomous systems.

Then why do the ads promote their new chat service, instead the
ever-growing number of ASNs on the Internet? :sunglasses: I don't think the
majority of consumers cares about this IP transit things as long as
their usual applications keep working.

Anyway, I suppose I can tell apart all these different types of
Internet access quite easily, but I can't come up with a generally
applicable set of criteria to categorize them properly.