Apologies for the long post, but this is a complex issue and it's critical to learn about it because the Senate vote on NN is scheduled for Tues, June 20th. This post takes a NN 101 approach. --
The Technology Formerly Known As Phone does not want you to know about the significance of Net Neutrality for the future of America's ability to develop and produce innovative products and services on the Internet. How did we get to this place, and what can you do to change it?
Back when telephone exchanges were still being built across America, the U.S. Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1934.
The bill had five titles. One of the titles (Title II) created the FCC. The purpose of the FCC was to regulate telephone, which was a new technology that served the public interest by improving communications between towns, cities, regions, and states.
Because telephone services were valued as a public benefit, Congress designed the
1934 Telecommunications Act to ensure that all citizens had COMMON ACCESS to telephone technology. Under Title II, telephone was regulated as a Common Carrier - everyone was billed at a standard rate, even if their home was 20 miles off the main phone line. Throughout the 20th century, telephone was regulated (by the FCC) as a Common Carrier.
Fast-forward to the 1990s, when the sound waves that pass along phone lines were captured and converted to digital sequences like: 0011010110101001010100011.
The methods through which sound waves are converted into sequences of 0's and 1's (i.e., "digits') are a topic for a different post. The relevant point for this diary is that once sound waves were converted digitally, and encoded as sequences of 0s and 1s (i.e., 001110101001000...), then powerful interests were ready to claim that The Technology Formerly Known As Phone should be legally redefined as an "information service".
Which leads us to the brouhaha over Net Neutrality.
An "information service" is not subject to Common Carrier legislation. "Information services" are not regulated. If you own the pipes, wires, and cable through which "information services" are delivered, then you just got yourself a river of gold.
Where sound waves once traveled across wires in the air, packets of digitally encoded `data' speed along networks of cable, wire, and broadband. `Digital data' is designated as an "information service."  But there's a catch that the telecoms are not explaining to Congress - in order to encode, transmit, or `read' DIGITALLY ENCODED information, you must have software.
In other words, the telecoms are lobbying Congress AS IF the only layer of the Internet that matters is the underlying, physical infrastructure - the wires, the broadband and cable that you can see, feel, touch, haul around on a truck. What the telecoms have not explained to Congress - and what most Representatives and Senators have failed to understand - is that without SOFTWARE to read all that digital data, the system is useless.
Many software development processes and procedures rely on principles outlined in Net Neutrality legal code. And the 2006 Telecommunications Legal Code is seriously lacking so much as a single Code Snippet to ensure Net Neutrality. Which means that the programming code , required to keep the Internet humming, innovating, flitering, and pulsing will be much more difficult to produce.
Those who work with software: ISPs, Microsoft, Adobe, eBay, Google, Yahoo, Bank of America and other eCommerce providers, were late to the Let's All Educate Our Senators about The Software Layer of the Internet party. The SOFTWARE LAYER makes the Internet interesting - it creates economic opportunity, engages collaborative economic projects - that layer is built on a set of assumptions that is entirely different from the agenda of the Pay to Play Telecom interests. To Congress, we've remained invisible. Our interests are being sabotaged by the telecoms.
The Technology Formerly Known as Cable Television just swallowed up the newly digitized sound, audio, video, text, and image files that make their way around the Internet to your computer. These digitized files, now legally designated as "information services," *are not protected* by Common Carrier regulations.
Can you say, "Ka-chingg!!?"
Rewind to see: the 1990s. Sound waves were digitized for transmission, while cable companies laid miles of cable -- waiting for the day when they could go to: (1) the Courts, and (2) Congress. After 2000, they got their chance.
In a 2005 case referenced as "Brand X," a US Circuit Court decided that The Technology Formerly Known as Phone had morphed into something different. The "Brand X" decision meant that `phone' (or sound files) was legally reclassified as an "information service." This placed 'phone' (telecom) outside the legal boundaries of the Common Carrier Title II provisions of the Telecommunications Act. (In 2002, cable had been reclassified by the FCC as an 'information service", which placed it under Title I.)
Cable had been reclassified by the FCC in 2002 (which placed it under Title I, rather than TItle II.) However, telephone was still legally controlled by Title II until August 2005.
In the "Brand X" decision of August 2005, a US Circuit Court ruled that The Technology Formerly Known As Phone would be reclassifed as an "information service", which MOVED IT OUT OF Title II Common Carrier protections, and placed it under Title I. (Recall, Dear Reader, that anything fallling under Title I does not have Common Carrier protections for consumers.)
After the court reclassified phone as an 'information service' in the "Brand X" case, the action moved to the regulatory agency - the FCC. Would they agree with the court's reclassification?
In August 2005, the FCC agreed with the court ruling that The Technology Formerly Known As Phone, reformatted into sequences like: 001001010001110, would not be subject to the social contract and legal frameworks applied to Common Carriers. In August 2005, the FCC redefined digital communications as "information services."
(To put a patina on all of this reclassificationt, the FCC created "Four Principles" in Aug 2005, which provided cover for the fact that telecom was now released from Title II oversight. The Four Principles are fundamentally an elegant display of handwaving, feel-good pantomime because they carry no legal enforcement power. Telecoms statements about 'principles' to protect the network are technically true, but virtually meaningless. Pun intended.)
The Technology Formerly Known as Cable Television accelerated its morphing into a Telecom Behemoth created out of: (1) miles of cable, (2) the "Brand X" legal decision that reclassified phone as an "information service", and (3) the FCC ruling.that The Technology Formerly Known as Phone would now fall under the weaker, ,no-Common-Carrier-expectatiions-here Title I. I, Consequently, consumers cannot expect legal protections for access, price, reliabiilty, or any other form of oversight.
In August 2005, the FCC opined that The Technology Formerly Known As Phone, reformatted into sequences like: 001001010001110, was not subject to the social contract and legal frameworks applied to Common Carriers. The FCC redefined digital communications as "information services."
The Technology Formerly Known as Cable Television started morphing into a behemoth. That behemoth was fed by: (1) miles of fairly recent cable, (2) a legal decision in the "Brand X" case, and (3) the FCC ruling. In order to cement its legal claim to the River Of Golden Subscriber Payments the Telecom Behemoth needs the 2006 Telecommunications Act passed -- sans so much as one single Code Snippet of Net Neutrality language. The Telecom Behemoth seeks to get Congress to pass the 2006 Telecommuniations Act (referred to also as COPE) without so much as a Code Hint that any regulatory agency can oversee telecom charges billed for "information services." The telecoms want zero interfere with the bountiful revenue stream they hope to generate out of Tiered Access Charges for Information Services.
Who woudln't want a sweet deal like that?
Armed with the "Brand X" legal decision from 2004, and also the FCC pronouncement from Aug 2005 the telecoms are persuading your Senators that email, phone, web browsing, downloading audio and video files are all: "information services." They're `entertainment.' They require `subscriptions.'
The telecoms are telling Congress, "We've invested in cable and now we want our ROI (return on investment)."
Last I checked, no member of Congress has experience writing even a line of PHP, C#, C++, Perl, Java, or any other PROGRAMMING CODE language. Congress knows LEGAL CODE. Whereas those familiar with PROGRAMMING CODE are damn late to this party.
The SOFTWARE LAYER, the code that makes the Internet a wonderful, exciting place, is literally "invisible" to Congress. So all the Net Neutrality protections that are absolutely critical to those of us who work with the SOFTWARE LAYER: equal access, collaborative environments, best practices, cooperation and consensus... all those factors that have driven the ECONOMIC VITALITY of the Internet - the search engines, the browsers, the apps... Congress doesn't have a clue why Net Neutrality provisions are so crucial to the economic, social, and technical processes involved in software development and economic innovation for the Internet.
With several exceptions - Rep Jay Inslee, whose district includes Redmond, WA; Zoe Lofgren, whose district covers Silicon Valley -- Congress is absolutely clueless about why some of us are almost hysterical about the urgency of ensuring that Net Neutrality provisions are included in the 2006 Telecommunications Act.
It has absolutely nothing to do with blogging, and everything to do with eCommerce, with accessing Open Source information, with collaborating on innovative products. You can lay cable and broadband from here to Pluto and they'll never create the economic opportunity and VALUE that has been added by SOFTWARE requirements of digital technology. It's the SOFTWARE LAYER of the Internet that ACTUALLY BRINGS VALUE - creates services, generates excitement, develops new products, streamlines organizations, and makes information cheaper for government and businesses.
"Information services", aka, The Technology Formerly Known As Cable, can add tier after tier after tier of payment requirement:
So... want that eComm app? Ka-ching! Pay more for THAT SERVICE.
So... want to put video files online? Ka-Ching! Pay more for THAT SERVICE.
So... want to access iTunes... well... if you are a PREMIUM SUBSCRIBER, you can get there in one mouse click. Otherwise... expect to encounter some Serious Browser Hang Time and expect to click through 3+ ads paid for by our 'premium content providers' while you hapless schmucks attempt to access iTunes.
The logic of broadband is the logic of subscriptions. You want the good stuff? You gotta pay extra.
Ka-chinnnnnggggggg!!
Currently, the US Senate is barraged by telecoms claiming that they've 'invested' in miles and miles of broadband and cable, AND ALSO that what travels over the wires "should not be regulated."
The telecoms, and members of the United States Senate, are dismissing Net Neutrality as alarmist. If there's a problem, they claim, anyone can take it to the FCC. On a case-by-case basis... so if you are a gazillionaire with 20 lifetimes to wait your turn before the FCC, then by all means support the 2006 Telecommunications Act! Forget about the need to protect the innovators in the software layer! Ignore the fact that the entire software industry is deeply distressed over Net Neutrality -- what the heck do coders know about the Internet, after all? Be fooled into believing that this is about the ROI for the telecoms... just don't expect fast upgrades to your browser, your email software, or a host of other Internet-driven technologies that require collaborative, cost-effective, open Internet access to create.
The telecoms claim that they need to `charge more for access' in large part because they've `invested.' Since when are the telecoms are the primary investors in the Internet?!!
Consider the following:
* Are you a US taxpayer? If so, you've 'invested' in ARPAnet, which was the early skeleton of today's Internet.
* Do you pay taxes to support K-12 education? K12 has "invested" hugely in technology to assist in learning -- and now, they'll need to use YOUR tax dollars to 'subscribe' to whatever Tier of Service the telecoms require.
* Do you pay city, county, or state taxes? If so, you've helped 'invest' in online content. Oh, by the way... the telecoms could never have laid that cable without the permits issued by your local government.
* Did you ever pay for more education? College? University? If so, then your efforts to gain skills for the Information Age were your personal investments in the growth and development of the Internet.
* Do you have a phone bill? Do you pay it? Ask yourself what kept the telecoms operating long enough to lay all that cable and DSL line for which they will now charge you even more -- because a DC Circuit Court determined that "broadband" is an "information service"?
* Do you write, sell, distribute, or purchase software? If so, you've "invested" in the "software layer" of the Internet.
* Did you 'invest' in a computer for your home or office? If it has a modem, a wireless connection, or any other access then you have made a personal `investment' in the growth of the Internet.
I assume that the telecom lobbyists are not evil. I think that most of them probably honestly believe that telecom ROI for laying cable is a very urgent matter. But they are ill-informed, and too focused on one narrow slice of a very, very big pie. Their narrow focus risks strangling, or injuring, the Golden Internet Goose and no more golden eggs should be expected if they prevail.
The software companies have not yet educated Congress about the significance of the `software layer' that cannot innovate without solid Net Neutrality protections.
Right now, US Senators need to understand:
1. ALL OF US have invested in the Internet.
2. Just because the info that passes along the wires and cables is digitally formatted does not mean that Common Carrier provisions should no longer apply.
3. Internet innovation has *originated mostly from* the "software layer": web browsers, email applications, video applications, eCommerce - all these are in the software layer that is currently `invisible' to Congress, and are based on the legal principles encapsulated by Net Neutrality language.
4. Tell your Senators that legislating on the basis of the underlying 'wires and routers' (or "hardware") layer of the Internet is bad policy -- the 'software layer' DEPENDS UPON equal access, collaborative social interactions, and a level playing field. The "software layer" REQUIRES Net Neutrality provisions in the 2006 Telecommunications Act. Without the Net Neutrality protections, we're unable to keep growing the Internet.
5. Protect the "software layer". Support Net Neutrality. Today.