Subject: URGENT Net Neutrality Action TODAY: Please send/fax these materials
From: Seth Johnson <>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:10:43 -0400

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

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!



Suggested Text to Send:

See below the following logistical details.


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:


(These links have fax numbers for the committees as well as the
individual members, and links to more detailed info about the

2) Senate Commerce Committee
   Majority Fax: 202-224-1259
   Minority Fax: 202-228-0303

   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

   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

   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


   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

   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


   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

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.


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

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 LAN’s, typically operated within a single
company.  Today, major network access providers have the
capability of offering very large LAN’s, and even networks of
LAN’s, 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

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. 


(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:
   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,, 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 
   Kevin Marks, mediAgora
   Sascha Meinrath, Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, 
      Free Press
   Edward Mills, Independent Technology Consultant
   John Mitchell, InteractionLaw
   Steve Mossbrook, President,
   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 
   Jan L. Peterson, Software Developer
   David P. Reed, contributor to original Internet Protocol 
   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 
   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.


Seth Johnson
(212) 543-4266


Legislative Proposal:  “The Internet Platform for Innovation Act
of 2006”


      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 

      (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 

          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. 


      (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 

         (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 

      (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.