ReasonedResponse.com

So when the dust finally settles, the Broadband provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 are actually pretty good.

There is some money, to be doled out by the Department of Agriculture for rural broadband projects, and by the Department of Commerce for innovation.  Not a lot of money, but that may be a good thing.

There is a requirement that the FCC develop a national broadband plan within a year.  A reasonable time frame and a good project that falls well within the mission of the FCC.  I look forward to reading what is proposed, and throwing in a few ideas of my own.

And there is a requirement for a broadband mapping project, which can only lead to better coverage of broadband.

Of course, I also like it because it dropped all of the lunatic language about mandatory open access and network neutrality (which in case you missed it, has once again morphed to mean something different than it used to).  That kind of nonsense rhetoric has no place is a serious discussion of broadband policy, something that even Google now seems to have conceded.

So I look forward to the year ahead, to the evolution of a national broadband plan, and to an improving economy.  And, if there is indeed a good in heaven, a decent wine crop worldwide to help produce the Cabernet Sauvignon I desire to drink while I read the various proposals and platforms.

Word out of the Wall Street Journal this morning is that the Recording Industry Association of America will cease its senseless strategy of suing its own customers and instead attempt to force ISPs to enforce the copyright laws for them.  Certain unnamed ISPs are said to already be discussing "cooperation" with them.

Ho-hum.

Let's be blunt here.  Being invited by copyright holders to discuss "cooperation" is like being invited to dinner by Hannibal Lecter.  Copyright holders aren't interested in cooperation.  They are interested in forcing ISPs to become copyright police.  They are interested in extorting as much cash as they can from every ISP worldwide.  And they are desperately interested in maintaining control of an entertainment industry whose business model died two decades ago.

Let's examine what the WSJ article purports.  First, the RIAA says it will stop suing people for allegedly downloading music in violation of the copyright laws.  Good idea, given that the RIAA has done such a sloppy job of the lawsuits that they have filed against geriatric grandmothers, toddlers and even dead people.  The RIAA should have abandoned the strategy years ago.

For the record, ISPs have always been interested in protecting copyrights and cooperating with the entertainment industry.  I've personally been part to at least five meetings to discuss "cooperation," none of which were productive because the copyright holders have virtually no idea what an ISP is or how the Internet industry really works.  Like petulant, screaming children, they cannot be reasoned with.  They want it their way or no way. 

As for the supposed "new plan" in which ISPs will take over punishing file sharers, it's drivel and nonsense.  There is no such plan, and no major ISPs have agreed to it.  To do so would require them to violate the Digitial Millennium Copyright Act, violate their own terms of service agreements, and then put themselves in jeopardy of a network neutrality complaint by throttling back the service of consumers.  What nitwit would agree to that?

What ISPs will do is to adhere to the law, as they have since the law was enacted.  That's the fair and legal thing to do. 

Meanwhile, in the spirit of "cooperation," the copyright community is said to be actively shopping for a small ISP they can sue in the US, as they did in Australia, in an effort to force changes in the law that they can't coerce Congress to change for them.

And they are pursuing a new global trade agreement that would force liability on ISPs.  ACTA is being pushed by the Office of the US Trade Representative at the behest of copyright holders in the US, including the entertainment industry, again because Congress has been smart enough not to give them their way under US laws.

The fact that the RIAA is dropping its vile lawsuits is good news for consumers -- though they didn't say they plan to give money back to the hundreds of consumers whose lives they have ruined in this decade of lawsuits.  The fact that they may be interested in working with ISPs may be good news, if they will let go of their obsessive need to punish their own customers and instead focus on ways the entertainment industry can thrive online.

I'm skeptical that they will do this.  Every time I hear about a new plan from the RIAA the words "fava beans" and "chianti" pop into my head.  It is true that there is a future for the music and film industries online, and it is true that they will need the support of ISPs to make that future.  But that future doesn't begin by asking ISPs to break the law and violate their own customer relationships on the whim of the RIAA.

The spin doctors behind the "network neutrality" movement have been in crisis mode for the past few days, trying furiously to cover the fact that Google isn't really interested in treating all packets on the Internet the same.  In fact, Google's support of "network neutrality" now appears to have been just another one of Google's shameless efforts at self-enrichment.

For those who have forgotten, "Network Neutrality" was a movement started by Google in late 2005 in order to ensure that they kept their dominant position in the content delivery market and that consumers would foot the bill.  While they wrapped it in fancier terms -- such as insisting that all data packets that travel across the Internet be treated exactly the same -- the reality is that Google never did believe in any such thing.  They just wanted to "game" public policy for the Internet in order to gain a competitive advantage.

What they were trying to do was to keep network operators from offering better tiers of service to those who could and wanted to pay for it.  They decried any such tiered services as unfair to small net entrepreneurs, though in reality Google was already using such tiered services offered by private companies such as Akamai.

The game is this.  Google and other large content providers use a service called "local caching."  This service takes content from the Internet, transfers it to a private network, holds it on local servers all over the world until it is called for by a consumer, then transfers it back to the Internet for delivery.  Google's content benefits from faster delivery to the cache, and fewer hops to the consumer.  Faster and more secure delivery for a 21st Century Internet, just as has always been the case with the Internet.

That's not a bad idea.  In fact, George Ou of the Internet Technology and Innovation Foundation pointed out the benefits of this and other facets of intelligent networking this month in a guide for policy makers, as did the US Internet Industry Association in September.  The problem for Google is that if such services are widely available, they would be less costly.  And would thus be affordable for every web site on the Internet.  Thus cutting Google's competitive edge and profits.

Thus was born "network neutrality" -- a campaign to ensure through deceit and "gaming" Internet policy that no one other than the largest content providers would have fast, secure delivery of their products.  While Microsoft and Yahoo briefly signed on to this scheme, they have since recanted.  Good for them.

Here's the problem that Google has now.  Since the Wall Street Journal article exposed their shenanigans (see Wall Street Journal, December 15, "Google Wants Its Own Fast Track On The Internet"), they have to protect their empire while avoiding the outrage of millions of consumers, Congress-persons, president-elects and left-of-center bloggers who foolishly believed that "network neutrality" was a real issue that demanded immediate regulation.  Here's how they are handling it:

     1)  Trash the Wall Street Journal.   To hear Google's paid character assassins today, the WSJ is some crackpot bunch of rogue journalists incapable of getting their facts right.  THey are working hard to kill the messenger as quickly as possible.

     2)  Lie, lie, and lie again.  The spin is that what Google wants is "only" local caching, and while that would be a violation of network neutrality and fairness if anyone else did it, it is not if Google does it.  Really.

     3)  Rally consumers to the cause.  Or bumper sticker.  Whatever the "network neutrality" movement has degenerated into by now.  The effort must be made to cover up Google's secret actions by keeping consumers focused on hating and fearing their own ISPs.  Trust only Google.  Do not think independently.

What's funny about all of this is that Google, in trying to defend itself, has outlined very neatly why "network neutrality" is a really bad idea that actually hurts consumers, content providers and the Internet.

If you read Rick Whitt's post on the Google public policy blog, you'll find a straightforward admission that Internet traffic is growing -- thanks in no small part to YouTube -- and that it costs money to deliver that traffic.  Further, there is a tacit admission that purchasing a higher tier of service -- such as buying transit from a private network off of the Internet and using local traffic -- is necessary to give consumers a quality Internet experience.

I am hoping this is one battle the spin-meisters behind "network neutrality" lose.  They should, because it makes no sense to claim that Google can make use of advanced network services but small content providers can't.  It makes no sense to force consumers to bear the burden of the cost of content delivery so that Google can be more profitable and powerful.

Google's hand caught in the cookie jar is no surprise to anyone who knows the Internet, and no surprise to the handful of journalists who have actually studied "network neutrality" and its wacky, constantly shifting, incoherent, fact-ignoring mantra of hatred for the "duopolies" of broadband.  It will surprise only the well-intentioned Americans who thought their support was going toward a real and just cause.

Leave it to the Australians to point out -- once again -- that the emporer isn't wearing any clothes.

Or, in our case, that the whole issue of Network Neutrality is an American fiction based on a bad business model that has devalued the megabyte.  The point our that no where else in the world is "network neutrality" an issue, except perhaps among ISPs in the UK who attempt to follow the flawed American model.

A widely quoted article from ZDNet offers advice from three leading Australian ISPs, who note that the root of the problem is that our ISPs tried to offer unlimited bandwidth for a low flat price.  While this was possible in the market of a few years ago, the advent of video streaming and P2P have rendered the business model unworkable.  And the rest of the world, which has already lived with data caps, bandwidth throttling and other forms of controls, has not expectation that you can have all the bandwidth you want for next to nothing.  They live in a pay-for-what-you-use Internet world.

It doesn't take a psychic to read the subtext that labels us Americans as greedy gluttons, or the panderers of network neturality laws to be standard-bearers for entitlements and hand-outs at the expense of our Internet Service Providers.  The Aussies note that it is ridiculous to expect that our network operators should expand the networks without limit, at their own expense and with no hope of ever seeing a return on their investment.

Two other bits of data factor into this discussion.  The first is a recent survey reported over on Gigaom showing that 81 percent of consumers reject the idea of data caps, and only five percent support a pay-for-what-you-use business model for Internet bandwidth.  (The survey also found that 83 percent have no idea what a gigbyte is, or how many gigabytes of data they currently download, but that's fodder for another day.)

The second data bit is the economy.  With the current meltdown, most observers believe that we have come to the end of the era of expanding entitlements and hand-outs.  That may or may not be true to government, but the reality is that the wounded capital markets in the US won't sustain unlimited investments in bandwidth with no return on investment.  The markets simply won't have the funds to lend.

So in one sense the Australians are right.  We've painted ourselves into a corner in which we have created a consumer expectation of unlimited bandwidth based on a business model in which NO ONE PAYS.  Content owners don't pay for delivery of their content, consumers don't pay for the bandwidth they use, and network operators are prohibited from implementing any kind of new service that would foot the bill.  Instead, the whole thing is subsidized by investors and the government -- neither of which, as of today, can any longer afford to foot the bill. 

It will be interesting to see how this works out as the fairy tale of network neutrality meets the reality of a downturned market.  The whole point of network neutrality legislation seems to be to force consumers to foot the bill for the content they download, so that content providers can show a greater rate of return.  But consumers have their own voice, and their own tight pocketbooks to watch in the current economic downturn.

I'm betting that one good thing to come out of the current economic crisis is that consumers will vote their pocketbooks.  In which case the whole issue of network neutrality will slink back under the rock it came from.

Those who demand the regulation of broadband -- open access rules, network neutrality rules, a national broadband plan, rate regulations, expansion of universal service, ad nauseum -- are fond of claiming that what we must fear most is the emergence of a monopoly that controls all of broadband.  One mega, evil networking company that seeks to control what we see, how we see it, who can be on it, and who can't.

They speak of monopolies, and duopolies, and whatever-big-word-we-can-think-of-to-scare-you-opolies, and point their long, sanctimonious fingers at leading network operators as likely villians.

Which is proof that those who will not learn from history are doomed to become progressive liberal telecom pundits.

Just for the record, free markets abhor monopolies.  In a free market, unfettered by government interference, the marketplace will move quickly to quash possible monopolies through innovation, competition and consumer choice.

How, then, do monopolies get created?  By governments, of course.  Only with the direct intervention and deliberate cooperation of the government can monopolies form or continue.  A case in point?  Monopoly cable franchises.

But if we are talking about how broadband might become a monopoly, we have an even better example.  Once upon a time there was a telephone company called AT&T (which, for the record, is not the same company in any way as the current one that carries the AT&T brand name).  AT&T the telephone company did not set out to become the monopoly that had to be broken up in 1982.  It followed a process, set by the United States government and agreed to by the officers of that company in what, in retrospect, turned out to be a deal with the devil.

It began with the patents, and with the confusion and meddling at the Patent Office that gave the lion's share of the telephony patents to a single, pre-selected winner.  Then, around the time of World War I, the telephone system was declared so critical to the security and future of the US that it was nationalized.  Not many years later, the government sought to ensure low rates, and so introduced rate regulation for telephony -- including cross-subsidizations, government supports and other artificial mechanisms.  The final step was to make the telephone company an instrument of social policy by implementing universal service and minimum service mandates.

All of which must sound eerily familiar to those attempting to battle for consumer choice and free markets today.  The Patent Office is an ungodly mess, giving power hither and yon based on shifting definitions and interpretations.  In the wake of 9-11, we have the Internet declared to be essential to US security and the future.  So-called consumer advocates are demanding telephony-style rate regulation.  And Congress is trying to expand the mega-billion universal service program to broadband.

How much of this is supported by the networking companies?  None.  How much do they want to return to the old days of monopoly operations?  Not a bit.

Which again begs the question:  if it is not the networking companies pushing us down the long, slippery slope that could lead to a monopoly, who is it?

I'll take a wild guess that it is the same bunch of academics, policiticians and pundits who are pushing hard to put all the pieces of a monopoly in place -- the net neutrality/open access/rate regulation crowd.  They are not a bit interested in letting consumers in a free marketplace keep us off of that path, and are pushing as hard as they can to create the government co-conspiracy that will enable them to choose which monopoly company will succeed.

Which is why I can't and won't ever support them.

Hoo, boy, do the folks at Public Knowledge have thin skins. 

All it took was a blog post on the American Spectator site, referring to "Public Know Nothings," to set off a virulent attack on anyone who doesn't buy into the myth of "network neutrality."

"Most congressional Republicans oppose the idea of giving consumers freedom on the Internet," claims PK's Art Brodsky.  Democrats who oppose neutrality legislation are treated even worse -- "They are simply servants of corporate and/or union interests."

Brodsky goes on to trot out all the usual nonsense about how the Internet, though comprised of tens of thousands of individual, privately owned and operated networks, is somehow really the property of the US government, and a public utility to boot, and therefore all kinds of laws (like censorship laws) that don't apply to private companies somehow should apply, because...

Well, because what?

All this sloppy tripe, wrapping "network neturality" in the sheep's clothing of "Internet freedom" can't hide four basic problems with the whole "neutrality" campaign:

1)  No one knows what the hell you are talking about, including you.  The definition of "network neutrality" changes almost daily, according to whatever whimsical issue the neutrality advocates are angry about.  Sometimes it is tiered pricing, sometimes it is about faster delivery of high-bandwidth applications, sometimes it is about their right to chant obscenities over the Internet, and sometimes it is just about resurrecting the failed telecom policies of the Nineties.  Whatever.  Just go away until you can actually explain what you are angry about, in ten words or less.  Without quoting Karl Marx.

2)  Consumers aren't buying it.  If this is such a burning, critical, house-a-fire issue that demands immediate regulation and legislation, where's your support?  Sure, the folks at MoveOn.Org got its army of zombies to paper Congress over the issue back when it was trying to win the 2006 election for the Democrats.  But let's do the math here.  There are now some 100 million Internet subscribers in the United States, including 70 million households.  There were 150,000 people who sent emails to Congress in support of Network Neutrality.  That's 0.15 percent of the online consumers.  Not 1%.  Fifteen hundredths of one percent.  By conparison, 24 percent of Americans believe in alien abductions, and 7% believe Elvis is still alive. 

3)  This isn't a "one-size-fits-all" Internet.  As it stands today, consumer rights on broadband networks are guided by a set of Principles adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2005.  These Principles were intentionally not made regulations, in order to afford the Commission the ability to assess each situation as it comes up.  They recognized that you can't simply slap heavy-handed regulation on an emerging technology, or the evolution of that technology would almost immediately render the regulations useless.  Sadly, this system does not give lobbyists, advocates and self-styled "public interest groups" the opportunity to self-aggrandize and score political points.  It doesn't permit blatant "gaming" of the system.  And it requires that those who file complaints actually have facts to present. Network Neutrality advocates are hoping to overturn this sensible system, and you have to wonder why.

4)  It's tired.  It's been dragging on since the fall of 2005.  The US Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the US Congress have repeatedly and consistently said there is no basis for Network Neutrality legislation, yet the issue stumbles on like a weary, mindless zombie headed no-one-knows-where.  Its 15 minutes of fame are over.  Taps has been sounded.  It's time to Move On.

Two and a half years.  Millions of consumer tax dollars spent.  Public hearings on both coasts.  Tens of thousands of pages of files.  And to what end?  There still is no evidence that freedom on the Internet is in jeopardy, unless you count the "freedom" to steal your neighbor's share of the local loop.  Nothing has happened that the system can't handle efficiently, as we have already demonstrated. 

That doesn't mean that we don't have some work to do.  The US broadband infrastructure is great today, but will need ever more work to expand and improve it in the future.  We have to address the illiteracy rates and lack of computing skills among some members of our population, so that they can more easily participate in the benefits of the Internet.  And we need to continue to encourage innovation and investment.

"Network Neutrality" does none of these things, and it is time we stopped wasting time on it.

Here's the sad truth about the self-styled consumer groups, the "progressive" think tanks and others pushing the network neutrality agenda:  they could care less about about truth, fairness or neutrality.  They just don't want to lose their status and money.

Because if we really allow a free and competitive market to sort out possible neutrality problems, and empower consumers to think and act for themselves, what do we need those guys for?  Well, nothing.  And that's the crux of the matter.

I don't live and breath the NN debate, nor do I take time away from working on the fuel system of my 1987 Gold Wing Interstate motorcylce worrying about what outrageous blather these guys and their henchmen at FreePress.org and MoveOn.Org will do next.  What they do will be shown as nonsense in coming weeks, but the erratic fuel system on my motorcycle could prevent me from enjoying the skyline of the Blue Ridge Mountains this summer.  One has to have priorities in life.

But I am struck by some of the idiocracies that seem to come almost daily now:

• Google helped to champion the NN debate by proclaiming that no content provider's traffic should recieve special treatment by being moved over special, more reliable networks.  And yet Google does exactly that, using the private Akamai network to move its content.
• NN advocates screamed long and loud -- and demanded immediate FCC action -- over Verizon's initial decision not to carry policitical text messages related to abortion.  The media went ballistic, pundits raised a howl, FCC petitions were launched, etc.  Yet this week, when a UK group sued Google for not allowing their anti-abortion message to be advertised on Google's search engine, no one raised a peep.  Not one.  So much for their  commitment to neutrality.
• One of the foundation stones of the NN movement is that America has fallen behind in broadband deployment (though in truth, the OECD data showing the US in 14th place was based on adoption rates, which are different from deployment rates).  The OECD data was trumpeted by every left-wing, anti-American, anti-broadband web site in the galaxy.  This week, a better and truly independent study that showed the US to be 4th in the world in its broadband infrastructure and getting better every day was announced by the World Economic Forum, and few so-called tech media outlets could be bothered to mention it.  (CNet and the New York Times did, to their credit.  Not much of anyone else.)

There's a political agenda at work here, and a nasty one.  The truth is being ignored, so that "progressive" liberal sites can hold on to what little power they have and can do their best to dismantle and destroy what is universally recognized as the best and most effective broadband infrastructure in the world.

Shame on them.  They do an injustice to those liberals who truly want the best for our nation.  They do an injustice to the thousands of broadband companies and workers who have worked long hours and invested billions of dollars in this country's infrastrucutre.  And they mightily underestimate the intelligence of the Congress, the government employees and the consumers who aren't buying their smoke and mirrors.

And shame on us, for not speaking up against it more often.  

I don't much care for what passes as research these days, particularly when it relates to the Internet.  So much of it is pure hooey, sloppily manufactured in order to give credence to some political point of view -- as when the net neutrality crowd claims that consumers don't support tiered pricing, or when a report claims that there are hundreds of thousands of predators online at any given time.  The first time someone asks to see the source data that documents this nonsense, it collapses.

Other research is simply tail chasing.  That is, the survey asks people for their opinion rather than measuring fact.  There is a lot of that online today, particularly when we survey people about whether broadband is being deployed quickly enough.  One has to wonder why the answer would be the subjective opinion of someone who may or may not know anything about the subject, when we can simply apply quantitative measures.

Whatever the reasons, nearly all of the research that makes headlines is junk.  I know this because my many years of post-graduate work in education and business have included a staggering number of classes in research and statistical analysis.  But it's also not just my opinion -- it has been noted extensively by publications that include the Wall Street Journal and scientific journals.  The problem is that surveys and studies are pushed out into the blogosphere or front pages as fact -- with no peer review, no evaluation of the design of the study, and no application of statistical analysis to the results.

But sometimes there is also a glimmer of a fact that bears consideration and further research.

Last week, Burst Media reported a survey of more than 13,000 web users 18 years and older about their views on the availability of age focused online content, website design, and targeted online advertising.

The conclusion: a majority of Internet users 45 years and older believe online content is focused on younger age segments and does not meet their needs.  In fact, within this age segment only one in three (35.4%) believe online content is focused on people their own age. Few respondents 55 years and older say Internet content is primarily focused on people their age.

I do not know how good the Burst Media data is -- there is no source data provided, so it could simply be more pablum.  But I am inclined to think it may have a glimmer of fact in it, because it is consistent with data collected over the past decade by the Pew Internet and American Life project that shows as many as one-fourth of Americans avoid using the Internet because it is not relevant to their lives.  A 2007 study by Pew's John Horrigan found only about 8 percent of the population avidly uses technology in their lives, and half use it only occasionally.

Roughly one-third of the population is over the age of 45, and the median age is 36.9 years.  That doesn't bode well for an industry obsessed with youth, social networks, music downloading, television over the Internet and ads focused on young people -- particularly since the percentage of older Americans is growing.

This is awkward.  We've spent so many years assuming that the "digital divide" was the result of some greedy and nefarious plotting by network operators that we never considered that the real villain could be an Internet that is boring and irrelevant to a major chunk of the population.  If this is true, the majority of politicians and pundits working on broadband issues may have spent the better part of a decade chasing myths.  And a majority of leading Internet companies are following strategies that may lead them straight to the poorhouse.

Of course, none of this may hold up under real scientific scrutiny.  But before we rush off to craft a national broadband policy, as so many are demanding that we do without delay, we ought to find out.  Because the Internet is so closely tied to our national economy and culture that we can't afford to rush off half-cocked.  For the sake of our seniors, our minority members, and consumers as a whole, we need more research before we leap to conclusions.

If the research holds true, we'll need to do some serious re-tooling of the economic model of the Internet.  Diversify the advertising so that it appeals more to seniors and minorities.  Clean up the sloppy mess that passes for news and information.  Find out what the other half of America wants and needs from its Internet experience, and take steps to provide it to them.  Shore up security so that banking online and health online -- two areas of special interest to those over 45 -- can be done without fear of identity theft or blackmail.

We'll have to stop this incessant bickering over imaginary threats and begin to work on real ones.  We'll have to kick the money-changers out of the Temple, stop pandering to the lowest common denominator, and tell most of the self-styled consumer advocates to take a hike.

At least, that's what this doddering old guy thinks.

A small news item this week caught the eye of many of us who have labored over the problem of peer-to-peer networks.  Verizon has presented the restults of its investigation into how network management can be used to enhance the ability of users to download and upload over peer-to-peer networks without encumbering other users on the network.

Whether it ever gets adopted, this is a nice piece of innovative thinking on the part of Verizon -- the very kind of innovative thinking that we will need as we move the Internet forward into the remainder of the 21st Century.  The problem is that this kind of innovation can't ever exist or even be considered if we rush to adopt a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme for network management in the name of "neutrality."

The idea that the Internet should be a "dumb pipe" that operates without management was never part of Internet engineering -- that's why a "Transmission Control Protocol" had to be added to the "Internet Protocol" to enable the TCP/IP we use today.  Nor was there any agreement that we should somehow freeze Internet technology at 1980 levels in order to be "fair."  Rather, there was agreement that the Internet should be a place where innovation and new applications were encouraged, and that practices and protocols should be carefully managed through processes that allow the greatest number of users to have the greatest possible Internet experience at any single moment in time.

What happens when we replace this forward thinking with a single set of rigid rules enforced by a government agency that works months, or even years, behind real time?  Innovation dies, no matter how well-intentioned the government may be, because there is little point in innovating if the technology will be another year or two down the road by the time it can be approved for use.  New applications die because a small group of regulators, rather than consumers, get to decide which ones can survive in the marketplace.  And they will die because the investors who fund these innovations and applications can't wait years to see whether there might be a return on investment.

Network Neutrality would return telecommunications in the United States to a single, monolithic entity ruled by the government, where innovation was stifled in the name of "balance" and "fairness."  It would wrest the Internet from the hands of engineers and entrepreneurs and place it instead in the hands of telecom lawyers, lobbyists and career regulators.  It would choke the life out of the Internet as we know it today in order to ensure that the Internet returns to the "dumb pipe" days of three decades ago.

I celebrate Verizon's accomplishment and innovation, and look forward to other initiatives in network management that will deliver the fastest, most economical, most effective experience to me -- and every other user on the network -- in the most innovative ways the network operators can deliver.

And "neutrality" be damned. 

To the Commissioners:

I, Dave McClure, on behalf of myself and the more than 200 million Americans who subsribe to Internet services in the United States, request that the Commission issue a Declaratory Ruling that would require Internet Service Providers to adopt resonable and best practices for the management of their networks in a manner that does not permit discrimination by some Internet applications and users to reduce, block, degrade or otherwise lessen the integrity of my Internet and online experience.

Specifically, I submit the following:

• The principles adopted by the Commission do not pertain exclusively to network operators, but do state that I and other network subscribers have the right to access the content of my choice using the devices and applications of my choice.  It is therefore reasonable to assume that these rules must likewise pertain to individuals and applications that limit, reduce or block my ability to do so.
• As noted by Peter Svensson of the Associated Press, "In the basic configuration, each cable serves about 500 households, which share about 40 megabits per second of download capacity. If each household gets Internet service with a maximum download speed of 10 mbps, that means four of them downloading at full speed can saturate the connection."  DSL does not use a similar shared network, but suffers degradation when even a small minority of users elect downloads that saturate the capacity of the networks.  This degradation is even more significant on optical wireless and satellite Internet connections that are common in rural settings.  This means that a small number of users may therefore reduce my ability to download due to their excessive use of the Internet -- even though I am paying the same rate for my connection.  This is ipso facto discrimination against my ability to access and use the applications of my choice over the Internet, a violation of the principles adopted by the Commission by individual users who over-consume.
• These over-consuming users and applications likewise degrade my ability to use specific applications that include security systems, Voice-over-IP telephony and E-911 services, as well as the communications of Emergency First Response teams, law enforcement, fire and safety crews and others who utilize the public Internet.  They therefore represent a clear, present and quantified danger to the public safety and my personal well-being.
• The Internet was not ever and is not today designed to handle the demands of predatory applications, such as peer-to-peer networking applications, that use "supernode" configurations and other means to utilize a disproportionate amount of bandwidth.  Such applications are specifically designed to reduce and limit my ability to utilize the Internet as stated in the principles noted previously by intentionally permitting and encouraging other users of the Internet to discriminate against my use by taking a disproprtionate portion of our jointly allocated bandwidth.
• Merely adding capacity to the network is an unfair and discriminatory solution to this problem because the costs associated with the additional capacity are to be paid by me and by other subscribers with no guarantee that the additional capacity will not simply be consumed by rogue users and applications as it is today.  Additionally, the requirement to simply add capacity to lessen the demands of the over-users and rogue applications will reduce the investment dollars available for network build-out and enhancements, particularly in rural areas such as the one in which I reside.  This would therefore represent a secondary level of discrimination against my rightful use of the Internet.
• Adding capacity to satisfy the users and applications who are discriminating against me and other users today would unfairly target working families, lower-income Americans, rural Americans, senior citizens and others who cannot afford the financial burden of paying for the use of those who choose to discriminate against us.  To put it more simply, why should lower-income Americans be forced to pay for the excessive abuses of the minority of Internet users who consume disproportionate bandwidth?

I therefore petition the Commission to issue the following as Declaratory Rulings:

• That the protections specified in the Principles adopted by the FCC with regard to my right for non-discriminatory access to Internet content using the applications and devices of my choosing be clarified to extend to users and applications that actively discriminate against me by using a disproportionate percentage of the available shared bandwidth on my network.
• That network operators be required to implement reasonable practices to ensure that this discriminatory behavior does not occur, and that the Internet access and use of any one subscriber is not unfairly diminished, degraded or blocked by the actions of any other user or application.

Regards,

Dave McClure

ReasonedResponse.Com