Earlier this week I was contacted by Seth Johnson who was organizing a response to the FCC’s Further Inquiry into Two Underdeveloped Issues in the Open Internet Proceeding. Seth asked if I would consider signing on in support of joint comments which urge the FCC to consider appropriate distinction between the open Internet and “specialized services” in light of changes in the market. As I said in previous Cool Stuff, both basic packet Internet and specialized services are important components of a robust and diverse market place. I jointed the statement along with 31 other distinguished experts in this field.
Here is what some of my cosigners have said in their blogs:
- David Isenberg: Towards an Open Internet
- Paul Jones: Identifying the Internet (for the FCC)
- Gene Gaines: The Press Release
- Brough Turner: Netblazr: Seeking Federal Recognition for the Open Internet
- David Weinberger: Identifying the Internet
- John Furrier: Big Name Industry Pioneers & Experts Push FCC for Open Internet
- David Reed: A Statement from Various Advocates for an Open Internet – Why I Signed On
I am not going to rehash all of the bright, insightful things these experts have said – I will not do them justice. I do recommend that you read them, though.
Insight: Both the open Internet and specialized services exist in the market, and have for some time. However, this is an important juncture to define: 1) where one begins and the other ends and 2) what are the appropriate measures necessary to preserve competition and fair play. I joined on the comments because it does not advocate a particular policy outcome. Rather, we urge the FCC that by “addressing this distinction in itself enables the analysis and pursuit of policy goals to proceed with a profound new level of clarity.” This is of particular national importance. The Internet is an American invention. It is and will continue to be an important ingredient to economic development and global competitiveness.