[FC-discuss] Video: Broadband Breakfast on FCC Reporting and Analysis

[Seth Johnson]

Um, the panel was perplexed by Brett's question.  :-)

They seemed to get my point pretty well.  Maybe the full
implications haven't dawned on them -- but John Horrigan, when I
spoke to him afterwards, completely got my point that a general
purpose platform should be understood to be an "advanced
telecommunications service" -- and that NN derives from the design
that gives us that.

Indeed, I would say that the general purpose platform that the IP
layer gives us is the *most* advanced telecommunications service.
 I often say that I want a computer more than I want a graphics card!


Seth


-----Original Message-----
From: "Matthew Senate" <mattsenate at berkeley.edu>
To: "Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization
in particular" <discuss at freeculture.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:23:46 -0800
Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Video: Broadband Breakfast on FCC
Reporting and Analysis

> Also,
> 
> For Brett Glass followers--he asks a question immediately
> following Seth.
> The response is pretty much "I'm perplexed by your question."
> 
> >
> > Hello all -- Last week I went to this month's Broadband
> Breakfast,
> > which was attended by Paul de Sa, John Horrigan and Michelle
> Connolly,
> > three current and former FCC staffers working in the area of
> > reporting, analysis and strategy and policy planning. de Sa
> is the
> > Chief of the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis
> and was
> > the keynote speaker.
> >
> > You can find my participation at 40 mins and 40 seconds in at
> the
> > following video link:
> >
> > Setting the Table for the National Broadband Plan: Collecting
> and
> > Using Broadband Data: How Will We Improve the Process?
> >>
> http://broadbandbreakfast.com/2010/02/broadband-breakfast-club-
> on-collecting-and-using-data-now-online/
> >
> >
> > My mission was to impress on them that they should delineate
> a general
> > purpose platform category in their analyses, and to make sure
> they
> > understand that this is a way of assuring the principle of a
> neutral
> > Internet even if the FCC turns out not to have the authority
> to set a
> > rule for net neutrality.  It also prevents the muddying of
> the waters
> > that comes from the "reasonable network management" framing
> and the
> > debates over the role of Quality of Service.
> >
> > Hopefully I managed to get them to recognize the usefulness
> of doing
> > this.
> >
> > I provided them with copies of my independent submission to
> the FCC on
> > this concept, which you can access here:
> >> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020378855
> >>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/25267644/Seth-Johnson-Comments-on-Pre
> serving-the-
> >
> > I also provided copies of the pages of the Dynamic Platform
> Standards
> > Project website:
> >> http://www.dpsproject.com
> >
> >
> > Since this was the right context for it, I laid copies on the
> table at
> > the entrance of the "Executive Summary" and "Implications for
> > Broadband" portions of Bruce Kushnick's "History, Financial
> > Commitments and Outcomes of Fiber Optic Broadband Deployment
> in
> > America: 1990-2004:"
> >> http://www.newnetworks.com/FCCCITIbroadband.pdf
> >
> >
> > Seth
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at freeculture.org
> > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss