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' now speed along networks of cable, wire, and broadband.  `Digital data' has recently been 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 are 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.

Those who work with software: ISPs, Microsoft, Adobe, eBay, Google, Yahoo, Bank of America and eCommerce providers, were late to lobbying on telecom legislation.  The SOFTWARE LAYER that makes the Internet interesting - that creates the 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, the software layer has remained invisible.  Our interests are being sabotaged by the telecoms.

The Technology Formerly Known as Cable Television threatens to swallow 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: 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 to claim that they should not be constrained by Common Carrier restrictions or regulation.  After 2000, they moved forward on both the legal and legislative fronts.  

In 2002, the cable companies requested that the FCC reclassify cable into an 'information service." As an "information service", cable fell under Title I. That placed it outside the regulatory requirements of Title II's Common Carrier provisions. In other words, the FCC redesignation opened cable up to a whole new way of charging for the content carried along the wires. But until 2005, telephone remained under Title II. The new opportunities available to "information services" were not lost on the telecoms, who moved forward on both the legal and legislative fronts. The phone companies had to prevail in court before making their case to the FCC; the critical case was decided in 2005 and is referred to as "Brand X."

In 2005, a US Circuit Court decided in "Brand X" that The Technology Formerly Known as Phone was an "information service", which placed 'phone' (telecom) outside the legal boundaries of the Common Carrier Title II provisions of the Telecommunications Act.  

With the courts deciding in their favor, the phone companies still needed a decision from the FCC confirming their new, PayToPlay status a "information services." In August, 2005, the telecoms pproached the FCC with the "Brand X" decision and asked to be redesignated as an "Information service." The FCC complied with the telecom request.

The FCC opined that The Technology Formerly Known As Phone, reformatted into sequences like:  001001010001110, would no longer be subject to the social contract and legal frameworks applied to Common Carriers.

To soften the blow, and pay lip service to the Common Carrier assumptions that had been undercut by their redesignation, the FCC developed a statement of "four principles" when they reclassified 'phone' as an 'information service.' Principles are feel good actions that carry no legal enforcement power. The high-minded statements about "principles" also enabled the telecoms to pontificate about the fact that such principles existed, thereby soothing qualms of the naive. FCC statements about 'principles' for protecting open access to "information services" carried by the network are technically true, but virtually meaningless. Pun intended.

The Technology Formerly Known as Cable Television started morphing into a Telecom Behemoth created out of:  (1) miles of cable and high-speed wires, (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 was no longer a Common Carrier.   Legal protections for access, price, reliability, or any other form of oversight are up for grabs.  

The Telecom Behemoth needs the 2006 Telecommunications Act passed without a whiff of Net Neutrality language.  Understandably, the telecoms prefer no federal oversight of the promising, bountiful revenue stream they're poised to build via the Tiered Access to Information Services.

Armed with the "Brand X" legal decision, and also the FCC pronouncement from Aug 2005, the telecoms are persuading 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 had written a line of PHP, C#, C++, Perl, Java, or any other SOFTWARE CODE language.  Congress writes LEGAL CODE. So far, the LEGAL CODE has failed to recognize and legislate Net Neutrality principles that are critical for writing the SOFTWARE CODE that has allowed the Internet to become a significant segment of the US economy.

The SOFTWARE LAYER, the code that makes the Internet a wonderful, exciting place, is literally "invisible" to Congress. Net Neutrality protections are extremely important in developing the SOFTWARE LAYER. This layer is built collaboratively, by people working together who need equal access, value collaborative environments, use best practices, cooperate, and build consensus.  

Principles of Net Neutrality structure the organizations and decisions behind the ECONOMIC VITALITY of the Internet - the search engines, the browsers, the apps...
Unfortunately, Congress doesn't understand the nexus between Net Neutrality, 2006 Telecommunications Bill, and the `software layer' of the Internet.  

Apart from several exceptions - Rep Jay Inslee, whose district includes Redmond, WA; Zoe Lofgren, whose district covers Silicon Valley -- Congress does not understand why Net Neutrality provisions must be included in the 2006 Telecommunications Act.  Congress fails to understand that leaving Net Neutrality out of the 2006 Telecommunications Act threatens to cripple the most vital, dynamic, productive segment of the Internet: the web-based applications.

By itself, Net Neutrality has very little to do with blogging, but everything to do with supporting eCommerce, accessing Open Source information, collaborating on innovative products.  

The telecoms can lay cable and broadband from Silicon Valley 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 CREATES VALUE - creates services, generates excitement, develops new products, streamlines organizations, and reduces the costs of information throughout government and business.

The logic of Net Neutrality is collaborative; it's open, shared, exchanged... a lot like a free market.  But the logic of Net Neutrality that drives software development is at odds with the `privatizing' logic of the telecoms.

"Information services", aka, The Technology Formerly Known As Cable, can add tier after tier after tier of payment requirement.  It restricts competition. The logic of broadband is the logic of subscriptions.  You want the good stuff?  Badda-bing! Pay extra!

So... you want to use an eComm app?  Ka-ching! Pay more for THAT SERVICE.
So... you want to place video files online? Ka-Ching! Pay more for THAT SERVICE.
So... you want to purchase a song from iTunes?  If you are a PREMIUM SUBSCRIBER, you can get to iTunes with one mouse click. Otherwise... expect to encounter Serious Browser Hang Time, and click through 3+ ads from our 'premium content providers' while you hapless schmucks attempt to access iTunes.

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, dismiss Net Neutrality as alarmist.  "What's to worry?' they ask.  "If there's a problem, take it to the FCC."

However, the FCC would hear problems 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!  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 the Telecomm Act is only about ROI.

The telecoms claim that they need to `charge more for access' in large part because they've `invested.'  Since when did the telecoms become main investors in the Internet?!!   How did the telecoms manage to claim ownership of the 'investments' made by thousands of software developers, school districts across the nation, entreprenures, banks, insurance corporations, and millions of Americans?!

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.  They probably believe that telecoms need the ROI.  But they are ill-informed, because they are too focused on one narrow slice of a very, very big pie.  

Without Net Neutrality, 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.  Because without Net Neutrality provisions in the 2006 Telecommunications Act, your chances of new, web-based services and software applications begin to dwindle.  Economic innovators will find it more difficult to do their work.

Unfortunately, the software companies have not yet educated Congress about the significance of the `software layer', which relies on Net Neutrality protections.

Right now, US Senators need to understand:

1. ALL OF US have invested in the Internet.

2. Simply 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.