![Communications Communications](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/communications_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![Networking Networking](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/networking_64.png)
![Businesses Businesses](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png)
![Politics Politics](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/politics_64.png)
Overhauled Telecommunications Law Draft 136
pin_gween writes "ZDNet.com has published info on proposed changes to the telecommunications laws. The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce committee released a 77-page staff working draft (PDF alert) and is now calling for comments from interested parties. Highlights include: 'The draft defines, for regulatory purposes, broadband Internet transmission services--or BITS--as "a packet-switched service that is offered to the public," regardless of the equipment or protocol used. That puts DSL and cable providers on equal footing... A federal framework for regulating BITS, VoIP and broadband video services...BITS, VoIP and broadband video services must not block their subscribers' access to any content or applications and must allow their subscribers to connect to their services with whichever devices they choose...Recourse for VoIP providers: They're expected to negotiate their own rates with telecommunications companies for use of their wires'"
It's Friday (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's Friday (Score:2)
Re:It's Friday (Score:3, Informative)
One thing to note, does this imply that ANYONE who writes VoIP software has to register with their state before allowing anyone to use it? (see section 202 [paperlined.org] and the definition of VoIP Service and VoIP provider [paperlined.org])
Re:It's Friday (Score:2)
And yet, it doesn't seem like they clarify the definition of "VoIP service" in the LEAST bit to clarify whether they in fact intend to include things like NetMeeting conferences, open source authors of SIP software, etc etc. Hopefully that's clarified soon rather than later.
The same
Re:It's Friday (Score:2)
Re:It's Friday (Score:2)
Re:It's Friday (Score:2)
Re:It's Friday (Score:2)
Ahead of the effect. (Score:1, Informative)
SMTP server at home? (Score:4, Interesting)
Would this mean that they cant block port 25 and that someone could run their own private SMTP server at home on their DSL line? More SPAM anyone?
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:1)
Save a mailbox...Support Port Control!
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:5, Interesting)
As you suggested, the ability of ISPs to block ports is, in many cases, a seemingly-necessary evil, and I'm sure that the Telecom committee would hear from many leading ISPs that this is the case.
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
Most subscribers would never bump up against most restrictions, and would remain walled off. Power users could easily open up as much as they need.
Are there any existing ways to give individual subscribers control over these things, that ISPs could be pointed to and told "implement THIS."?
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:3, Informative)
<shamless plug>
DSL Extreme [dslextreme.com]
(Don't work for them, just really like their service)
</shameless plug>
Keeps port 25 outbound blocked by default, but by just going through a few clicks on their site you can have it unblocked. If they notice a large amount of traffic from you on port 25 they will turn it off again and ask you to explain yourself.
This is really the way it should work, give me a pipe and let me put whatev
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
Being small and poor as a company is a lame excuse for not knowing what's going on and not doing proper design.
It's not like there's any lack of information out there about how to do things correctly, so any businessperson who starts an ISP who can't afford to do quality work doesn't deserve to have a business doing it anyway.
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
It was a simple change to set up because I was already requiring authentication over TLS for mail relaying. If you're leaving a public mail server out there you really should be authenticating over an encrypted connection anyway. This is just a simple adjustment that
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
I do have a "constant" connection at home. With cable modem. Its up pretty much 24/7. My DNS provider can't tell client which port to use for incoming mail though. It is assumed to be port 25. Of course I don't relay that email.
Why would I bother with SSL? In this application (receiving internet mail), its almost completely useless (specifically, I can't control relaying that may already have happened).
I tried,
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
No reason to block port 25 inbound, ~ever~ (Score:2)
Bellsouth blocks port 25 outbound and inbound, which irritates me no end. They started the latter when they upgraded my line to 3Mbps. They have no legitimate reason for this; it only serves to artificially push users to expensive "business" lines.
Would to Bog I could get Speakeasy in my neighborhood. Alas, too far from the CO. RR business class is competitive in my area, and they don't block ports las
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:1)
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bingo! But unintended effect. (Score:2)
But, there is a history of laws being passed that have unintended intepretations. A very good example is ERISA. This was intended to give employers who ran their own insurance program some discretion in intrepreting the plan, but every insurance plan that the employer collects the money for, then pays to the insurance company now uses it to get out of paying claims.
Re:Bingo! But unintended effect. (Score:2)
Okay, that doesn't strictly say that they can block port 25, but my bet is that if anybody decided to press the issue, a judge would rule that way
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
"The draft defines, for regulatory purposes, broadband Internet transmission services--or BITS--as "a packet-switched service that is offered to the public," regardless of the equipment or protocol used."
Using that definition, BITS is internet access in general.
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yours truly, large ISP guy (in the physical and corporate sense of the term).
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:3, Insightful)
But it would mean for example that the BITSP couldn't block you from using a protocol that wasn't declared out and out illegal, for example Bittorrent. It would also mean they
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:1)
Since it is a fair bet that most members of Congress grew up and received their education prior to the PC generation - and wouldn't know Skype from Kazaa from iPod from Linux - now is the time to help educate them before we wind up with yet more misguided laws.
Just as an aside, do you think Judge Roberts is computer and technology literate? - it's his Court that is going to inherit whatever this mess turns into. I ten
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
This would definitely seem to preempt such laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
ISP's who don't want their customers to be running their own E-mail servers can register their domain ranges to this list. Companies and individuals then look up each IP address in this list and reject the connection accordingly.
Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:2)
My DSL provider is pretty cool - 5M down, 512k up and doesn't care what I run as long as I don't exceed his (rather generous) bandwidth limits. I'm running mail, IRC and limited web services on his wire.
The thing that stood out for
What does this mean? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What does this mean? (Score:2)
To slashdot the government, man.
What about the USF? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:What about the USF? (Score:1)
Re:What about the USF? (Score:3, Informative)
Here in Australia our USF pays for non profitable public telephone services in remote areas. This is deemed to be a good thing.
You may not agree, bit I think cross subsidies like this keep our less populated areas from being entirely without the comforts of the modern world.
Re:What about the USF? (Score:1)
I think cross subsidies like this keep our less populated areas from being entirely without the comforts of the modern world.
Nobody is forced to live in a less populated area. It's their choice, and as with most choices, it comes with upsides and downsides. One of the downsides is that telecom is expensive.
Kind of hard to have a farm downtown. (Score:2)
On the same logic but reveresed, why should these outlying areas end up paying for mass transit solutions in the cities? Pay for special blends of fuel that are imposed region wide because people who live in high density areas drive too many cars? State funds going to pay for a "domed" entertainment
Re:What about the USF? (Score:2)
We have a heavy economic reliance on people working in remote areas. Farming and mining are two examples. In some areas communication services would cost 1000's of times what they do in the city and no people would work there.
Subsidies like this are actually important for our economy. Less so than in the USA, but the argument
Re:What about the USF? (Score:2)
This is one of those "manifest destiny" type things that drives me crazy. People just assume that it is the right of humanity to cover the entire globe with our coveniences: electricity, running water, and telephony. But is that really a good idea? I always think of that planet in Star Wars (Coruscant?) that is completely covered in city.
Re:What about the USF? (Score:2)
Imagine if Wal-Mart decided they were going to tack on a $0.50 'electricity surcharge' to
Re:What about the USF? (Score:1)
Re:What about the USF? (Score:1)
I don't actually mind paying the buck or two for the USF, as I see it as a worthy cause.
Good for you! Feel free to donate as much of your own money to that cause as you want.
I'll never understand folks who pay $4 for a cup of Starbuck's coffee every morning, but complain about the chump change they contribute to the USF.
The difference is that nobody is forcing you to spend $4 at Starbuck's, but you want to force other people to pay into USF.
Re:What about the USF? (Score:1)
Why do the telecom companies separately add on their costs of doing business, while practically no other industry does this?
Car dealers get away with this practice too, sometimes charging a $100+ 'advertising fee' to cover the costs of regional advertising. I know they have
Re:What about the USF? (Score:1)
Though it's mildly annoying, I ac
Re:What about the USF? (Score:2)
Re:What about the USF? (Score:1)
I like that one. How do they determine how much the market will bear?
Customer: "I think you're charging me too much in additional fees. I'd like you to lower those fees to the actual cost that you have to pay.
Verizon: No.
One way to 'let the market decide' is to switch to another carrier (if it's a cellphone at least) however since these fees aren't published there's no way of telling if the company you're switching to charges more!
I actual
Re:What about the USF? (Score:2)
I did once see a writeup on the problem, with numbers, and it said that on average the telcos tack about $4 (*per fee*) on top of the mandated fees.
Side note: my LD service is thru Costco's contract with an MCI reseller called "TTI National". I pay about 5 cents a minute (sometimes it's less) for LD, an additional 2% or so in tax, and NO add-on or access fees whatsoever.
Re:What about the USF? (Score:2)
Re:What about the USF? (Score:2)
I would much prefer to have the total package price shown before I commit to a contract. With the phone company, you can't even find out what fees will be added or how much they are until you receive your first bil
Re:What about the USF? (Score:2)
Ummm...You mean exactly the way that Sales Tax appears on my receipt every time I shop there?
Re:What about the USF? (Score:2)
They do. It's called "overhead" and it's already factored into the amount (markup) they add to their wholesale price (what they pay for the item) that results in the retail price (what you pay them for that item). They just don't give you a breakdown of how much i
So? (Score:5, Interesting)
The USF is an outmoded concept and should be eliminated. It was a tolerable idea in the time where the only option to get communications into rural locations was physically running expensive wires. Now we have satellite, cellular, cable and other sources for telecommunications.
Yes, maybe your phone service will cost you $100/month and your internet $200/month in rural farm country Kansas. Maybe phone and internet together runs someone in downtown Boston $30/month. The people in Kansas need to get over it. Their houses don't cost $1000/sq ft either. The cost of living in a city is high, but your access to everything is very easy. Your cost of living in the country is low, and your access to everything may also be expensive. Thats the trade-off. People who choose one lifestyle over another should not have any requirement to support those who made the other choice or be supported by those who made the other choice. Thats just rediculous.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's all well and good until you realise that the $300 you're talking about can be a whole week of average wages in rural Kansas. Can YOU afford to pay 25% of your monthly income just to get basic telephone and internet access??
And remember, cellular service in rural areas is typically spotty to absent.
Re:So? (Score:2)
You have no right to access, and I have no obligation to ensure you have it.
And cellular service would get excellent if there just plain wasn't copper.
I've been in rural China and seen farmers standing in the middle of rice paddies a hundred miles from any town of any significance chatting away on their cell phones. Their cell phones they get 3G internet access over, as well. (That was a shocker, finding satellite TV and computers in cinder block houses that didn't even have windows!)
Thats how muc
Re:So? (Score:1, Troll)
Too bad about that whole torturing and killing dissidents thing.
Oh, wait, we do that too. Never mind. (Oh, sorry, I forgot -- we only do it to towelheads. That makes it so much better).
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
NOW what are you going to eat? bread imported from China?? China is going to LOVE that.
PS. I've personally lived (long-term) where phone service of ANY sort was just flat not available. If you haven't, maybe you shouldn't have the right to decide what it's okay for someone else to do without, because you don't know what you're talking about until you've DONE without.
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
If they pay enough, phone service will be built.
NOW what are you going to eat?
The price of bread will rise just enough to cover the farmers' higher communications costs. Everything naturally works out in the end without the need for extra government bureaucracy or fraudulent misrepresentations in phone company advertisements about monthly costs.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:1)
Give me a fscking break. Using modern technology alternatives (including satellite, microwave etc.), unsubsidized phone service could certainly be provided to every boondocks location in the United States for $300/month or less. Surely each farmer produces more than one loaf of bread per month.
Next you'll be arguing that farmers need to be given free tractors because they're expensive and citydwellers don't have to buy tractors either.
Re:So? (Score:2)
BTW, check out the price of a new combine someday. Last I looked (back around 1980) they ran around a quarter of a million dollars. Seems to me that since a farmer's net on a loaf of bread is only about 5 cents, that combine oughta cost a good deal less than the car you use to commute to your $30/hour job.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Also, what percentage of farmland goes unused, where the gov't pays the farmers to NOT grow stuff?
Isn't it actually Verizon's fault (or SBC) that farmers don't have good telecommunications -- and not my fault? Why am I paying for Verizon's convenience? I call bullshit.
Re:So? (Score:2)
And while I generally don't support subsidies, there is a difference between subsidizing business, and subsidizing basic infrastructure. (That businesses like Verizon have been allowed to take over something they didn't actually build is another issue. I remember when Verizon was poor little GTE who "needed" protected monopoly service areas to survive. Now they have 90% of the market yet they still have GTE's old protec
Re:So? (Score:1, Funny)
I think that was a failure on the part of Chinese intelligence agencies. To support a modernization initiative, they sent some agents over to find out what the deal was with these newfangled computer systems.
Unfortunately, they found a bunch of geeks in their parents' basements, and sent back detailed info on how to recreate that environment. A major effort was instituted to deploy these basements
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
How?
By your own admission the costs of living in urban areas where service is abundant and cheap is high. How can someone who's making a small amount of money in Kansas afford to up and move?
Re:So? (Score:2)
Someone who owns their house free and clear in Kansas can sell everything they own and still not have enough to make a down payment on half the house in a metro area.
And wit
Re:So? (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:2)
Please tell us what's wrong with the goal of improving society through taxation. Roads, police, fire fighters, etc. are all infrastructure improvments that most people pay for willingly. We are likewise talking about a potential infrastructure improvement in this thread. The question appears to be whether enough people in the society agree that it's a worthwhile infrastructure improvement to fund.
I would argue that having
Re:So? (Score:2)
[I've read that as much as 80% of the LAUSD budget goes to admin costs, and only 20% to actual teaching and classrooms. How is this a well-budgeted use of tax dollars to support the ideal of quality education for all?? And one is lead to suspect that this is hardly unusual.]
Re:So? (Score:2)
"Move!" Yeah, great. I'd have to give up my business that I've built up over the past 20 ye
Re:So? (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting argument. I have to say, I hadn't thought of it like that, that Rural livers have an advantage and we subsidize communications for them, but not housing for city dwellers.
But part of that subsidy was to create a communications infrastructure that has benefitted society more than it has cost. You can phone almost everyone and mail almost everyone almost anywhere. So I think at the time it was the right choice to take copper wires out to farms and use the government to deliver mail to those in
Re:So? (Score:2)
"Lifestyle choice?" If everybody could afford to "choose a lifestyle," they could also afford to, say, evacuate New Orleans. Reducing something as broad as what you're talking about to a single, personal, conscious choice is disingenuous at best, and is usually a tactic used to blame victims.
Despite the satellites and such you mention,
Re:What about the USF? (Score:2)
Perhaps instead of coercion, you people who advocate the USF should win the hearts and minds of enough people who would be willing to contribute on a voluntary basis. In that scenario, the altruistic goals of the USF are met without the corrosive effects of coercion.
Re:What about the USF? (Score:1)
Back to Ma Bell (Score:4, Insightful)
In any event, it's not terribly surprising. Telco infrastructure is one of those things that small companies just don't have the footprint or bags of cash with which to compete. Sure, there will continue to be fringe companies out there, like Vonage and Skype, but once the big vendors get their VoIP rolling, it's the end for the bit players, as customers will invariably pick the "one bill" option from their wire (or cable, or fiber) provider.
I'm not saying there's no room for the smaller service players, but their market is going to contract as the feds get involved.
On the other hand, it's nice to see some movement from the gov't in the sense that they're now considering packet-switched services to be just as critical to regulate (in a competitive sense) as POTS. It really will give the telcos the room to move compared to the nearly free reign that cable's had for nearly a decade in the broadband arena.
Only in America (Score:3, Informative)
I'd just like to point out that that's pretty much a US-only thing due to your govt's complete failure to get the LLU ball rolling. Well, the US and a few other foot-draggers anyway. I'm supposed to be writing a piece on this for a business analysis company at this very moment... Lobby your govt and you too could have the 100mbit/s connections that places like Tokyo get!
Re:Only in America (Score:4, Informative)
And, yes, it's very disappointing that current FCC says that they want BOTH Cable and DSL to not be subject to LLU.
Doh (Score:2)
For the uninitiated: the point of Local Loop Unbundling and similar initiatives is that, if someone wants to start up a new telecoms company, they can specialise in either large cross-country fibre networks or small local set-ups. Like a network stack, the modularisation means that companies can focus on one at a time rather than having to do the lot.
The more layers, the easier it is for new companies t
Regulations will stifle development and raise cost (Score:4, Interesting)
"New services shouldn't be hamstrung by old thinking and outdated regulations."
Right. No regulation can keep up with changing technology. The best thing about new technologies is the providers finding ways around regulations and the monopolies they create.
Neither the Federal Communications Commission nor states will have the power to regulate the "rates, charges, terms, or conditions" of any of the providers unless directed by federal law.
And the laws setting prices will follow. Maybe some "keep logs for terrorism" add-ons, too.
But they're encouraged to provide protections against security threats and theft of their services.
But? So vague, it will allow them to criminalize both action and inaction.
The FCC must convene an inquiry into whether to compel VoIP providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund,
Ahhhh! Income for our friendly feds.
"pleased to see many of the pro-competitive features of the draft."
Competition will only be reduced to those who can afford lawyers and politicos. Mark my words.
Big broadband providers reserved judgment on the draft's content but were quick to hail its release,
Status. Quo. Profit!!!
Nuff said.
Re:Regulations will stifle development and raise c (Score:2)
...opening the door to an "owned by the public, therefore censored by the federal government" argument such as the one used by the FCC to decide what content may be broadcast over the "public" airwaves.
Re:Regulations will stifle development and raise c (Score:2)
Ahhhh! Income for our friendly feds.
That's not the goal at all. For one, the USF is not ever touched as general income. It is one of the few sources of income that is actually used for what it is earmarked for. Additionally, this seems to be attempting equalization. They screwed over DSL with the 1996 act because DSL was regulated and cable wasn't. They don't want to do the same wher
GIVE ME THE PORK... (Score:1, Troll)
Come on we are missing a trick here, comments on the legislation will have a minor impact, what we should be asking for is some PORK. I mean the ENERGY bill had a $231m BRIDGE in Alaska named after some senator who headed a committee so...
Free Datacentre capacity available on demand
All Beer to become Free (as in Free Speech)
Any more?
fair? (Score:1)
possible vendor lock in breakthrough (Score:2, Interesting)
BITS?! (Score:2, Funny)
This looks interesting (Score:2)
the bit about "any devices" sounds good.
It means that the providers cant say "you have to use our gear to connect to our cable/DSL connection"
or "You cant use routers on our network"
What about other services? (Score:2)
Re:What about other services? (Score:3, Insightful)
So if I want to host a web site or email services, I cannot be blocked under this? I have read about DSL and Cable services denying their ability to do these things under their acceptable use policies. Does this now trump the acceptable use policy?
On the surface it would seem so, but this raises another question:
Can you waive such rights as part of the service contract? I.e. can a BITS provider ask you to waive your right to some services? I.e. how does this int
77 page draft (Score:5, Funny)
The Legal Professionals Full Employment Act of 2005
I will be happy if its passed (Score:2)
I would pay for someone elses services if verizon wasnt a monopoly in my area, and their port 80 filtering is beyond aggravating.
will this finally force the providers to stop messing with the connections they sell for their own greedy gains?
Its just a matter of time before they start to force people to pay "premiums" for access to additional "services" via different ports if left unchecked.
Yes there are many work ar
Worrisome for free access points (Score:2)
Does that mean that the the cafe must
One thing comes to mind... (Score:2, Interesting)
Many ISP's currently block inbound SMTP access on broadband connections. One such ISP is the one I am currently using: Earthlink.
While this has been a bit of a pain for my legitimate use of an SMTP server, it has cut down on the number of spam relays out on the web.
Will this new regulation force Earthlink and others to open up port 25, thus causing a major increase in spam, or will they continue to (illegally) block SMTP?
Re:Ownership (Score:2)
Except, of course, that water supplies and sewers are often local monopolies as well. Airways are not even infrastructure; they are a space whose use is regulate