Here's the latest draft of the Internet
regulation bill, dated November 3rd. Note that, like earlier
versions, it subjects all ISPs and VoIP providers to intensive
Federal regulation and requires them to register before providing
service. It also pre-empts state and local control over rights of
way. For the draft text, see
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/news/11032005_Broadband.pdf
--Brett Glass
Well,
I have to admit I like this part... It somewhat addresses my concerns about the monopolies that Chris Morrow and Sean Donelan are perpetrating on us (just kidding guys...).
Since port 80 and port 25 are lawful services everyone offering broadband will have to drop filters and provide full routing! Can you hear me now? Why yes, port 80 and port 25 are open, of course I can hear you.
---snip-----
SEC. 104. ACCESS TO BITS.
(a) DUTIES OFPROVIDERS.�Subject to subsection2
(b), each BITS provider has the duty�3
(1) not to block, impair, or interfere with the4
offering of, access to, or the use of any lawful con-5
tent, application, or service provided over the Inter-6
net;7
--end snip----
>
>
> From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
> Date: November 9, 2005 10:43:40 AM EST
>
> Here's the latest draft of the Internet
> regulation bill, dated November 3rd. Note that, like earlier
> versions, it subjects all ISPs and VoIP providers to intensive
> Federal regulation and requires them to register before providing
> service. It also pre-empts state and local control over rights of
> way. For the draft text, see
>
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/news/11032005_Broadband.pdf
>
> --Brett GlassWell,
I have to admit I like this part... It somewhat addresses my concerns
about the monopolies that Chris Morrow and Sean Donelan are
perpetrating on us (just kidding guys...).
you are an evil man 
Since port 80 and port 25 are lawful services everyone offering
broadband will have to drop filters and provide full routing! Can
you hear me now? Why yes, port 80 and port 25 are open, of course I
can hear you.
Interesting, the filtering in question (for uunet atleast, SBC is in a
slightly different position) is put in place at request of the customer,
who might be 'protecting' their customer (radius port 25 filtering). I
wonder who's responsibility this situation covers?
---snip-----
SEC. 104. ACCESS TO BITS.
(a) DUTIES OFPROVIDERS.�Subject to subsection2
(b), each BITS provider has the duty�3
(1) not to block, impair, or interfere with the4
offering of, access to, or the use of any lawful con-5
tent, application, or service provided over the Inter-6
net;7--end snip----
What about outside the boundaries of the USofA? Hrm... good thing all that
legislation we put in place is cleaning up the 'bad content' all over the
Internet... Wait, it's not 
Legislation isn't the answer to this
problem, unfortunately the gov't hasn't realized this completely
> I have to admit I like this part... It somewhat addresses my concerns
> about the monopolies that Chris Morrow and Sean Donelan are
> perpetrating on us (just kidding guys...).you are an evil man
Why does this remind me of a Simpson's Treehouse of Terror
halloween episode. Which one of us is Kang? and which one is Kodos?
> SEC. 104. ACCESS TO BITS.
> (a) DUTIES OFPROVIDERS.�Subject to subsection2
> (b), each BITS provider has the duty�3
> (1) not to block, impair, or interfere with the4
> offering of, access to, or the use of any lawful con-5
> tent, application, or service provided over the Inter-6
> net;7
>
> --end snip----
>What about outside the boundaries of the USofA? Hrm... good thing all that
legislation we put in place is cleaning up the 'bad content' all over the
Internet... Wait, it's not
problem, unfortunately the gov't hasn't realized this completely
Get ready to click on "Network Neighborhood" on your PC, and see PCs from
all your real neighbors. There are reasons why ISPs filter things like
DHCP, websites that download trojan codes, etc. Just because someone
invented it, doesn't mean you should use it over the Internet. That's what
VPNs are for.
Should Google's toolbar be illegal because it blocks access to lawful
content, applications or services over the Internet? Why should it be ok
for Google to block access to things?
Its always fun to watch legislatures write networking codes, almost as much
fun as watching network geeks try to write laws. Unfortunately, I think
the floodgates have been broken now. Be careful of what you ask for,
because you may get it. If every change to the network requires new
legislation, things are going to get slow.
I have to admit I like this part... It somewhat addresses my concerns
about the monopolies that Chris Morrow and Sean Donelan are
perpetrating on us (just kidding guys...).you are an evil man
My fingers are tented... can you see?
Since port 80 and port 25 are lawful services everyone offering
broadband will have to drop filters and provide full routing! Can
you hear me now? Why yes, port 80 and port 25 are open, of course I
can hear you.Interesting, the filtering in question (for uunet atleast, SBC is in a
slightly different position) is put in place at request of the customer,
who might be 'protecting' their customer (radius port 25 filtering). I
wonder who's responsibility this situation covers?
I think Dial is "safe" from this Bill. It looks to be targeted to Broadband. Personally, I was thinking about Verizon's port 80 and 25 blocking and the verbiage that has been attributed to SBC regarding making content providers pay to see SBC customers.
---snip-----
SEC. 104. ACCESS TO BITS.
(a) DUTIES OFPROVIDERS.�Subject to subsection2
(b), each BITS provider has the duty�3
(1) not to block, impair, or interfere with the4
offering of, access to, or the use of any lawful con-5
tent, application, or service provided over the Inter-6
net;7--end snip----
What about outside the boundaries of the USofA? Hrm... good thing all that
legislation we put in place is cleaning up the 'bad content' all over the
Internet... Wait, it's not
problem, unfortunately the gov't hasn't realized this completely
Well, I have to agree that legislation typically does not help. If we end up with state run Internet it would probably stink even worse. How about just leaving the pipes open and charging for last mile service? It seems like an easy enough task and seems like you can make money. Sigh, it used to be all about getting folks high bandwidth connectivity. More and more it seems like folks are focusing on ways to sell bits and pieces of service (blocking ports and sites to charge premiums for "business class") instead of coming up with their own new and innovative services.
Sorry, I have plenty of buddies at Verizon/MCI and SBC/ATT... Not slamming you guys, just worried and watching.
Port filtering as an ongoing routine is bad practice for the Internet in general and eventually leads to folks shifting ports and making it even harder to track traffic types and worms. I am always quick to take the filters down when the worst of the worms were over. Let folks use the natural ports and they will be much easier to track down and deal with. Force everyone to high ports and they will be all over the place. If the customer has, or is a, problem then deal with them! If you offer "Internet" service your base level of service should be completely open. If you feel like you must filter ports then offer a "firewall" package or something that folks can remove if they desire.
Regards,
Blaine
>>
>> I have to admit I like this part... It somewhat addresses my concerns
>> about the monopolies that Chris Morrow and Sean Donelan are
>> perpetrating on us (just kidding guys...).
>
> you are an evil man
>My fingers are tented... can you see?
indeed I can... the evil empire installed a camera in your monitor. quick
read: http://tinyurl.com/89v8h
>>
>> Since port 80 and port 25 are lawful services everyone offering
>> broadband will have to drop filters and provide full routing! Can
>> you hear me now? Why yes, port 80 and port 25 are open, of course I
>> can hear you.
>>
>
> Interesting, the filtering in question (for uunet atleast, SBC is in a
> slightly different position) is put in place at request of the
> customer,
> who might be 'protecting' their customer (radius port 25 filtering). I
> wonder who's responsibility this situation covers?
>I think Dial is "safe" from this Bill. It looks to be targeted to
Why is dial any different than 'broadband'? What about ppp-o-e dsl folks
that get radius applied acls as well?
Broadband. Personally, I was thinking about Verizon's port 80 and 25
Some of this still could be couched as "protecting the grandma's out
there"... That or protecting my network from gradnma Which I'm sure
would be permitted in the legislation somewhere.
blocking and the verbiage that has been attributed to SBC regarding
making content providers pay to see SBC customers.
This I see as a self correcting problem: "Hey Jim, did you hear that evil
pacbell is not letting you get to google anymore? Hell, I'm switching to
comcast!" Once revenue starts being impacted I'm sure SBC will loosen
their girdle.
>> ---snip-----
>>
>> SEC. 104. ACCESS TO BITS.
>> (a) DUTIES OFPROVIDERS.�Subject to subsection2
>> (b), each BITS provider has the duty�3
>> (1) not to block, impair, or interfere with the4
>> offering of, access to, or the use of any lawful con-5
>> tent, application, or service provided over the Inter-6
>> net;7
>>
>> --end snip----
>>
>
> What about outside the boundaries of the USofA? Hrm... good thing
> all that
> legislation we put in place is cleaning up the 'bad content' all
> over the
> Internet... Wait, it's not
> problem, unfortunately the gov't hasn't realized this completelyWell, I have to agree that legislation typically does not help. If
we end up with state run Internet it would probably stink even
worse. How about just leaving the pipes open and charging for last
mile service? It seems like an easy enough task and seems like you
can make money. Sigh, it used to be all about getting folks high
bandwidth connectivity. More and more it seems like folks are
focusing on ways to sell bits and pieces of service (blocking ports
and sites to charge premiums for "business class") instead of coming
up with their own new and innovative services.
The odd thing is that consumer services seem to devolve into: "who is
cheapest" not "who has best service". Even FIOS is really just as
inexpensive as cable-modem these days (cheaper even in some cases) and
does the home user need more than 6mpbs down for internet things? (just
Internet, not to include video over ip)
call me crazy but it seems like cost is king for consumers, at the pipe
level. So adding on services to that at a cost is a losing proposition (or
atleast not very popular, how many AOL cusotmers bought into the secure-id
auth?)
Sorry, I have plenty of buddies at Verizon/MCI and SBC/ATT... Not
slamming you guys, just worried and watching.
join the party
Port filtering as an ongoing routine is bad practice for the Internet
in general and eventually leads to folks shifting ports and making it
even harder to track traffic types and worms. I am always quick to
take the filters down when the worst of the worms were over. Let
folks use the natural ports and they will be much easier to track
down and deal with. Force everyone to high ports and they will be
all over the place. If the customer has, or is a, problem then deal
with them! If you offer "Internet" service your base level of
service should be completely open. If you feel like you must filter
ports then offer a "firewall" package or something that folks can
remove if they desire.
agreed, 100%... I think my quote from the past was (after a well taught
lesson I might add): "I don't want to be the internet's firewall"
My fingers are tented... can you see?
indeed I can... the evil empire installed a camera in your monitor. quick
read: http://tinyurl.com/89v8h
I personally feature The Fez on Fridays. The chix dig it.
The odd thing is that consumer services seem to devolve into: "who is
cheapest" not "who has best service". Even FIOS is really just as
inexpensive as cable-modem these days (cheaper even in some cases) and
does the home user need more than 6mpbs down for internet things? (just
Internet, not to include video over ip)
Well, I think there's a presumption that Internet and video over IP are still distinguishable down the road, rather than blend into a new media form. Think back how the web showed up and did the same.
And that is also the main reason why this legislative effort strikes me as very misguided. The legislators assume they are dealing with a mature product, and nothing could be further from the truth. As much as we try to categorize today, we will restrict innovation (and growth of all our businesses) in the end.
So, there was a time when everyone said 'good grief, what would anyone do with 1.5mbps', and where in turn engineered bitrates ended up being several orders of magnitude lower. In fact, we all were worried what would happen to our POPs and backbone when 1.5mbps consumers showed up in volume back in the '98 timeframe.
We're just at the edge of the step function. I have absolutely no worry that people will figure out what to do with bandwidth. Who knows, maybe somebody will actually be successful offering an online backup service if the bw ever catches up with the inflation in storage, for example.
call me crazy but it seems like cost is king for consumers, at the pipe
level. So adding on services to that at a cost is a losing proposition (or
atleast not very popular, how many AOL cusotmers bought into the secure-id
auth?)
I think that's all a function of differentiation not being visible to consumers.
Once new media types start emerging, this has to change.
Sorry, I have plenty of buddies at Verizon/MCI and SBC/ATT... Not
slamming you guys, just worried and watching.join the party
I'd offer to buy a round, but I think that'd break the bank. 
Best regards,
Christian
oops 
my point wasn't that bandwidth wasn't necessary over X speed, it
was that the main motivator for consumer purchase was no long bandwidth
but price alone.
Sorry for the confusion.
It's ok. We're all cornfused.
But, seriously, if all that emerged and mattered today is 'value brand', isn't it just indicative of the fact that consumers just haven't found the next cool bw annihilating thing yet? I doubt this is part of a general trend, unless this industry has reached a mature plateau. (which would be very sad, imho).
Best regards,
Christian
>
>
>>
>> So, there was a time when everyone said 'good grief, what would
>> anyone do with 1.5mbps', and where in turn engineered bitrates ended
>> up being several orders of magnitude lower. In fact, we all were
>> worried what would happen to our POPs and backbone when 1.5mbps
>> consumers showed up in volume back in the '98 timeframe.
>>
>
> oops
> speed, it
> was that the main motivator for consumer purchase was no long
> bandwidth
> but price alone.
>
> Sorry for the confusion.It's ok. We're all cornfused.
But, seriously, if all that emerged and mattered today is 'value
brand', isn't it just indicative of the fact that consumers just
haven't found the next cool bw annihilating thing yet? I doubt this
most likely... and video-on-demand sorts of things seem like the next
problem child for bandwidth on the local link. (atleast in the short term)
is part of a general trend, unless this industry has reached a mature
plateau. (which would be very sad, imho).
just wait for ipv6 and toasters with webservers! Actually, as
more things get a network stack I imagine more interconnection will occur
requiring more bandwidth and taxing the infrastructure even more
most likely... and video-on-demand sorts of things seem like the next
problem child for bandwidth on the local link. (atleast in the short term)
That's what I believe, too. And along with that, we have people hungry for incremental revenue to pay for infrastructure upgrades and go beyond the 'little Cu wire that could' *cough*. To me, those are fundamentally incompatible business models.. so, it'll be interesting to see how that one shakes out.
is part of a general trend, unless this industry has reached a mature
plateau. (which would be very sad, imho).just wait for ipv6 and toasters with webservers!
You realize that spelling out that 4 letter (well, 3+1) word on nanog is like screaming fire in a crowded theatre, followed by no less than 2 wks of debate over the merits of multihomed toasters. We all desperately need multipathing to ascertain the burntness of one's pop tarts.
Actually, as
more things get a network stack I imagine more interconnection will occur
requiring more bandwidth and taxing the infrastructure even more
Yes. That is very true. And question is what will happen with liability once even more clue exempt manufacturers will enter the ring. Capitol hill seems hell bent on wanting to tag ISPs (or BITS! *groan*) with that liability.
Somehow, it feels like the wild west days are over. Or am I just getting old? I think when inet turns into a pstn regime, I'll switch to basket weaving.
Best regards,
Christian
In 1997, Vint Cerf was advocating the necessity of usage based pricing
when he was still with MCI.
http://www.cookreport.com/05.10.shtml
Although MCI has not yet made a formal announcement via a press release,
Cerf explained that "we are plainly discussing this with you, Gordon,
and your readers." The MCI move is the outcome of what Cerf describes
as a crunch between the Internet's flat rate pricing model and usage
patterns where both the amount of use and disparity between use by
applications has increased dramatically.
Will consumers prefer to pay higher flat rate charges for everything, or
prefer different pricing models when they access applications which
require dramatically different service levels to include the cost as
part of an application specific fee?
I'm not sure, but 1997 was a long time ago, when 20$/month DIALUP was
normal. Today 20$/month is normal, I can't see people wanting an extra
'tax' for things that their carrier deems to be 'better' or 'more costly'
than other things.
Actually, thinking about this, does a bit cost more when delivered from
china or 'mci' (pick any domestic isp)? I'm asking not about the total
cost, but say the cost from (to pick on sbc) SBC's front door to the
consumer's front door ? Does a bit from Google (not yahoo since they have
a 'relationship' with SBC) cost more than one from playboy.com ? (again,
from sbc front door to consumer front door)
If the cost is the same front door to front door, then why would a
customer willingly pay more for playboy over google? (or the other way
around)
This is an interesting topic 
Actually, having now read the entire proposed law, I think it is
remarkably reasonable compared to most of what Congress has done
lately.
It sets the regulatory threshold for ISPs and VOIP providers at
a very low level. It preempts most of the local regulations.
It provides for the possibility that the FCC can allow a VOIP
provider exemption from 911/e911 service provision based on
technical feasibility. It actually, to me, seems like a well
thought out and well written piece of legislation.
I encourage everyone to read it in its entirety and then contact
your representative and encourage them to vote as you see fit.
Owen
Something to consider about this proposed "regulation"... It is actually
in many ways proposed "deregulation". This bill removes more authority
from the FCC and state and local governments than it grants. It provides
a very minimal framework of regulation, then, except for taxation and
a couple of other minor consumer protections, says "The government shall
butt the hell out."
That's why I like it.
Owen
Since port 80 and port 25 are lawful services everyone offering
broadband will have to drop filters and provide full routing! Can
you hear me now? Why yes, port 80 and port 25 are open, of course I
can hear you.
Have you sent a letter to your congressional representative
saying this? Of course an explanation of the technical terms
"80" and "25" would be in order as well.
Complaints on the NANOG list carry no weight in the Congress.
--Michael Dillon
just wait for ipv6 and toasters with webservers!
more things get a network stack I imagine more interconnection will
occur
requiring more bandwidth and taxing the infrastructure even more
Imagination is becoming reality...
A webserver the size of a match head
http://www-ccs.cs.umass.edu/~shri/iPic.html
An open source IP stack for microcontroller (tiny) chips.
A commercial webserver in a USB plug
http://www.webservusb.com/
IPv6 has already been implemented on microcontrollers
http://www.interpeak.com/products/iplite.html
--Michael Dillon
Be careful Owen - i think you may be falling into a libertarian trap - worrisome because I respect highly things i have seen you write in past.
Think about what you are saying: " Something to consider about this proposed "regulation"... It is actually
in many ways proposed "deregulation"
Yes it is indeed. It frees the duopoly to do whatever it wants. And Whittacre has said what he wants and what he will do quite plainly -- has he not? He will charge google and yahoo and skype for using his networks.
Here is how this legislation is being read in London at a public telco blog recently launched by DRKW the large investment bank:
http://telcotech.drkw.com/blog/archives/2005/11/will_evil_preva.html
"For all of our sakes lets hope that the telcos are not successful in their lobbying effort in the US. If they are successful, you can bet that your investment in the fixed telecoms utilities is safer but innovation on the internet is in jeopardy - which do you think creates more incremental future value in the world ultimately?"
Vint Cerf is on my economics of IP networks private mail list. The DRKW blog post partially cited above came in part from a public item comment of Vint's that i posted day before yesterday to my private list. It is fascinating that Sean Donelan whom I have known and respected since 1991 dug that 1997 item quote from Vint from my archives. Donelan: "In 1997, Vint Cerf was advocating the necessity of usage based pricing when he was still with MCI.
http://www.cookreport.com/05.10.shtml
COOK Report: Recall the date. This is PRE stupid network and again VINT is taking the pre-internet pre stupid network telco point of view. I'll post this to my list and see if Vint has anything that he wants to say about this 8 year old opinion.
Owen, do you want some legislation that gives the CEO of ATT/SBC the world largest dinosaur a blank check to do as he wishes with *HIS* network. This bills language is HIGHLY deceptive. I too despise government incompetence but giving Whittacre a blank check is IMHO much worse. But don't take my word for it - check out DRKW's analyst's opinion. Fred Goldstein also has a pretty good analysis. I probably will not further respond to this thread discussion. Please forgive me but I am swamped with many things that demand attention.
FYI, /. or (as Robert quotes "News for Goobers") <grin> has the text of Vint's letter regarding this issue. Note that Vint seems less than enthused about the Bill (although it is not clear he is talking about the exact same Bill).
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/10/2351249&from=rss
Did anyone else read the part about giving every provider access to the rights of way? Woohoo! I am going to bury some fiber now. I suspect the section regarding nondiscriminatory access could have been worded better. Half the text is repeated. Are they paid by the word you think?
-----snip-----
(a) NONDISCRIMINATORY ACCESS.�A utility shall
provide a BITS provider, BIT provider, or broadband
video service provider with rates, terms, and conditions for
access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned
or controlled by such utility that are nondiscriminatory as
compared to the rates, terms, and conditions for such ac-
cess provided to any telecommunications carrier, cable op-
erator, or other BITS provider, BIT provider, or
broadband video service provider. A BITS provider, BIT
provider, or broadband video service provider shall provide
a cable television system, a telecommunications carrier, or
any other BITS provider, BIT provider, or broadband
video service provider with rates, terms, and conditions for
access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned
or controlled by that provider that are nondiscriminatory
as compared to the rates, terms, and conditions for such
access provided to any telecommunications carrier, cable
operator, or other BITS provider, BIT provider, or
broadband video service provider.
----end snip-----
Are you suggesting a return to cost-based regulation? At one time airline
prices were regulated based on air mile distance.
MCI Friends & Family charged different rates for phone calls depending
whether the person you called was also a MCI customer. Was MCI illegally
interfering with people calling AT&T customers by charging a different
rate? Level 3 charges different rates for "on-net" versus "off-net"
traffic. Is Level 3 illegally interfering with people accessing content on
other ISPs buy charging more? Many cell phone companies offer "free"
minutes when you call other people in your plan. Is Verizon illegally
interfering with other cell phone companies by charging more? Or in each
of this cases, are they actually charging some people less? How do you
decide what is a "discount" or a "surcharge"?
Not everyone may want to pay for 100Mbps Internet service in their home,
but they may want to pay less for only 10Mbps Internet and also watch a
bunch of HDTV. HDTV may be advertiser supported, and the advertiser may
be willing to subsidize a portion of the bandwidth so the consumer doesn't
have to pay as much.
Or do we want the government to force consumers to buy more than they
want?