Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Government Networking Businesses Politics

Overhauled Telecommunications Law Draft 136

Posted by Zonk from the participate-in-your-legislation dept.
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'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Overhauled Telecommunications Law Draft More

Overhauled Telecommunications Law Draft

Comments Filter:

  • It's Friday (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16, 2005 @09:19AM (#13575246)
    The only draft I want to hear about is what they have on tap.
    • Ramen, brother!

    • Re:It's Friday (Score:3, Informative)

      by interiot ( 50685 )
      For what it's worth, I've reformated the draft text here [paperlined.org] to make it easier to digest.

      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])

      • Wow. So VoIP is declared to be interstate commerce, and subject ONLY to federal laws [paperlined.org], and it's subject to the following requirements: number portability, interconnection, 911 services, possibly universal service, TTY relay.

        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

        • Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] in case anyone wants to contribute to the summary. I'm assuming this will become law in some form or other, since we have a (more or less) unified Republican President and Congress.

  • Ahead of the effect. (Score:1, Informative)

    by cente ( 785332 )
    PDF Mirrordot. [mirrordot.org]

  • SMTP server at home? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by flubbergust ( 818863 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @09:24AM (#13575282) Journal
    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

    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?
    • Yea, because god forbid people are allowed to do what the hell they want with their connections.
      Save a mailbox...Support Port Control!

    • Re:SMTP server at home? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Whafro ( 193881 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @09:32AM (#13575337) Homepage
      No, being unable to block subscribers' access to content and applications doesn't (to my reading) mean that they aren't able to block others' access to subscribers. Then again, I haven't read the draft yet, so that may not be the exact wording.

      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.
      • You've misunderstood. Many ISP's are now blocking outgoing port 25, to block zombied spam machines on their own networks from being used to send spam and to block email worm attacks from spreading from inside their own networks. Many also block SMB ports for Windows file sharing, for similar reasons. This is extremely reasonable for home users, who normally wouldn't run a direct mail server anyway. But it's a real burden for someone who runs a laptop and wants to be able to run their own mail server on it
        • It always seemed to me that ISP-based filtering, be it spam filtering, port filtering, adult content filtering, should simply be enabled by default with a simple way for the subscriber to turn it on or off at will.

          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."?
          • That would be nice but it's just easier for them to tell people who want/need ports opened that they are out of luck. I went through DNSMadeEasy.com (don't work for them) and they host my DNS and SMTP server. I think it costs me about $25 a year. I was using www.granitecanyon.com's free DNS but I was getting what I paid for because it was up and down almost at a whim... good when it ran because it was free but paying a little bit for DNS services now means I have full record editing but it's easy to do so i
          • That's the reason I picked my current ISP. I want to run my own mail server.
            <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
          • It becomes a maintenance and billing problem for the routers or gateways to block such traffic and change the settings on the core routers at the flick of a user interface. That takes some hardware or intelligent design time, right up front where it's difficult to get the money to do. AOL works around it by having their entire network NAT'ed to save the cost of IP space and block incoming probes, and by trying very hard to force all email to go through their mail systems. Many ISP's also block port 25 but
            • Even after an ISP starts making money, it's rare for them to go back and revisit poor design.

              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.
        • My DSL provider started blocking port 25 so I switched to SSMTP (465). I've only seen that blocked on corporate intranets where they only allow HTTPS and proxied HTTP and FTP to the Internet; your only real option in that scenario is webmail.

          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
        • What does the laptop issue have to do with anything. Mail client to mail server should go over the mail submission port not port 25. Perferably you wold be using the SSLed ports for sending and reading mail. Properly configured submission ports only accept mail from authenticated clients so general spam is not an issue (Spyware taking over mail clients and sending spam is) Anyway confgure your mail server and laptop corrently once and your all set. If you realy expect to run a mail server on a laptop I w
          • First, port 25 *is* the mail submission port. Next, authentication *can* be done using this port.

            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,
            • I was talking about laptops moving from connection to connection sending mail thus mail submission. Port 25 as mail submission is depreciated by newer RFC's I beleive (might be incorrect on that one) anyway inbound port 25 blocking is an issue with your ISP get them to fix it or move to another provider. It's general considered a good thing to have at least one backup mail server for reliability BTW. In your case it's sounds like you have issue with your contract with your ISP they generaly have clauses

      • As you suggested, the ability of ISPs to block ports is, in many cases, a seemingly-necessary evil

        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

    • I'd have thought that the existing botnets would be more efficient for spamming than setting up a home SMTP server?
    • That isn't really what it's about. This line is about BITS, VoiP, and video services, not Internet access in general. This is especially important in VoiP, which is essentially phone service. Imagine if Verizon phones refused to call anyone with Sprint or T-Mobile service, or vice versa. It certainly has nothing to do with people's abilities to run servers, block ports, etc.
    • Blocking ANY ports is Evil. All you are really doing is forcing folks to obscure and hide making the situation worse. Keep all ports open. Work on this issue at a higher layer. The more you block ports the harder it is to track down the evil doers as they move to unblocked ports.

      Yours truly, large ISP guy (in the physical and corporate sense of the term).

    • First, remember you can give away your rights in a contract. Except where a contract provision is unconstitutional or detrimental to the public good, specific contract clauses can override any rules layed out by federal law. So if the BITS provider (BITSP) says terms of service means you can't run a server then you can't legally.

      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
    • This is probabaly why the document is called a draft, and Congress is requesting feedback.

      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
    • Pennsylvania passed a law a few years back requiring ISPs to block access to sites accused of trafficing in child porn. The law was found to be unconstitutional (violates 1st Amendment, commerce clause), but other states, like Utah, have passed similar laws.

      This would definitely seem to preempt such laws.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • You'd have to go and read the actual final bill to tell. The INTENT here seems to be to prevent your ISP from, say, blocking your ability to use any VoIP provider other than the one your ISP owns, for example. This is a real concern - I can get WiMAX in my area, for example, but the provider blocks vonage - something they don't tell you so you find it out after you've paid your money and try to use Vonage. Fortunately, I have alternative service providers, but it could be a problem if you only had one al
    • I run a SMTP server at home and I wouldn't want that ever to be taken away. But I do think the responsible thing for ISPs to do is to block outgoing port 25 BY DEFAULT. If a customer wants to set up a SMTP server as I have done then it should be doable with an authorization form (which would also lay out a policy of anti-relaying and complaint resolution) on the ISPs website which would remove the block. The problem with spam on these kinds of connections is botnets sending the spam without user knowledg

  • What does this mean? (Score:3, Funny)

    by MrWiggum ( 910429 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @09:25AM (#13575286)
    Maybe I'm dense but what does this mean? How will this effect the end user? Does this mean that the price of internet service will go down? Maybe who understands the document a little better could explain.
  • I'm concerned that with all 77 pages of beaurocracy here, there's no decisive action one way or another towards getting VoiP providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund... it just says, essentially, that they'll have a chat about it at the FCC and decide something later. Something tells me that anything firm on that issue is a long way off.
    • what, you mean I won't have to pay one of the myriad hidden taxes that Big Telco has managed to lobby into law? Wow! Awesome!
      • what, you mean I won't have to pay one of the myriad hidden taxes that Big Telco has managed to lobby into law? Wow! Awesome!

        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.

        • 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.

          • Sure no one forces you into a less populated area but certain jobs can only be performed there. Higher costs passed on to these location will simply come back embedded elsewhere to the higher populated areas.

            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
          • 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.

            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

        • Who says that less populated areas must have all the comforts of the modern world? There are people who live in some of those areas who despise those modern comforts.

          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.
      • My understanding is that the law doesn't require Telecom companies to charge their customers hidden taxes and surcharges. The Telcos themselves are required to pay these taxes/fees/surcharges, but long ago they realized they could increase their profits by making customers pay separately for all those fees. What's scary is that they're allowed to get away with it, and to my knowledge no one is standing up against it.

        Imagine if Wal-Mart decided they were going to tack on a $0.50 'electricity surcharge' to

        • You do pay those surcharges, they're just rolled into the prices instead of broken down. If business costs don't come from the customer, where do they come from? One lesson from the dot-com boom is that if a company does business at a loss, it doesn't operate for very long. I don't actually mind paying the buck or two for the USF, as I see it as a worthy cause. 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

          • 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.

          • I understand that. The point of my post was to highlight the possibility of Wal-Mart tacking on additonal surcharges to cover those fees. What's stopping them? They would increase their profits the same way the telecom companies do.

            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

            • I don't have a decisive answer for that, but my guess is that keeping the fees seperate allows the telco to advertise low service fees like $30/month when the actual bill turns out to be more like $37 or 40. Hotels and motels do the same thing: $39 room rate on the sign, but with all the taxes and fees it's usually a good $10 more. Maybe there's some law that service industries have to break down every billed charge so that the consumer knows just what they're paying for.

              Though it's mildly annoying, I ac
        • You forgot to mention that the telcos are allowed to charge customers not only the mandated fee itself, but as much OVER the mandated fee as the market will bear -- and the telcos get to pocket the difference.

          • but as much OVER the mandated fee as the market will bear

            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

            • What the market will bear: bend over! anyone seen the lube?

              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.

        • But Wal-Mart DOES charge you for electricity and paper and every other cost of doing business. How else would they turn a profit? It's included in the price of the product. They just don't itemize it on your receipt. Every company passes costs on to the customer, and raises prices when those costs increase. The telcos, for whatever reason, choose to itemize all of those costs. Probably so they can advertise a low base rate, then nail you with the real cost later.
          • That's the entire problem. With Wal-Mart, the price you see is what you pay (plus state/county/city sales tax (which I've never figured out why they don't add that in, too)). With the phone company, the price you see is only a small portion of what you pay. The difference is the displayed price.

            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

        • Imagine if Wal-Mart decided they were going to tack on a $0.50 'electricity surcharge' to cover the cost of electricity they pay to light their store. Or what about a 'paper surcharge' to cover the cost of the paper your receipt was printed on?

          Ummm...You mean exactly the way that Sales Tax appears on my receipt every time I shop there?

        • "Imagine if Wal-Mart decided they were going to tack on a $0.50 'electricity surcharge' to cover the cost of electricity they pay to light their store. Or what about a 'paper surcharge' to cover the cost of the paper your receipt was printed on?"

          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)

      by tgd ( 2822 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @09:37AM (#13575373)
      I think I got moderated into oblivion last time the USF came up on here, but I'm going to reply again and take my chances again.

      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)

        by Reziac ( 43301 ) * on Friday September 16, 2005 @09:57AM (#13575511) Homepage Journal
        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.

        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)

          by tgd ( 2822 )
          Then move.

          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
          • Actually, that's how the world works when you don't have a neofascist cabal controlling your government. Chinese-style "communism" has its bad points as well, of course, but they clearly made broadband access a priority.

            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)

            by Reziac ( 43301 ) *
            Great! All the farmers move to town, cuz otherwise they can't get basic phone service.

            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)

              by Waffle Iron ( 339739 )
              Great! All the farmers move to town, cuz otherwise they can't get basic phone service.

              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.

              • So pretty soon you're paying $300 for a loaf of bread. Guess you'll have to give up either eating or internet access.

                • So pretty soon you're paying $300 for a loaf of bread.

                  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.

                  • So who is going to subsidize the infrastructure costs for these satellite and microwave installations for the boondocks? and why hasn't it already happened?

                    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. ;)

                    • Fuck, I don't see anyone subsidizing my infrastructure costs, commuting costs, costs of gas, food, or any other thing. Why should I subsidize other people's misfortune? That's bogus.

                      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.
                    • If you pay taxes, you already subsidize "other people's misfortune". It's called welfare.

                      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)

            by Anonymous Coward
            That was a shocker, finding satellite TV and computers in cinder block houses that didn't even have windows!

            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)

            by The Angry Mick ( 632931 )
            Then move.

            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?

            • Exactly. It's not as easy as people who've had these urban services (and urban wage levels) all their lives would like to believe. That house in rural Kansas costs $30,000 because that's what the market will bear, given the average rural income level. It's not that cheap (by urban standards) just because rural folk are generous at heart.
              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:3, Insightful)

        by Vitriol+Angst ( 458300 )
        tgd,
        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
      • "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."

        "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,
    • What's the purpose of the USF? Why is it so vital that society has coerced people, by force, to pay it?

      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.
    • If people in rural areas want me to pay a USF tax so they can have cheap telecom service, I think it only fair that they help solve some of my problems. I propose that for every $1,000 of USF funds that a rural area receives, it also has to accept one street gang member and two lawyers. Welcome to life in the big city!

  • Back to Ma Bell (Score:4, Insightful)

    by netwiz ( 33291 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @09:27AM (#13575296) Homepage
    in whatever form she's going to take this time. (probably Verizon, or, given their track record WRT outages and service, SBC, Ha! Ha!)

    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.

    /works for giant telco, so take the above with that slant.

    • Only in America (Score:3, Informative)

      by Lifewish ( 724999 )
      Telco infrastructure is one of those things that small companies just don't have the footprint or bags of cash with which to compete.

      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)

        by interiot ( 50685 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @10:14AM (#13575648) Homepage
        For those as left in the dark as I was, LLU = Local Loop Unbundling [wikipedia.org].

        And, yes, it's very disappointing that current FCC says that they want BOTH Cable and DSL to not be subject to LLU.

        • Sorry, my co-workers are acronym freaks. I'd forgotten that Real People [tm] might not have heard them :-/

          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)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Friday September 16, 2005 @09:34AM (#13575356) Homepage Journal
    I couldn't read the 77page FA.

    "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.
    • The draft defines, for regulatory purposes, broadband Internet transmission services--or BITS--as "a packet-switched service that is offered to the public,"

      ...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.

    • 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.

      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

  • 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?

  • This sounds unusually fair for Washington.I wonder what it will look like after the lobies have had their way with it...
  • so far,just from the article not the PDF, it looks to me like if it passes that corporations offering broadband to the public can no longer insist that you use only approved hardware/software combinations. For example, trying to get satellite broadband in the sticks, they require you to have a windows machine else no service (last I have checked, might be different now). You are required to use their hardware installed by their vendors, etc. Looks to me like this could change if this passes.

  • BITS?! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    BITS?! Who you callin' BITS?!
  • Does the defintion for "BITS" also cover fibre optics, ISDN, T lines, Wireless, Sattelite etc?

    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"
  • 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?
    • IANAL, but this is an interesting question:

      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)

    by HomerJayS ( 721692 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @10:58AM (#13576022)
    Anything that comes from the government that is 77 pages of regulations should be required to be named:
    The Legal Professionals Full Employment Act of 2005
  • My number one question is would this force verizon to stop filtering inbound port 80?

    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

  • The provisions look great if you're worried that your cable company is going to block MSN from you, but if you are have a free 802.11 AP in your cafe (or even your apartment?) it looks to me like you are now a BITS provider:

    ...a packet-switched service that is offered to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the pub1lic, with or without a fee

    Does that mean that the the cafe must

    ...provide subscribers with access to lawful

    content, applications, and services prov

  • Spam.

    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?

Slashdot Top Deals

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Close