content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Sun Mar 1 00:33:48 UTC 2015

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:34 AM, John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>>> With the "legal content" rule, I expect some bottom feeding bulk
>>> mailers to sue claiming that their CAN SPAM compliant spam is legal,
[...]
> Until yesterday, there were no network neutrality rules, not for spam or for
> anything else.

There still aren't any network neutrality rules, until the FCC makes
the documents public, which they haven't yet.    Until the FCC publish
the documents:  it's kind of pointless to speculate what the
unintended consequences might be.

However,   I believe   E-mail is definitely an internet application,
not broadband service,
so filtering incoming E-mail  on the provider's servers should
definitely be unaffected.

So long as the broadband service provider's e-mail filtering  is
performed only on their e-mail server and   does not involve  blocking
IP traffic  on consumers'  connections.

What *might*  happen is that spammers  could sue if the broadband
provider terminates a _subscriber's_  broadband service for sending
outgoing spam,  or  the provider Attempts to block outgoing Port 25
traffic from their IP addresses,  for the purpose of preventing
operating SMTP Server applications,  in order to  reduce spamming
attempts.

(Now the service provider is blocking lawful traffic, outgoing SMTP!)

My preferred resolution would be for the internet IP connectivity
provider and the last mile Broadband/Layer 1 media connectivity
carriers  to be completely separate companies,  with  IP providers
allowed to manage their Internet Protocol network however they see
fit,
and Broadband carriers required to provide equal connectivity to all
competing local IP carriers.

The broadband carrier need-not have an IP network,  and the IP carrier
might not even connect to the internet, or they might use
communication protocols besides IP.

> R's,
> John
--
-JH