Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt?

Paul A Vixie vixie at vix.com
Sun Nov 11 02:47:13 UTC 2001

for some reason the list wasn't cc'd on this informative reply to my earlier
rant.  in case the sender wanted to remain anonymous, i'm stripping headers:

------- Forwarded Message

From: ...
To: "Paul Vixie" <paul at vix.com>
Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt?
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 19:12:22 -0500

> Without that argument, there's a clear path to "since your customers have
> no choice, you are not allowed to filter content."  While this probably
> applies to DSL since it's "like telco" and there's already legislation
> about what telcos can't filter because of their old "natural monopoly"
> status,


I don't think it's been tested in the courts, but I think you're sorely
mistaken there as far as ISPs(!; unregulated side) operated by telco's being
able to filter things.  The Telco ISPs typically are on the unregulated
side, including my employer ...

The ILEC typically doesn't operate any public IP devices.  Sure, they could
filter, but presently it just looks like one ATM cell like the next ATM
cell.  And, beyond that, nobody has said anything against ILECs offering
network based filtering services (which would be initiated per customer's
request on devices like the Shasta).

Bottm line is, you presume that the RBOC's ISPs are all regulated, which
they're not.  They're in a huge gray zone to be exact.


------- End of Forwarded Message

More information about the NANOG mailing list