[Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]

Fri Nov 11 03:18:58 UTC 2005

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:

> >>
> >> 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 :( Legislation isn't the answer to this
> > 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.
>

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"