[Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]

Mon Nov 14 13:26:50 UTC 2005

>
>> "access the Internet", could it be more clear?
>
> No, because there is no legal defintion of "the Internet."
>

While it is probably impossible to define a "full routing table" at  
any particular point in time.  It IS possible to evaluate/understand  
whether someone is purposely, or accidentally, not carrying the  
routes that they should in order to "complete" the Internet.   If it  
appears the routes are not being carried as a result of market wants/ 
desires then there may be culpability.

It would have been really fun to see the results of L3 and Cogent  
with this HR draft applied.  Since the draft comes close to mandating  
interconnect what do they do when two providers have a dispute?   I  
don't think we will see congress mandated "free peering" so I am  
curious if anyone has thought private peering and settlement through  
as it relates to this bill.

>
>>> Have you tried to buy an HDTV recently?
>>>
>>> Would that really be an improvement?
>>
>> I think HDTV hardware is quite clear.  I love my HDTV.  But once
>> again, it's the service providers who are the problem.  My provider
>> (who I will let be nameless for now) doesn't keep any cable cards
>> locally, and has to send off to the national HDTV center to get
>> one.  They lock down their set top box to a single resolution, which
>> is not the resolution of my TV, nor the resolution of the local
>> broadcasters.  They don't carry anything but the three local networks
>> in HD.  They are also losing my business as we type to another
>> provider who offers a better service.
>
> Gee, it appears the marketplace is working. Why aren't you hiring  
> lawyers
> to sue the service provider if they aren't giving you what you think
> you should get with HDTV?  Instead you are using your wallet to  
> choose.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/ 
> 0156005972/104-3889928-7799121?v=glance
>
> Is your hardware HDTV, Full HDTV, Native HDTV, HDTV-Ready, Integrated
> HDTV, HDTV Monitor?  The Consumer Electronics Association and FCC has
> been in full swing trying to keep up with the various names being  
> used.
> Almost none of the consumer HDTV hardware sold in the USA today can
> actually do everything possible with HDTV, it does just a subset.
>

We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself very  
well to market forces.  In many places FFTH and/or DSL from a single  
carrier are becoming the only options.  I would not count a 500ms  
satellite hop as an option <grin>.

> Is there going to be a similar association or government agency  
> involved
> in trying to keep up with all the different ways to describe what the
> "Internet" is or isn't.  Are you going to like the definition they
> come up with?  Are they going to define various subsets of the  
> Internet,
> because the reality is in the terms and conditions of almost every ISP
> they say they aren't responsible for anything beyond their network.

Agree whole heartedly.  ISPs can not be responsible beyond their  
network.  Within their networks ISPs/NSPs can be responsible for  
ensuring the most complete routing table possible.  ISPs/NSPs can  
also be responsible for ensuring that unfettered access to the  
Internet is available to all broadband users (no port blocking in  
either direction).

Quality of service is interesting but it seems like it is not quite  
the bugaboo that people might think.   If you want to offer "special"  
services it appears there are provisions with the draft that allow  
for this.   I would suggest that special services on one user should  
not have impact on another users service and that both users should  
receive equivalent bandwidth.

Interestingly enough, I wonder if this sort of draft is going to  
actually slow down consolidation onto IP?  Maybe not in VoIP but  
perhaps in TV?  This sort of requirement can make video providers  
nervous about protecting their ability to profit.  I suppose SBC and  
it's IPTV would be the poster child for this.

I would also suggest that careful thought about pricing needs to  
occur.  It would be pretty easy to charge "$1" more for a service  
that could effectively nullify competition.   So, you are told it  
will cost you $50 dollars a month for basic broadband service and,  
for "$1" more you get all the long distance you can eat.  That would  
put the screws to every VoIP provider out there.  Note that I am not  
saying we need gov't pricing schedules.

Regards,

Blaine

Note: I responded to some of the other email I saw fly by in this  
message.  So, if I rehash my apologies.