content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
mysidia at gmail.com
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
(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
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.
More information about the NANOG