Slashdot Mirror

We should also remind Mr. Wyden that the parts of the CDA that actually tried to restrict indecent speech were unanimously struck down by the supreme court as was it's successor the COPA. The only law that they have managed to get past the courts is is the CIPA, which merely limits funding to libraries if they don't install their own filters. And the law doesn't even say that the feds can audit the libraries anyway, so the law does nothing.

(1) Advanced telecommunications capability: The term 'advanced telecommunications capability' is defined, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.

By the standards of today, 4Mbps may satisfy the requirement to "receive high-quality ...video telecommunications," if only one person in a household is attempting to use the line, but 1Mbps absolutely does not satisfy the "originate" piece.

Pushing more traffic into Verizon's network than you pull, means that Verizon's users are requesting data from you.

Umm, no it doesn't. We're not talking about last-mile links here, we're talking about backbone. If I'm Cogent, and I need to get traffic from San Francisco to New York, I can dump that on Verizon's network (or anyone else I'm peering with) and their network will dutifully forward the traffic all the way to NY. The end-point could be AT&T, Comcast, or even another Cogent customer, but dumping it on Verizon's network saves Cogent money, not having to utilize their own backbone.

And this is exactly what Cogent has been repeatedly accused of doing in the past, by pretty much EVERY TIER-1 ISP. Here's just a few examples:

https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/92749

https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/10/31/peering-dispute-between-cogent-sprint/

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/level-3-issues-statement-concerning-internet-peering-and-cogent-communications-55014572.html

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/22/peering-disputes-migrate-to-ipv6/

http://www.cybertelecom.org/industry/cogent.htm

Huh when I click on that link above it's broken.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01738:

try it from here if it fails for you.
http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/protect.htm

Searching for the FCC's charter turns up no apparent hits. Searching more specifically turns up what seem to be charters produced by various committees within the FCC, as opposed to something covering the FCC as a whole. This page seems to be the most relevant listing of charters and regulations, but again nothing seems to cover the whole FCC, aside possibly from the extremely dense FCC Rules and Regulations links list.

There are a few pages on the FCC site that touch on the internet and the FCC's regulatory role, which mostly just say the FCC doesn't regulate the internet or ISPs, with no explanation for why. Other pages like this one describe future goals of the FCC with regard to specific sub-areas of internet policy.

In the admittedly brief bit of searching I've done so far, though, I can find nothing that either resembles an overall charter for the FCC as a whole, or that lays out the FCC's regulatory scope with explanations for why things are or are not included therein.

According to the About the Federal Communications Commission page on the FCC's site:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

... and the Internet Policy Working Group intro page:

The Working Group will assist the Commission in identifying, evaluating and addressing policy issues that will arise as telecommunications services move to Internet-based platforms.

From these, I find myself still puzzled as to why the FCC can and does regulate telecom companies, preventing them from engaging in any traffic-slowing, redirecting, filtering, throttling, or other technical hobbling of competing services, and yet this same FCC is not allowed to similarly regulate ISPs.

I do find an explanation in the sleight-of-hand committed in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which classified ISPs as providing "information services" instead of "telecommunications services" (some background here), apparently formalizing some of the FCC's policies to protect little-guy ISPs from big-guy telecoms (more here). This Act seems to have been based on 1) the understanding of the internet at the time, given the early date and the non-technical backgrounds of pretty much anyone in Congress then, and 2) business interests that were very keen to not have to play by the stricter rules applied to telecoms.

While this may have had the intended effect of protecting the little guy and incentivizing innovation in internet services, the rise of media conglomerates that have been allowed to buy up everything from content production through to online delivery services despite the clear and present conflicts of interest, and that have since begun to see what kinds of anti-competitive behavior they can get away with, strongly suggests that this distinction between "telecommunication service" and "information service" might need revisiting -- or at the very least that the FCC (or some other entity) should rework the ways in which these "information services" are regulated.

Cheers,

Searching for the FCC's charter turns up no apparent hits. Searching more specifically turns up what seem to be charters produced by various committees within the FCC, as opposed to something covering the FCC as a whole. This page seems to be the most relevant listing of charters and regulations, but again nothing seems to cover the whole FCC, aside possibly from the extremely dense FCC Rules and Regulations links list.

There are a few pages on the FCC site that touch on the internet and the FCC's regulatory role, which mostly just say the FCC doesn't regulate the internet or ISPs, with no explanation for why. Other pages like this one describe future goals of the FCC with regard to specific sub-areas of internet policy.

In the admittedly brief bit of searching I've done so far, though, I can find nothing that either resembles an overall charter for the FCC as a whole, or that lays out the FCC's regulatory scope with explanations for why things are or are not included therein.

According to the About the Federal Communications Commission page on the FCC's site:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

... and the Internet Policy Working Group intro page:

The Working Group will assist the Commission in identifying, evaluating and addressing policy issues that will arise as telecommunications services move to Internet-based platforms.

From these, I find myself still puzzled as to why the FCC can and does regulate telecom companies, preventing them from engaging in any traffic-slowing, redirecting, filtering, throttling, or other technical hobbling of competing services, and yet this same FCC is not allowed to similarly regulate ISPs.

I do find an explanation in the sleight-of-hand committed in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which classified ISPs as providing "information services" instead of "telecommunications services" (some background here), apparently formalizing some of the FCC's policies to protect little-guy ISPs from big-guy telecoms (more here). This Act seems to have been based on 1) the understanding of the internet at the time, given the early date and the non-technical backgrounds of pretty much anyone in Congress then, and 2) business interests that were very keen to not have to play by the stricter rules applied to telecoms.

While this may have had the intended effect of protecting the little guy and incentivizing innovation in internet services, the rise of media conglomerates that have been allowed to buy up everything from content production through to online delivery services despite the clear and present conflicts of interest, and that have since begun to see what kinds of anti-competitive behavior they can get away with, strongly suggests that this distinction between "telecommunication service" and "information service" might need revisiting -- or at the very least that the FCC (or some other entity) should rework the ways in which these "information services" are regulated.

Cheers,

"Because in general, a public anything ends up bullying the private sector by effectively forcing them to conform to their methods or by requiring the public to pay a tax even if they don't use it they still pay for it."

Define "bullying the private sector" - because from your incredibly vague claims there, I'd say it's a good thing.

"The problem is, there is no major public thing that I know of that does not either bully the private sector or require payment by those who don't use it and funding it purely with a use tax."

Roads. Mail (see below). Internet. Yes, internet. Municipal internet has on many occasions proven cheaper and more reliable than private. See here or here for a list. I personally know people who use these services and will tell you how superior they are to the private internet in the same towns. Oh, did I mention how private interests like to sue cities for providing these? Yes, we can hand over out infrastructure to privates...

"Yeah thats because the government gave the USPS a legal monopoly on first class letters. So USPS can't send letters if it wanted to because the government fucked with the free market. Now how does that help your point?"

You just made my point, sir. A public organization has control of a market and has service and price that is as good as or better than the majority of the world's. NOT some kind of hell on earth, totally inefficient, money-bleeding, Soviet-like organization that libertarians go about claiming will result from nationalizing businesses. It proves that nationalized infrastructure works. So why don't we try with internet?

Do you really want federal judges who are going to allow federal agencies to do whatever they want, even when the law says they can't?

The problem the FCC had wasn't that the law said they can't enforce net neutrality. The problem was that their prior interpretations (i.e., the laws they made up previously, in their rule and order Computer II.) are inconsistent with what they want to do now.

ISPs are not common carriers, and never have been. It's a common misconception on Slashdot for some reason. Like this article notes, ISPs have historically not wanted to be regulated under the pre-existing common carrier regulations.

From http://www.cybertelecom.org/ip/dmca.htm:

Common carrier law establishes, among other things, that the carrier is not liable for the contents of the goods carried. Common carriers have historically come in many flavors: roadhouses (hotels), trucks, trains, telegraph networks, postal services, and telephone networks.

In recent history, common carrier law has had a focus on communications networks. Communications common carriers (aka telephone networks or historically Ma Bell) are regulated under the Communications Act of 1934. [Title 47 United States Code] In the communications context, Internet networks are not common carriers and are therefore not regulate by the FCC. This created a tension. Internet networks looked, tasted, and smelled like classic common carriers, transporting goods without ownership of or responsibility for the goods transported. But Internet networks did not wish to be considered common carriers in the communications context. This has led to a schizophrenic legal approach that has addressed the liability of networks on a case by case basis, avoiding any classification of common carriage. Congress has consistently concluded that Internet networks should not be liable for the third party content that they carry. The Communications Decency Act created a defense to liability for third party content in the context of liable and defamation. Legislative proposals with regard to Internet gambling generally provide a defense to prosecution for networks that merely provide access to content including Internet gambling without being responsible for that content. And the Digital Millennium Copyright Act created defenses to liability for third party content where ISPs comply with certain provisions of the DMCA.

This has created an interesting dichotomy where, with regard to the content transmitted, ISPs are essentially common carriers; with regard to the communications networks underneath the Internet ISPs are not common carriers.

But when traffic is being routed through my home system - when I am the "upstream provider" - there are questions I need answered: 1 What is my legal exposure? I am betting I do not have protection as a common carrier.

You are betting correctly, because no ISP has common carrier status. This is a common myth that is unfortunately widely propagated on Slashdot. Due to the safe harbor provision of of the DMCA and some other laws, ISPs do enjoy some similar protections (see, for example here and here for more details).

As for the remainder of the questions, they are valid ones and I'm not certain of the answers. Personally, I'd be willing to chance any potential exposure (which I believe would be limited but I am not certain of that), but YMMV.

While your Insightful Ass is correct that they don't have shiny Duck ID cards they cartainly walk, swim, fly, and quack like one.

Nope, it's network neutrality.

http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/common_carrier.htm

Common carriers don't have any requirement of offering the same quality of service to different contractors, especially at the same price. Network neutrality, in some definitions, holds that requirement. In addition, common carriers are held responsible for traffic across their infrastructure - this is a completely different issue.

DCMA Section 202, Sub-Section 512, Paragraph (a) provides for common carrier status in all but name.

DCMA Section 202, Sub-Section 512, Paragraph (a) provides for common carrier status in all but name.

AT&T's network (as a telecommunication service) may be a common carrier, but their Internet service (an "information service") is not a common carrier (at least, according to this).

By classifying them as "information services" the FCC placed ISPs in the "enhanced services" category defined long ago in the Computer I and Computer II inquiries. From a telecom regulation perspective that makes them the equivalent of voice mail and call forwarding. As the parent says, enhanced services are not regulated as common carriers.

Because of how broadly enhanced services are defined, I'm not convinced Comcast will lose this fight. It could make the argument that its internal methods to manage traffic constitute part of the information service it's providing, and how that's managed is none of the FCC's business. If customers don't like how Comcast manages its network, they'll switch to other providers.* The FCC can't tell Comcast how to runs its enhanced service any more than the Commission can tell the proprietor of 900-number sextalk line how to run that business.

_____

*Obviously there are monopoly issues in some locales that make changing providers more problematic, but the FCC has generally taken the view that there is competition in the provision of Internet services. I'm not arguing about whether monopoly exists, only whether Comcast has reasonable grounds to believe the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over their network-management policies. Comcast might be right.

I believe they are stretching definitions to the limit if not beyond :

"The duty to carry does not mean that a carrier is never justified in refusing to provide service. It is well established that "if goods are not of the character that the carrier transports he may refuse carriage." Gorton, Supra at 109. Yet, the reasons for refusal are very limited and related to potential damage to other's goods, or to unreasonably high risks for the carrier in its capacity as insurer, or are beyong the reasonable capacity restraints of the carrier." http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/common_carrier.htm

Even more to the point, please refer to http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/esp.htm. Specifically, the ISPs want to provide only "basic" service. As soon as they start doing anything with the "format, content, protocol or similar aspects of the subscriber's transmitted information", that becomes "enhanced" services which do not enjoy common carrier status under Title II of the Communications Act. Still, it's a hotly debated subject as far as the ISPs are concerned. They don't want to do anything that jeopardizes the status quo.

Maybe because they fall under the definition as described in 47 U.S.C. 153(h)? http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/telecom_carrier.htm

There's an important concept in telecommunications: common carrier. When I buy bandwidth, I have a not-unreasonable expectation that I get complete and unbiased Internet access, not "kinda sorta Internet," unless it's specifically marketed to me that way. This is what the whole network neutrality debate is all about.

IANAL, but I'll correct you anyway. :)

http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/telecom_carrier.htm
http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/jones.htm

thus far, the law (CA 1934, CALEA, 47 U.S.C. 153(h)(1991), etc.) does not differentiate between a "communications provider" that uses voice or analog signal, and one that does packet pushing for data (which lately, could also be voice). Of course, as soon as you go modifying what you're carrying (snooping on traffic, prioritizing traffic for whoever pays the most, etc.) that common carrier status is in jeopardy.

The law could of course be rewritten at any time, or interpreted differently by any judge.

IANAL, but I'll correct you anyway. :)

http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/telecom_carrier.htm
http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/jones.htm

thus far, the law (CA 1934, CALEA, 47 U.S.C. 153(h)(1991), etc.) does not differentiate between a "communications provider" that uses voice or analog signal, and one that does packet pushing for data (which lately, could also be voice). Of course, as soon as you go modifying what you're carrying (snooping on traffic, prioritizing traffic for whoever pays the most, etc.) that common carrier status is in jeopardy.

The law could of course be rewritten at any time, or interpreted differently by any judge.

I really wish people on slashdot would stop propagating this falsehood, INFORMATION SERVICES IN NO WAY HAVE COMMON CARRIER STATUS.

http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/telecom_carrier. htm

        (C) does not include--

                (i) persons or entities insofar as they are engaged in providing information services; and

People keep saying this, but the rhetoric continually gets regurgitated...

On the other side of the globe, US intelligence broke Japanese Code leading to multiple turning points in the War. Unsure of the destination of the massed Japanese fleet, the U.S. sent a low priority, unsecured transmission that Midway Island was facing a water shortage. When the Japanese sent a coded message that their target faced a water shortage, the Americans knew the Japanese battle plan and the famous Battle of the Midway was initiated. In another epic moment, the Americans intercepted a Japanese encoded message giving the specific flight itinerary of the famous Admiral Yamamoto. The United States sent a squadron to meet the notoriously punctual Japanese and deprived the Japanese Navy of the further service one of its great commanders.

Every US "Cybersecurity Czar" has quit in disgust. The Homeland Security agency can't even find someone to run the office, because it's a total joke.

Meanwhile, the US has already been under siege by China in a full-blown cyberwar for several years.

It's cheap to attack the US tech infrastructure, and expensive to defend against it. That's what asymmetric warfare, like terrorism, is all about. So 6 years into Bush's Terror War, and the government is still preparing to get started, while our enemies just surge around us.

The Federal Communications Commission is an independent federal agency established pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934 (title 47 of the United States Code). Section 1 of the Act sets forth the authority for the creation of the FCC, stating, For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission'', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter. This is very broad authority. This section grants jurisdiction to the FCC over all interstate radio and wireline communications, which pretty much covers everything. You should also notice that this initial language has universal service language built right into it, setting forth the driving policy of making available to all people an efficient communications service.

Here ya go, from the site. The short answer is no, you can't be shot for having the FuzzyBunnies porn site. However, if someone makes a kids show called Fuzzy Bunnies, registers the site, but you register FuzyBunies.com for porn, then yes, you could go to BOHICA Club Fed. HTH, HAND.

Truth in Domain Names Act of 2003

As a part of the massive 2003 PROTECT Act (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act), which included the AMBER Alert legislation, Congress passed the Truth in Domain Names Act. The Truth in Domain Names Act is an attempt to thwart the use of deceitful domain names for the purpose of attracting surfers to pornographic websites. A demonstration of the usefulness of the law is quite simple. Go to whitehouse.gov and you will find out information concerning the President of the United States; go to whitehouse.com and, well, you will find out something else; it may deal with White House interns but it is probably not what you are looking for if you meant to find out information concerning the latest executive order.

The legislation is straight forward. Those who use domain names in order to trick people into viewing obscenity will land up in the slammer; trick kids into viewing material harmful to minors and you end up in the slammer for longer (see discussion of obscenity and material harmful to minors).

The Department of Justice broke this new law in with a bang in 2003, arresting John Zuccarini. Zuccarini reportedly was a notorious typo squatter, taking advantage of individuals who type domain names incorrectly. Zuccarini apparently was the owner of Teltubbies.com and Bobthebiulder.com which directed individuals to a porn site known as Hanky Panky College . For these actions, Zuccarini, the first individual arrested under the Act, was sentanced to two and a half years comteplation of his deeds behind bars.

Robert Cannon. Updated March 4, 2004.

18 U.S.C. 2252B. Misleading domain names on the Internet

        (a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
        (b) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both.
        (c) For the purposes of this section, a domain name that includes a word or words to indicate the sexual content of the site, such as `sex' or `porn', is not misleading.
        (d) For the purposes of this section, the term `material that is harmful to minors' means any communication, consisting of nudity, sex, or excretion, that, taken as a whole and with reference to its context--

                (1) predominantly appeals to a prurient interest of minors;
                (2) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
                (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

        (e) For the purposes of subsection (d), the term `sex' means acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physcial contact with a person's genitals, or the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.'.

However, comparing a packet's address to a target address involves four times as many bits in IPv6 as in IPv4.

The improved routing, or movement of information from a source to a destination, is more efficient in IPv6 because it incorporates a hierarchal addressing structure and has a simplified header. The large amount of address space allows organizations with large numbers of employees to obtain blocks of contiguous address space. Contiguous address space allows organizations to aggregate addresses under one prefix for identification on the Internet. This structured approach to addressing reduces the amount of information Internet routers must maintain and store and promotes faster routing of data. In addition, as shown in figure 5, IPv6 has a simplified header because of the elimination of six fields from the IPv4 header. The simplified header also contributes to faster routing.

And while your at it, you might also want to lookup some of the law on Common Carriage. Eg. http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/defcc.htm

As was pointed out earlier, they are a "common carrier" which, according to this definition must "serve indifferently all potential users". Obviously this doesn't work if you are serving yourself preferentially.

For a detailed discussion of FCC regulatory authority and the Internet, see Cybertelecom www.cybertelecom.org. The most important proceeding is the Computer Inquiries. But there are also the Internet over Broadband proceedings, the VoIP proceedings, the CALEA proceedings, Erate, Children's Internet Protection Act, Can Spam Act (FCC has authority over spam to mobile phones), and well much more.

Hmmm, you need to check your facts... Provisions in the DMCA effectively made ISP's common carriers, ie not responsible for the traffic that is going across their network and there have been several court cases that have upheld this provision...

Do a google search on DMCA "common carrier" ISP...

Here's a url to get you started http://www.cybertelecom.org/ip/dmca.htm

I agree that it will not be easy to make everyone switch at once, but that is true for many of the proposed solutions.

SPF, for instance, fights forgery, which happens to make it easier to identify the real origins of spam. Finding the real origins of spam makes it easier to make policy decisions for filtering and blocking common sources of spam.

This can easily be rolled out as needed or desired and doesn't need to be rolled out everywhere for it to start being effective right away. "Difficult" doesn't do justice to something that replaces SMTP outright.

Why do ISPs risk common carrier status?

ISPs may be considered common carriers in your locale, but the laws and regulations in the USA do not consider ISPs to be common carriers. Other locales may vary as well.

Filtering to suppress an undesirable (to them) form of traffic kinda contradicts that and would turn them more into the equivalent of a content provider.

Spam is about consent, not content.

ISPs are common carriers. (The CDA tried to declare that they aren't, but it was overturned)

By definition, a common carrier is someone with a policy to transport things irregardless of what they are, discriminating only on the customer's ability to pay. (And size/weight of packages, if relevant). Since specific laws are silent on the subject, courts will treat ISPs as common carriers, according to the dictionary (or common-law) definition.

An individual ISP can, if it wishes, enact publicly stated policies to remove it's common-carrier status. Some people will pay extra to get porn censored from their networking. An ISP like that is not a common carrier, and loses some protections. They can be sued, for instance, if a user clicks a goatsex link that should've been blocked.

But common-carrier and local decency standards have nothing to do with child porn, which is a federal offense.

One isn't supposed to "block" child porn- in theory, this is a serious crime, and any responsible citizen will report it to the police/FBI, who will physically unplug the suspect's computer.

That's why they can't just willie nilly record your conversations.

Not all "phone companies" are monopolies. Some are smaller companies, using the government's "must carry" rules to borrow a bigger company's lines. Yet they can't spy on you either.

There are many other reasons. State laws against wiretapping, for example, can make it a crime to record any communication without informed consent of all parties. Those laws aren't uniform, though. In some states, it only applies to audio and not text/images. Also, some states require only one member of the conversation to give consent.

``(C) CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ADULTS.--A certification under this paragraph is a certification that the library--
``(i) is enforcing a policy of Internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are- (... legal stuff)

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)