Overhauled Telecommunications Law Draft

pin_gween writes "ZDNet.com has published info on proposed changes to the telecommunications laws. The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce committee released a 77-page staff working draft (PDF alert) and is now calling for comments from interested parties. Highlights include: 'The draft defines, for regulatory purposes, broadband Internet transmission services--or BITS--as "a packet-switched service that is offered to the public," regardless of the equipment or protocol used. That puts DSL and cable providers on equal footing... A federal framework for regulating BITS, VoIP and broadband video services...BITS, VoIP and broadband video services must not block their subscribers' access to any content or applications and must allow their subscribers to connect to their services with whichever devices they choose...Recourse for VoIP providers: They're expected to negotiate their own rates with telecommunications companies for use of their wires'"

Comments

It's Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

The only draft I want to hear about is what they have on tap.

Re:It's Friday

[Photon Ghoul]

Ramen, brother!

Re:It's Friday

[Viper Daimao]

I hope its this

Re:It's Friday

[interiot]

For what it's worth, I've reformated the draft text here to make it easier to digest.

One thing to note, does this imply that ANYONE who writes VoIP software has to register with their state before allowing anyone to use it? (see section 202 and the definition of VoIP Service and VoIP provider)

Re:It's Friday

[interiot]

Wow. So VoIP is declared to be interstate commerce, and subject ONLY to federal laws, and it's subject to the following requirements: number portability, interconnection, 911 services, possibly universal service, TTY relay.

And yet, it doesn't seem like they clarify the definition of "VoIP service" in the LEAST bit to clarify whether they in fact intend to include things like NetMeeting conferences, open source authors of SIP software, etc etc. Hopefully that's clarified soon rather than later.

The same comments generally apply to "Video Services" (it's federal-only interstate commerce, blah blah), though they do define it slightly more narrowly:

The term ''video programming package'' means the offering of a package of multiple programs generally considered to be comparable to programs provided by a television broadcast station.

Though that's not really terribly much of a clarification.

I have a feeling they don't know what they're getting into.

Re:It's Friday

[interiot]

Wikipedia page in case anyone wants to contribute to the summary. I'm assuming this will become law in some form or other, since we have a (more or less) unified Republican President and Congress.

Re:It's Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

stfu interiot. you are too stupid to exist.

Re:It's Friday

[interiot]

Are you hoping to be modded up +4 on that one too, since that's one of the few ways you have to be happy?

Re:It's Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about and who are you talking about or to? Yourself or are you just being paranoid since you like to make so many enemies online? You need to be more concise and detailed in your replies imho. Is it that you type with your nose instead or so slowly that details are too much effort?

Re:It's Friday

[interiot]

At the least, it's good you've realized that lower-level patterns like "P.S.=>" are very obvious patterns that differentiate you from... everyone else. But your higher-level thought patterns are also radically different from anyone else. That's not such a problem though. Honestly, it's much greater of a problem that you don't even remotely realize how different your thought patterns are from everyone else, because that is one of the things that makes it makes it almost impossible for you to have a remotely normal relationship (business or otherwise) with other people. (it also makes it difficult for you to post anonymously without detection, but online posts aren't nearly as important as how you get along with your real-life family and peers).

Re:It's Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you talking about madman?

Re:It's Friday

[interiot]

Sorry, I guess there was some confusion. I must be talking to the wrong APK.

Re:It's Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I guess there was some confusion is what you said? No you're just simply stupid. Accept it.

Ahead of the effect.

[cente]

PDF Mirrordot.

SMTP server at home?

[flubbergust]

BITS, VoIP and broadband video services must not block their subscribers' access to any content or applications and must allow their subscribers to connect to their services with whichever devices they choose

Would this mean that they cant block port 25 and that someone could run their own private SMTP server at home on their DSL line? More SPAM anyone?

Re:SMTP server at home?

[EvilSS]

Yea, because god forbid people are allowed to do what the hell they want with their connections.
Save a mailbox...Support Port Control!

Re:SMTP server at home?

[Whafro]

No, being unable to block subscribers' access to content and applications doesn't (to my reading) mean that they aren't able to block others' access to subscribers. Then again, I haven't read the draft yet, so that may not be the exact wording.

As you suggested, the ability of ISPs to block ports is, in many cases, a seemingly-necessary evil, and I'm sure that the Telecom committee would hear from many leading ISPs that this is the case.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say "about time".

The only really effective spam filtering method would be to check the IP address of the server the connection comes from. After all, none of the headers are reliable. The problem is, with port 25 blocked, and all mail forced through the ISPs mailserver, all connections comes *from the ISPs server*, making effective spam filtering impossible.

That's why we (everyone except the ISPs) are stuck with bayesian filters, word filters, and other attempts at "intelligent" filters, which will always have a failure rate, not only failing to detect spam, but even worse, once in a while detect a real, important mail as spam.

And that's not to mention when some ISPs start trying the same tricks, and reject legitimate e-mails at *their* server.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[SimilarityEngine]

I'd have thought that the existing botnets would be more efficient for spamming than setting up a home SMTP server?

Re:SMTP server at home?

[Andrew Lenahan]

That isn't really what it's about. This line is about BITS, VoiP, and video services, not Internet access in general. This is especially important in VoiP, which is essentially phone service. Imagine if Verizon phones refused to call anyone with Sprint or T-Mobile service, or vice versa. It certainly has nothing to do with people's abilities to run servers, block ports, etc.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[entirety]

Blocking ANY ports is Evil. All you are really doing is forcing folks to obscure and hide making the situation worse. Keep all ports open. Work on this issue at a higher layer. The more you block ports the harder it is to track down the evil doers as they move to unblocked ports.

Yours truly, large ISP guy (in the physical and corporate sense of the term).

Re:SMTP server at home?

[Antique Geekmeister]

You've misunderstood. Many ISP's are now blocking outgoing port 25, to block zombied spam machines on their own networks from being used to send spam and to block email worm attacks from spreading from inside their own networks. Many also block SMB ports for Windows file sharing, for similar reasons. This is extremely reasonable for home users, who normally wouldn't run a direct mail server anyway. But it's a real burden for someone who runs a laptop and wants to be able to run their own mail server on it and not have to play games as they go from location to location, even if the spam blacklists will block them at most cable or DSL public address ranges.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[It doesn't come easy]

First, remember you can give away your rights in a contract. Except where a contract provision is unconstitutional or detrimental to the public good, specific contract clauses can override any rules layed out by federal law. So if the BITS provider (BITSP) says terms of service means you can't run a server then you can't legally.

But it would mean for example that the BITSP couldn't block you from using a protocol that wasn't declared out and out illegal, for example Bittorrent. It would also mean they could not arbitrarily censor web sites based on the BITSP interpretation (however, they would still be expected to follow censorship required by the government).

There's a rather large gray area in the language, specifically "...to provide subscribers with access to lawful content, applications, and services...". Since we have such draconian laws on the books already (such as the DMCA) which basically allow any big company to declare anything unlawful without proof, don't expect this bill to affect the current state of things. I would bet that this bill would actually increase abuses such as what we see with the DMCA. I guess that isn't unexpected at this point.

I would also say that the bill goes into specifics when defining information that can personally identify someone but they leave out a significant area -- namely electronic ID's of hardware and software. For example, it would be simple to identify a specific person if one company provided a cable modem to a single subscriber with a unique ID (for example the MAC number) or software that supplied a unique ID (such as WMP) and then tracked web site visits based on that unique identifier. I think that the list of personally identifiable information should have the phrase added "and any combination of unique identifiers that could reasonably be associated with one individual or household". Just a thought.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[ArtStone]

This is probabaly why the document is called a draft, and Congress is requesting feedback.

Since it is a fair bet that most members of Congress grew up and received their education prior to the PC generation - and wouldn't know Skype from Kazaa from iPod from Linux - now is the time to help educate them before we wind up with yet more misguided laws.

Just as an aside, do you think Judge Roberts is computer and technology literate? - it's his Court that is going to inherit whatever this mess turns into. I tend to think so - he mentioned during the hearings that he was on the legal team that sued Microsoft over the anti-trust issue - surely every slashdotter's hero!

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jht ml?articleID=166401173

Re:SMTP server at home?

[Phanatic1a]

Pennsylvania passed a law a few years back requiring ISPs to block access to sites accused of trafficing in child porn. The law was found to be unconstitutional (violates 1st Amendment, commerce clause), but other states, like Utah, have passed similar laws.

This would definitely seem to preempt such laws.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[mikael]

That's called the Distributed Sender Blackhole List

ISP's who don't want their customers to be running their own E-mail servers can register their domain ranges to this list. Companies and individuals then look up each IP address in this list and reject the connection accordingly.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[squiggleslash]

Hi,

I run an SMTP server at home so I can receive email and deal with spam in an effective way. Like many people, I set up a domain, and set up an email address for each entity I do business with. If that entity passes on the email address to spammers, I close off that means of communication.

If everyone did the same thing, there'd be no spam. The fact I am doing this takes the load off my ISP who'd otherwise have to deal with any spam that would otherwise be sent to me on their own SMTP servers. Which they'd probably do badly.

So take your stupid, dumbass, "anti-spam" idea of blocking people from doing perfectly legitimate things with their connections, and stick it right up your arse. Spammers hurt the internet. Anti-spammers, however, are killing it.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[raehl]

You'd have to go and read the actual final bill to tell. The INTENT here seems to be to prevent your ISP from, say, blocking your ability to use any VoIP provider other than the one your ISP owns, for example. This is a real concern - I can get WiMAX in my area, for example, but the provider blocks vonage - something they don't tell you so you find it out after you've paid your money and try to use Vonage. Fortunately, I have alternative service providers, but it could be a problem if you only had one alternative in your area.

What's fair is fair - if an ISP wants the protection of not having to regulate the content of transmissions on their networks, then they shouldn't be regulating the content of transmissions on their networks.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[Myself]

It always seemed to me that ISP-based filtering, be it spam filtering, port filtering, adult content filtering, should simply be enabled by default with a simple way for the subscriber to turn it on or off at will.

Most subscribers would never bump up against most restrictions, and would remain walled off. Power users could easily open up as much as they need.

Are there any existing ways to give individual subscribers control over these things, that ISPs could be pointed to and told "implement THIS."?

Re:SMTP server at home?

[jcostantino]

That would be nice but it's just easier for them to tell people who want/need ports opened that they are out of luck. I went through DNSMadeEasy.com (don't work for them) and they host my DNS and SMTP server. I think it costs me about $25 a year. I was using www.granitecanyon.com's free DNS but I was getting what I paid for because it was up and down almost at a whim... good when it ran because it was free but paying a little bit for DNS services now means I have full record editing but it's easy to do so if/when I need to.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[pointbeing]

That's why we (everyone except the ISPs) are stuck with bayesian filters, word filters, and other attempts at "intelligent" filters, which will always have a failure rate, not only failing to detect spam, but even worse, once in a while detect a real, important mail as spam.

My DSL provider is pretty cool - 5M down, 512k up and doesn't care what I run as long as I don't exceed his (rather generous) bandwidth limits. I'm running mail, IRC and limited web services on his wire.

The thing that stood out for me (and it's an argument I've had with mail and firewall admins for a couple years) is that an admin should *never* use a rule to delete a piece of email. IM frequently less than HO rerouting to a 'suspected spam' folder is fine, though.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[n0-0p]

My DSL provider started blocking port 25 so I switched to SSMTP (465). I've only seen that blocked on corporate intranets where they only allow HTTPS and proxied HTTP and FTP to the Internet; your only real option in that scenario is webmail.

It was a simple change to set up because I was already requiring authentication over TLS for mail relaying. If you're leaving a public mail server out there you really should be authenticating over an encrypted connection anyway. This is just a simple adjustment that I don't mind it if it reduces the number of spam zombies.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[silas_moeckel]

What does the laptop issue have to do with anything. Mail client to mail server should go over the mail submission port not port 25. Perferably you wold be using the SSLed ports for sending and reading mail. Properly configured submission ports only accept mail from authenticated clients so general spam is not an issue (Spyware taking over mail clients and sending spam is) Anyway confgure your mail server and laptop corrently once and your all set. If you realy expect to run a mail server on a laptop I would sugest reading up on UUCP, mail servers are expected to have constant connections.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[Sylver Dragon]

That's the reason I picked my current ISP. I want to run my own mail server.
<shamless plug>
DSL Extreme
(Don't work for them, just really like their service)
</shameless plug>
Keeps port 25 outbound blocked by default, but by just going through a few clicks on their site you can have it unblocked. If they notice a large amount of traffic from you on port 25 they will turn it off again and ask you to explain yourself.
This is really the way it should work, give me a pipe and let me put whatever I want through it, it's not like it makes a difference for the ISP, as long as the amount of traffic is not outragous. If you want to have some extra protection sitting there for the less computer savvy, fine, just let me remove it if I know enough to not be a problem.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except where a contract provision is unconstitutional or detrimental to the public good, specific contract clauses can override any rules layed out by federal law.

Uh, no. This is why every (well-written) contract has a clause covering the illegality of any other clause, indicating that should any other clause be determined illegal, all of the other clauses shall remain in force.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[woverly]

If the final law were intended to prevent blocking port 25, providers would only need to charge for data originating from or destined to port 25. The law will certainly not regulate cost

Re:SMTP server at home?

[sprior]

I run a SMTP server at home and I wouldn't want that ever to be taken away. But I do think the responsible thing for ISPs to do is to block outgoing port 25 BY DEFAULT. If a customer wants to set up a SMTP server as I have done then it should be doable with an authorization form (which would also lay out a policy of anti-relaying and complaint resolution) on the ISPs website which would remove the block. The problem with spam on these kinds of connections is botnets sending the spam without user knowledge and this would add protection for that. I still get my freedom to choose and everyone (but spammers) are happy.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[Peter La Casse]

That isn't really what it's about. This line is about BITS, VoiP, and video services, not Internet access in general.

"The draft defines, for regulatory purposes, broadband Internet transmission services--or BITS--as "a packet-switched service that is offered to the public," regardless of the equipment or protocol used."

Using that definition, BITS is internet access in general.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[ratboy666]

First, port 25 *is* the mail submission port. Next, authentication *can* be done using this port.

I do have a "constant" connection at home. With cable modem. Its up pretty much 24/7. My DNS provider can't tell client which port to use for incoming mail though. It is assumed to be port 25. Of course I don't relay that email.

Why would I bother with SSL? In this application (receiving internet mail), its almost completely useless (specifically, I can't control relaying that may already have happened).

I tried, and dropped Bell Sympatico DSL, because they blocked INCOMING port 25 as well. There are services that will take port 25 submitted mail and relay it. At an additional cost per month.

And, I accept mail from ANYBODY. I just don't relay it. (more specifically, I relay internal mail, but not external mail). Authentication doesn't have anything to do with this.

Ratboy.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[silas_moeckel]

I was talking about laptops moving from connection to connection sending mail thus mail submission. Port 25 as mail submission is depreciated by newer RFC's I beleive (might be incorrect on that one) anyway inbound port 25 blocking is an issue with your ISP get them to fix it or move to another provider. It's general considered a good thing to have at least one backup mail server for reliability BTW. In your case it's sounds like you have issue with your contract with your ISP they generaly have clauses against doing what your talking about on home type DSL and it's a feature of there business service.

SSL is a personal preferance as it's blocked less often and stops some brain dead applications from sending clear text auth.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[Antique Geekmeister]

It becomes a maintenance and billing problem for the routers or gateways to block such traffic and change the settings on the core routers at the flick of a user interface. That takes some hardware or intelligent design time, right up front where it's difficult to get the money to do. AOL works around it by having their entire network NAT'ed to save the cost of IP space and block incoming probes, and by trying very hard to force all email to go through their mail systems. Many ISP's also block port 25 but not port 587, so that people off-site from their workplace can reach to an authenticating and stable, traceable SMTP server rather than directly running SMTP servers on their home networks.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nothing, my Cable provider: Charter Communications recently started blocking ports 6667, 5000, and 4000 outbound. They have long blocked outbound port 25, 139, 137, and a few others.

Re:SMTP server at home?

[NateTech]

Even after an ISP starts making money, it's rare for them to go back and revisit poor design.

Being small and poor as a company is a lame excuse for not knowing what's going on and not doing proper design.

It's not like there's any lack of information out there about how to do things correctly, so any businessperson who starts an ISP who can't afford to do quality work doesn't deserve to have a business doing it anyway.

What does this mean?

[MrWiggum]

Maybe I'm dense but what does this mean? How will this effect the end user? Does this mean that the price of internet service will go down? Maybe who understands the document a little better could explain.

Re:What does this mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe who understands the document a little better could explain.

Hmm.. the document is 77 pages of PDF goodness. Think I'll leave it to someone else.

Seriously, Slashdot readers are hardly notorious for RTFAing - what was the point of linking to a 77 page article?

Re:What does this mean?

[ari_j]

What was the point of linking to a 77-page article?

To slashdot the government, man.

What about the USF?

[Andrew Lenahan]

I'm concerned that with all 77 pages of beaurocracy here, there's no decisive action one way or another towards getting VoiP providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund... it just says, essentially, that they'll have a chat about it at the FCC and decide something later. Something tells me that anything firm on that issue is a long way off.

Re:What about the USF?

[netwiz]

what, you mean I won't have to pay one of the myriad hidden taxes that Big Telco has managed to lobby into law? Wow! Awesome!

Re:What about the USF?

[MichaelSmith]

what, you mean I won't have to pay one of the myriad hidden taxes that Big Telco has managed to lobby into law? Wow! Awesome!

Here in Australia our USF pays for non profitable public telephone services in remote areas. This is deemed to be a good thing.

You may not agree, bit I think cross subsidies like this keep our less populated areas from being entirely without the comforts of the modern world.

Re:What about the USF?

[wheelbarrow]

What's the purpose of the USF? Why is it so vital that society has coerced people, by force, to pay it?

Perhaps instead of coercion, you people who advocate the USF should win the hearts and minds of enough people who would be willing to contribute on a voluntary basis. In that scenario, the altruistic goals of the USF are met without the corrosive effects of coercion.

Re:What about the USF?

[lowrydr310]

My understanding is that the law doesn't require Telecom companies to charge their customers hidden taxes and surcharges. The Telcos themselves are required to pay these taxes/fees/surcharges, but long ago they realized they could increase their profits by making customers pay separately for all those fees. What's scary is that they're allowed to get away with it, and to my knowledge no one is standing up against it.

Imagine if Wal-Mart decided they were going to tack on a $0.50 'electricity surcharge' to cover the cost of electricity they pay to light their store. Or what about a 'paper surcharge' to cover the cost of the paper your receipt was printed on?

Re:What about the USF?

[Anon E. Muss]

If people in rural areas want me to pay a USF tax so they can have cheap telecom service, I think it only fair that they help solve some of my problems. I propose that for every $1,000 of USF funds that a rural area receives, it also has to accept one street gang member and two lawyers. Welcome to life in the big city!

Re:What about the USF?

[Andrew Lenahan]

You do pay those surcharges, they're just rolled into the prices instead of broken down. If business costs don't come from the customer, where do they come from? One lesson from the dot-com boom is that if a company does business at a loss, it doesn't operate for very long. I don't actually mind paying the buck or two for the USF, as I see it as a worthy cause. I'll never understand folks who pay $4 for a cup of Starbuck's coffee every morning, but complain about the chump change they contribute to the USF.

Re:What about the USF?

[Anon E. Muss]

I think cross subsidies like this keep our less populated areas from being entirely without the comforts of the modern world.

Nobody is forced to live in a less populated area. It's their choice, and as with most choices, it comes with upsides and downsides. One of the downsides is that telecom is expensive.

Re:What about the USF?

[Reziac]

You forgot to mention that the telcos are allowed to charge customers not only the mandated fee itself, but as much OVER the mandated fee as the market will bear -- and the telcos get to pocket the difference.

Re:What about the USF?

[Anon E. Muss]

I don't actually mind paying the buck or two for the USF, as I see it as a worthy cause.

Good for you! Feel free to donate as much of your own money to that cause as you want.

I'll never understand folks who pay $4 for a cup of Starbuck's coffee every morning, but complain about the chump change they contribute to the USF.

The difference is that nobody is forcing you to spend $4 at Starbuck's, but you want to force other people to pay into USF.

Re:What about the USF?

[MobyDisk]

Who says that less populated areas must have all the comforts of the modern world? There are people who live in some of those areas who despise those modern comforts.

This is one of those "manifest destiny" type things that drives me crazy. People just assume that it is the right of humanity to cover the entire globe with our coveniences: electricity, running water, and telephony. But is that really a good idea? I always think of that planet in Star Wars (Coruscant?) that is completely covered in city. Is that humanty's dream?

Re:What about the USF?

[Flying Purple Wombat]

But Wal-Mart DOES charge you for electricity and paper and every other cost of doing business. How else would they turn a profit? It's included in the price of the product. They just don't itemize it on your receipt. Every company passes costs on to the customer, and raises prices when those costs increase. The telcos, for whatever reason, choose to itemize all of those costs. Probably so they can advertise a low base rate, then nail you with the real cost later.

Re:What about the USF?

[member57]

Quit your bitching, go drink your $4.00 Starbuck's shit. If it wasn't the USF, it would be taken away some other way, atleast it won't pay for haircuts while a 747 sits idling on a taxiway. Oops that bill has already been paid. Err, well pay the phone bill while the President gets a hummer under his desk, Oops we already paid for that one too... Oh well you get the picture. Maybe it will help a farmer/ rancher DL some free porn or something.

Re:What about the USF?

[lowrydr310]

I understand that. The point of my post was to highlight the possibility of Wal-Mart tacking on additonal surcharges to cover those fees. What's stopping them? They would increase their profits the same way the telecom companies do.

Why do the telecom companies separately add on their costs of doing business, while practically no other industry does this?

Car dealers get away with this practice too, sometimes charging a $100+ 'advertising fee' to cover the costs of regional advertising. I know they have to pay for advertising, but why don't they just include that among other costs of doing business in the overall price?

Re:What about the USF?

[lowrydr310]

but as much OVER the mandated fee as the market will bear

I like that one. How do they determine how much the market will bear?

Customer: "I think you're charging me too much in additional fees. I'd like you to lower those fees to the actual cost that you have to pay.

Verizon: No.

One way to 'let the market decide' is to switch to another carrier (if it's a cellphone at least) however since these fees aren't published there's no way of telling if the company you're switching to charges more!

I actually called Sprint's Customer Service to get an explanation of those fees to see how the rates are determined. I wanted some hard documented material that clearly defined what Sprint is charging to their customers. If they're government mandated fees, I would assume that Sprint would have the information that tells them how much they're required to collect. I repeatedly asked "You're charging me additional taxes and fees, and since they're mandated someone had to tell you how much to charge/collect. What are the rates?" and their response was "Sir, we don't have that information. You need to contact your local city/county/state government since they set those fees." I wasn't complaining about the fees, rather I just wanted some information about them - is it a flat fee or a percentage? How much? Why couldn't Sprint tell me what the rates are, even though they're collecting it from me?

Re:What about the USF?

[Andrew Lenahan]

I don't have a decisive answer for that, but my guess is that keeping the fees seperate allows the telco to advertise low service fees like $30/month when the actual bill turns out to be more like $37 or 40. Hotels and motels do the same thing: $39 room rate on the sign, but with all the taxes and fees it's usually a good $10 more. Maybe there's some law that service industries have to break down every billed charge so that the consumer knows just what they're paying for.

Though it's mildly annoying, I actually prefer that method of itemised billing. If I were to go buy a Mountain Dew, how much of my dollar would pay for the water and flavouring, and how much would pay for annoying TV commercials, extreme-sports sponsherships, and product placements on WB and UPN shows I'd never watch in a trillion years?

I may not like every charge on my phone bill, but at least I know what they're wasting my money on.

Re:What about the USF?

[egburr]

That's the entire problem. With Wal-Mart, the price you see is what you pay (plus state/county/city sales tax (which I've never figured out why they don't add that in, too)). With the phone company, the price you see is only a small portion of what you pay. The difference is the displayed price.

I would much prefer to have the total package price shown before I commit to a contract. With the phone company, you can't even find out what fees will be added or how much they are until you receive your first bill. In the past, I have actually had long distance bills where the taxes and fees were 70% of the final total (if I remember right: $4 in calls and $10 in fees).

That's why I like my ISP, I pay the amount that was advertised (taxes included!) and never more. I used to like my cell phone service; until they recently tacked on a couple new fees, I was paying the advertised price plus taxes. I can't find out if others are doing that too, so I haven't gotten serious about switching yet. I dropped land line service 4 years ago and never looked back; when the $20 service generates a $40 bill each month, something's wrong. I've thought about Vonage a few times, because it looks like another service where the advertised price is actually what you pay, but so far my cell phone has been sufficient for my needs.

Re:What about the USF?

[Reziac]

What the market will bear: bend over! anyone seen the lube?

I did once see a writeup on the problem, with numbers, and it said that on average the telcos tack about $4 (*per fee*) on top of the mandated fees.

Side note: my LD service is thru Costco's contract with an MCI reseller called "TTI National". I pay about 5 cents a minute (sometimes it's less) for LD, an additional 2% or so in tax, and NO add-on or access fees whatsoever.

Re:What about the USF?

[Rasta Prefect]

Imagine if Wal-Mart decided they were going to tack on a $0.50 'electricity surcharge' to cover the cost of electricity they pay to light their store. Or what about a 'paper surcharge' to cover the cost of the paper your receipt was printed on?

Ummm...You mean exactly the way that Sales Tax appears on my receipt every time I shop there?

Re:What about the USF?

[MichaelSmith]

Nobody is forced to live in a less populated area. It's their choice, and as with most choices, it comes with upsides and downsides. One of the downsides is that telecom is expensive.

We have a heavy economic reliance on people working in remote areas. Farming and mining are two examples. In some areas communication services would cost 1000's of times what they do in the city and no people would work there.

Subsidies like this are actually important for our economy. Less so than in the USA, but the argument probably applies to some extent there as well.

Re:What about the USF?

[unitron]

"Imagine if Wal-Mart decided they were going to tack on a $0.50 'electricity surcharge' to cover the cost of electricity they pay to light their store. Or what about a 'paper surcharge' to cover the cost of the paper your receipt was printed on?"

They do. It's called "overhead" and it's already factored into the amount (markup) they add to their wholesale price (what they pay for the item) that results in the retail price (what you pay them for that item). They just don't give you a breakdown of how much is wholesale, how much is markup, and how the markup is divided to cover all of their costs (labor, utilities, building costs, transportation, what they pay to various governments, etc.) when they quote you a retail price.

If they tacked on a fifty cent surcharge for electricity you'd expect the retail price to go down by fifty cents. If it doesn't you find somebody else selling the same thing for fifty cents less until Wal-Mart gets in line.

Phone companies have a lot more in their overhead that goes to various governments so they break out those costs on your bill to deflect your anger from them to the proper target.

Back to Ma Bell

[netwiz]

in whatever form she's going to take this time. (probably Verizon, or, given their track record WRT outages and service, SBC, Ha! Ha!)

In any event, it's not terribly surprising. Telco infrastructure is one of those things that small companies just don't have the footprint or bags of cash with which to compete. Sure, there will continue to be fringe companies out there, like Vonage and Skype, but once the big vendors get their VoIP rolling, it's the end for the bit players, as customers will invariably pick the "one bill" option from their wire (or cable, or fiber) provider.

I'm not saying there's no room for the smaller service players, but their market is going to contract as the feds get involved.

On the other hand, it's nice to see some movement from the gov't in the sense that they're now considering packet-switched services to be just as critical to regulate (in a competitive sense) as POTS. It really will give the telcos the room to move compared to the nearly free reign that cable's had for nearly a decade in the broadband arena.

/works for giant telco, so take the above with that slant.

Regulations will stifle development and raise cost

[dada21]

I couldn't read the 77page FA.

"New services shouldn't be hamstrung by old thinking and outdated regulations."

Right. No regulation can keep up with changing technology. The best thing about new technologies is the providers finding ways around regulations and the monopolies they create.

Neither the Federal Communications Commission nor states will have the power to regulate the "rates, charges, terms, or conditions" of any of the providers unless directed by federal law.

And the laws setting prices will follow. Maybe some "keep logs for terrorism" add-ons, too.

But they're encouraged to provide protections against security threats and theft of their services.

But? So vague, it will allow them to criminalize both action and inaction.

The FCC must convene an inquiry into whether to compel VoIP providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund,

Ahhhh! Income for our friendly feds.

"pleased to see many of the pro-competitive features of the draft."

Competition will only be reduced to those who can afford lawyers and politicos. Mark my words.

Big broadband providers reserved judgment on the draft's content but were quick to hail its release,

Status. Quo. Profit!!!

Nuff said.

So?

[tgd]

I think I got moderated into oblivion last time the USF came up on here, but I'm going to reply again and take my chances again.

The USF is an outmoded concept and should be eliminated. It was a tolerable idea in the time where the only option to get communications into rural locations was physically running expensive wires. Now we have satellite, cellular, cable and other sources for telecommunications.

Yes, maybe your phone service will cost you $100/month and your internet $200/month in rural farm country Kansas. Maybe phone and internet together runs someone in downtown Boston $30/month. The people in Kansas need to get over it. Their houses don't cost $1000/sq ft either. The cost of living in a city is high, but your access to everything is very easy. Your cost of living in the country is low, and your access to everything may also be expensive. Thats the trade-off. People who choose one lifestyle over another should not have any requirement to support those who made the other choice or be supported by those who made the other choice. Thats just rediculous.

Re:So?

[Reziac]

Yes, maybe your phone service will cost you $100/month and your internet $200/month in rural farm country Kansas. Maybe phone and internet together runs someone in downtown Boston 30/month. The people in Kansas need to get over it.

That's all well and good until you realise that the $300 you're talking about can be a whole week of average wages in rural Kansas. Can YOU afford to pay 25% of your monthly income just to get basic telephone and internet access??

And remember, cellular service in rural areas is typically spotty to absent.

Re:So?

[tgd]

Then move.

You have no right to access, and I have no obligation to ensure you have it.

And cellular service would get excellent if there just plain wasn't copper.

I've been in rural China and seen farmers standing in the middle of rice paddies a hundred miles from any town of any significance chatting away on their cell phones. Their cell phones they get 3G internet access over, as well. (That was a shocker, finding satellite TV and computers in cinder block houses that didn't even have windows!)

Thats how much of the world works where you either have very low population density or didn't have legacy infrastructure.

Re:So?

[SewersOfRivendell]

Actually, that's how the world works when you don't have a neofascist cabal controlling your government. Chinese-style "communism" has its bad points as well, of course, but they clearly made broadband access a priority.

Too bad about that whole torturing and killing dissidents thing.

Oh, wait, we do that too. Never mind. (Oh, sorry, I forgot -- we only do it to towelheads. That makes it so much better).

Re:So?

[Reziac]

Great! All the farmers move to town, cuz otherwise they can't get basic phone service.

NOW what are you going to eat? bread imported from China?? China is going to LOVE that.

PS. I've personally lived (long-term) where phone service of ANY sort was just flat not available. If you haven't, maybe you shouldn't have the right to decide what it's okay for someone else to do without, because you don't know what you're talking about until you've DONE without.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a shocker, finding satellite TV and computers in cinder block houses that didn't even have windows!

I think that was a failure on the part of Chinese intelligence agencies. To support a modernization initiative, they sent some agents over to find out what the deal was with these newfangled computer systems.

Unfortunately, they found a bunch of geeks in their parents' basements, and sent back detailed info on how to recreate that environment. A major effort was instituted to deploy these basements across the country. In order to save costs, they omitted actually digging holes for the basements.

Re:So?

[member57]

Then move.

You are a fscking idiot. These people living in rural areas are probably growing YOUR food. So in your thinking, they should have to pay more for internet? Why? It's not their fault telcos strung millions of miles of wire and don't have the cellular network blanketing the whole country. So exactly how much is it costing you? You just stated that internet/phone bill was $30.00. So an entire $.50 is going to the USF? If they didn't collect the money in one way, it would be collected in another. So quit your bitching, let the farmer/ rancher have his phone/internet in peace, he has a very hard and thankless job to do.

Re:So?

[Waffle Iron]

Great! All the farmers move to town, cuz otherwise they can't get basic phone service.

If they pay enough, phone service will be built.

NOW what are you going to eat?

The price of bread will rise just enough to cover the farmers' higher communications costs. Everything naturally works out in the end without the need for extra government bureaucracy or fraudulent misrepresentations in phone company advertisements about monthly costs.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

People living in towns in Kansas could still get cheap phone service. You only need a few hundred people to make a local telco viable; there's proof of that all over the midwest, as tiny, profitable "rural" telcos were bought out by big names in the 80's and 90's.

The people you're suggesting "just move" are necessarily rural -- they grow your food. Farming (at least as we know it today) *requires* large tracts of unihabited land. Are you seriously suggesting that farms pack it in and/or give up phone service?

Finally, you're missing some other important points that the USF gets you -- like the right to run your long-distance phone line across some poor farmer's land. Let's see how much you like removing Kansas from the telephone network when they turn off your access to the cross-country network.

Re:So?

[Reziac]

So pretty soon you're paying $300 for a loaf of bread. Guess you'll have to give up either eating or internet access.

Re:So?

[Waffle Iron]

So pretty soon you're paying $300 for a loaf of bread.

Give me a fscking break. Using modern technology alternatives (including satellite, microwave etc.), unsubsidized phone service could certainly be provided to every boondocks location in the United States for $300/month or less. Surely each farmer produces more than one loaf of bread per month.

Next you'll be arguing that farmers need to be given free tractors because they're expensive and citydwellers don't have to buy tractors either.

Re:So?

[Reziac]

So who is going to subsidize the infrastructure costs for these satellite and microwave installations for the boondocks? and why hasn't it already happened?

BTW, check out the price of a new combine someday. Last I looked (back around 1980) they ran around a quarter of a million dollars. Seems to me that since a farmer's net on a loaf of bread is only about 5 cents, that combine oughta cost a good deal less than the car you use to commute to your $30/hour job. ;)

Re:So?

[Anon E. Muss]

Too bad about that whole torturing and killing dissidents thing. Oh, wait, we do that too. Never mind.

BULLSHIT!

Tell me exactly, which dissidents is the USA torturing and killing? Somebody who intentionally targets civilians for violence is not a dissident -- they're a fucking terrorist! If you don't like the word "terrorist", how about "mass murderer." It shows a high degree of moral confusion on your part to equate Chinese dissidents seeking increased human rights by peaceful means, and terrorist thugs using violence.

Re:So?

[The Angry Mick]

Then move.

How?

By your own admission the costs of living in urban areas where service is abundant and cheap is high. How can someone who's making a small amount of money in Kansas afford to up and move?

Re:So?

[drewzhrodague]

Fuck, I don't see anyone subsidizing my infrastructure costs, commuting costs, costs of gas, food, or any other thing. Why should I subsidize other people's misfortune? That's bogus.

Also, what percentage of farmland goes unused, where the gov't pays the farmers to NOT grow stuff?

Isn't it actually Verizon's fault (or SBC) that farmers don't have good telecommunications -- and not my fault? Why am I paying for Verizon's convenience? I call bullshit.

Re:So?

[Waffle Iron]

and why hasn't it already happened?

Because rural phone service is already subsidized. It doesn't make sense to invest in new technology if people are getting a crappy old technology far below actual costs.

Seems to me that since a farmer's net on a loaf of bread is only about 5 cents, that combine oughta cost a good deal less than the car you use to commute to your $30/hour job.

Your powers of logic are breathtaking.

BTW, there was just a "big machines" documentary on the History channel that featured a kickass new combine. From the specs they described, it could spit out wheat for hundreds of loaves of bread per second. Even at 5 cents per loaf, it doesn't take too long to add up to that kind of money.

Farming is a business like everything else. (Well, except for the fact that in the US it's heavily subsidized with socialist programs.). If the government stays out of the picture, then prices will rise to adequately cover production costs (which include communications and harvesting equipment).

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. It's not only the cost, it IS availablity. I've been online since '93, with dialup. I'm still on dialup, not due to cost, but the simple fact that there is no broadband service in our area. You could argue the Satallite, but that's neither efficient or economical. My uncle (Lives down the dirt road) had the Sat and hated it. We have no cell coverage either, on ANY networks. I have to drive about 10 miles down back country roads just to check my voicemail. (And that's only at 2/5 bar signal strength.) America has one of the lowest broadband/person ratios in the world, because people like the original poster have this attitude. I've lived in many cities, and the cost of living in the country is ***NOT!*** cheaper than in the city, it is MORE.

Re:So?

[cvd6262]

I'd have to agree, not on the point of fairness to consumers, but on fairness to other utility companies that are allowed to pass the extra rural costs onto rural customers.

When I was in grad school, I had a few upstairs neighbors that got on the bandwagon and bought new houses out in the boonies that were being developed. Of course, their monthly payment was about as much as we were paying in rent, so they new they would have to tighten their belts a bit to pay the insurance costs, extra gas, etc.

In the end, they wound up having to sell their houses at losses within a year because they couldn't afford the utilities. It seems water, sewer, garbage, and other utilities costs up to twice as much on the other side of the lake.

I never heard phonelines included in the gripes, but that may have been because the smart ones just got cell phones.

Re:So?

[NastyGnat]

Funny, I live in a rural area and all I see of broadband is how it's 6 or 10 mbits for you city folk.

Seems like instead of upping the speed for everyone in the city they should be trying to expand the coverage area, ne?

WiMax, take me away....

Re:So?

[Reziac]

If you pay taxes, you already subsidize "other people's misfortune". It's called welfare.

And while I generally don't support subsidies, there is a difference between subsidizing business, and subsidizing basic infrastructure. (That businesses like Verizon have been allowed to take over something they didn't actually build is another issue. I remember when Verizon was poor little GTE who "needed" protected monopoly service areas to survive. Now they have 90% of the market yet they still have GTE's old protected monopoly service areas.)

Okay, let's see where that goes at its logical extreme... Let's not subsidize telephone service to rural areas. Let's stop subsidizing roads there too; after all, most people never drive out there in their whole lives. And no more public schools either... after all, there aren't many kids in farm country.

[That latter actually happened about 40 years ago, which is why my cousins had a 100 mile daily round trip to attend public school, half of that over unmaintained county roads that the school bus pretty much had to plow snow from for itself. And before you suggest home schooling, remember that their parents actually WORK the full day just to keep the farm running.]

Re:So?

[Reziac]

Exactly. It's not as easy as people who've had these urban services (and urban wage levels) all their lives would like to believe. That house in rural Kansas costs $30,000 because that's what the market will bear, given the average rural income level. It's not that cheap (by urban standards) just because rural folk are generous at heart.
Someone who owns their house free and clear in Kansas can sell everything they own and still not have enough to make a down payment on half the house in a metro area.

And with galloping growth, what's "affordable" in town is shrinking rapidly. Right now an "average" house in Boise ID or Bozeman MT will run you $300k -- which is WAY beyond what local folks can pay on local wages. Hence home ownership is becoming something only those fleeing major metros can afford, and the number of local people doomed to rentals their entire lives is growing.

Re:So?

[Reziac]

Same here, and I'm only 50 miles from Los Angeles, and 15 miles from a population center of half a million people. There is *nothing* available here but dialup (half-speed dialup at that -- 26k on a good day). While cell phones do work here, cell internet does not. Satellite is prohibitively expensive and would still have the 26k-max uplink, so isn't really a good solution even if a person has the cash to throw at it.

"Move!" Yeah, great. I'd have to give up my business that I've built up over the past 20 years, and start over from scratch in some other industry. Then how am I going to pay for that broadband access -- go on welfare??

(Yes, I know people on "public assistance" who have cable internet.)

BTW I've lived in rural areas 29 years and metro areas 21 years, so I think I have a clue about both. ;)

(Too bad you posted AC, I'd be pleased to "meet" you. Oh well.)

Re:So?

[Waffle Iron]

If they didn't collect the money in one way, it would be collected in another.

What a very liberal viewpoint: "The government taxes you and gives the money to me."

Liberalism is a brain disorder.

Apparently, this disorder leads to extreme hypocrisy.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

"BTW, there was just a "big machines" documentary on the History channel that featured a kickass new combine. From the specs they described, it could spit out wheat for hundreds of loaves of bread per second. Even at 5 cents per loaf, it doesn't take too long to add up to that kind of money."

thats rich... a farmer doesn't MAKE bread a bakery does. a combine only harvests the WHEAT and Farmers make jack shit per bushel of wheat. and even IF they were making bread you need the materials to kick out "hunreds of loaves per second" and that costs bigtime money... money that they don't have.

Re:So?

[chihowa]

No no. You don't get it. Socialism is ok if the benifitee is rural.

Re:So?

[Waffle Iron]

Can you read? He said the farmer receives revenue equivalent to 5 cents per loaf, and that's what I based my statement on. A quick Google check shows wheat somewhere around $3/bushel, which is about 15 cents/loaf, so the 5 cent figure is believable.

Re:So?

[bostonkarl]

REALITY CHECK A one bedroom 580 square foot condo in Boston costs ~$300,000 to $350,000 . No, I'm not kidding. That's what we pay for lower broadband costs.

Re:So?

[tppublic]

Then move.

As others have pointed out, that's not always desirable or possible. Some is due to skills, other due to practical concerns that we actually need some farmers in this country.

Their cell phones they get 3G internet access over, as well.

China doesn't have ANY 3G. China hasn't licensed any 3G technology (either WCDMA, CDMA1XEV-DO or TD-SCDMA). It is expected that those licenses will be awarded late this year, so that the 3G infrastructure is ready by the 2008 Olympics.

You have no right to access, and I have no obligation to ensure you have it.

You don't have a right to clean air either (by your argument), but part of the purpose of government is to prevent tragedies of the commons. I agree the USF is broken, but there are better solutions than completely eliminating it.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, I live in the country in KS and the closest town is 20 miles away and we get our broadband internet wireless from towm by our local internet service provider. 256KBS both ways.

www.nckcn.com

Re:So?

[The_Honkey]

Nice post! I never looked at it that way. I always thought: "those poor country folk get screwed by high price broadband." Now I realize that the "poor city folk" get screwed as well by high home rates, and as you put it, it is just another trade-off.

Re:So?

[Vitriol Angst]

tgd,
Interesting argument. I have to say, I hadn't thought of it like that, that Rural livers have an advantage and we subsidize communications for them, but not housing for city dwellers.

But part of that subsidy was to create a communications infrastructure that has benefitted society more than it has cost. You can phone almost everyone and mail almost everyone almost anywhere. So I think at the time it was the right choice to take copper wires out to farms and use the government to deliver mail to those in the woods.

However, now I don't think it is a subsidy. We paid for those copper wires and may have paid for much of the internet back-bone. Also, some of these companies have been handed a local monopoly. So in these instances, you need to regulate price in some regard.

Now we have local governments who want to put up WiFi and give nearly free internet access to citizens. And the providers and telcos and broadband groups cry foul! What if we wanted to give the supposedly subsidized farmer WiFi or satellite? We can argue all day about what is fair and reasonable.

But to me, its what does the greatest good and allows enough money and competition for innovation. Telecommunications, at least in regards to broadband and local telcos, hasn't had too much price competition so far.

Re:So?

[IceAgeComing]

What a very liberal viewpoint: "The government taxes you and gives the money to me."

Please tell us what's wrong with the goal of improving society through taxation. Roads, police, fire fighters, etc. are all infrastructure improvments that most people pay for willingly. We are likewise talking about a potential infrastructure improvement in this thread. The question appears to be whether enough people in the society agree that it's a worthwhile infrastructure improvement to fund.

I would argue that having more uniformly educated people would mean, among many possible benefiits, that people would elect better leaders. This would presumably benefit everyone living in the society, except perhaps those who prey on ignorance.

Re:So?

[Reziac]

Oh, I believe you... but $300k won't buy you a garage in Silicon Valley. No, I'm not kidding either. An average condo or townhouse (not even a real house) starts at around $700k, and that's just the starting BID. Put your house on the market at that price, and it'll be bid up another $100k within a week. -- Five years ago, the lowest priced property in the entire Livermore area was $80k -- for a 400 square foot LOT. The "house" was maybe 250 sq.ft. (apparently a converted garage that was grandfathered from back before there was a minimum size on houses). Today, that same property would go for somewhere on the high side of $300k.... for a living space comparable to a travel trailer.

Thanks to the influx of California yuppies, an average house in Boise ID now starts at $300k -- triple the price for the same property only a couple years ago. Oh, and that's without broadband.

How are ordinary people supposed to be able to afford that?? most people never break $20/hour in their entire working lives.

Re:So?

[Reziac]

How about we take tax money away from pork-barrel projects and sheer waste -- then there'd be more than enough to support all the decrepit, deficient, or absent infrastructure!

[I've read that as much as 80% of the LAUSD budget goes to admin costs, and only 20% to actual teaching and classrooms. How is this a well-budgeted use of tax dollars to support the ideal of quality education for all?? And one is lead to suspect that this is hardly unusual.]

Re:So?

[Guppy06]

"People who choose one lifestyle over another should not have any requirement to support those who made the other choice or be supported by those who made the other choice."

"Lifestyle choice?" If everybody could afford to "choose a lifestyle," they could also afford to, say, evacuate New Orleans. Reducing something as broad as what you're talking about to a single, personal, conscious choice is disingenuous at best, and is usually a tactic used to blame victims.

Despite the satellites and such you mention, interstate calls in this country still go along landlines. That call from New York to Los Angeles goes through Kansas, and what you are suggesting would leave the citizens of Kansas with no benefit from the land they had to give up for the telephone line through eminent domain. If you don't think such areas should be compensated through something such as the USF, then they should be entited to cut the lines crossing their property. That way, we can all pay $300/mo for satellite phones.

Re:So?

[NidStyles]

Shut up.

The USF is a boondoggle

[Anonymous Coward]

"there's no decisive action one way or another towards getting VoiP providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund."

Good. We need to get rid fo the USF as soon as possible. It is essentially a slush fund administered to favorites. A new tax not called a tax that gives the FCC huge powers that it should not have.

Shame on you for suggesting it.

Only in America

[Lifewish]

Telco infrastructure is one of those things that small companies just don't have the footprint or bags of cash with which to compete.

I'd just like to point out that that's pretty much a US-only thing due to your govt's complete failure to get the LLU ball rolling. Well, the US and a few other foot-draggers anyway. I'm supposed to be writing a piece on this for a business analysis company at this very moment... Lobby your govt and you too could have the 100mbit/s connections that places like Tokyo get!

/works for company that works for a company that's attempting to persuade the Irish govt to implement LLU, so take the above with that slant.

Re:Only in America

[interiot]

For those as left in the dark as I was, LLU = Local Loop Unbundling.

And, yes, it's very disappointing that current FCC says that they want BOTH Cable and DSL to not be subject to LLU.

Bingo! But unintended effect.

[www.sorehands.com]

You are correct, that is what is intended.

But, there is a history of laws being passed that have unintended intepretations. A very good example is ERISA. This was intended to give employers who ran their own insurance program some discretion in intrepreting the plan, but every insurance plan that the employer collects the money for, then pays to the insurance company now uses it to get out of paying claims.

Re:Bingo! But unintended effect.

[interiot]

this does not preclude a BITS provider from taking reasonable measures to protect the security and integrity of its network and broadband Internet transmission services; or prevent theft of BITS or other unlawful conduct

Okay, that doesn't strictly say that they can block port 25, but my bet is that if anybody decided to press the issue, a judge would rule that way

GIVE ME THE PORK...

[MosesJones]

Come on we are missing a trick here, comments on the legislation will have a minor impact, what we should be asking for is some PORK. I mean the ENERGY bill had a $231m BRIDGE in Alaska named after some senator who headed a committee so...

Free Datacentre capacity available on demand

All Beer to become Free (as in Free Speech)

Any more?

Re:GIVE ME THE PORK...

[Anonymous Coward]

please read my rant here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161166&thresho ld=-1&commentsort=0&tid=99&mode=thread&cid=1348962 8

it explains a little bit about the bridge...

Kind of hard to have a farm downtown.

[Shivetya]

Sure no one forces you into a less populated area but certain jobs can only be performed there. Higher costs passed on to these location will simply come back embedded elsewhere to the higher populated areas.

On the same logic but reveresed, why should these outlying areas end up paying for mass transit solutions in the cities? Pay for special blends of fuel that are imposed region wide because people who live in high density areas drive too many cars? State funds going to pay for a "domed" entertainment complex? How about a very topical one, rebuilding a major metropolis that got flooded?

The list goes on and on. What one can claim another is freeloading on can be turned around or slightly changed to hit the accuser.

Want to apply the logic within the area itself? What about cities wanting to tax all their citizens to provide Wi-Fi? After all shouldn't those who want to or need to use wireless pay for it? There are many "other" ways to communicate.

USF serves a necessary purpose that would be hard pressed to have anyone in the private sector do profitably. That probably is the real key, when it isn't worthwhile to do privately it usually requires the government to pick up the tab. Not everyone who lives outside the beltways does so to avoid the city, some do it because their work out there is their contribution to society and in some cases is one of the primary reasons why cities are viable in the first place.

fair?

[AndyG314]

This sounds unusually fair for Washington.I wonder what it will look like after the lobies have had their way with it...

possible vendor lock in breakthrough

[zogger]

so far,just from the article not the PDF, it looks to me like if it passes that corporations offering broadband to the public can no longer insist that you use only approved hardware/software combinations. For example, trying to get satellite broadband in the sticks, they require you to have a windows machine else no service (last I have checked, might be different now). You are required to use their hardware installed by their vendors, etc. Looks to me like this could change if this passes.

BITS?!

[Anonymous Coward]

BITS?! Who you callin' BITS?!

Re:Regulations will stifle development and raise c

[computational super]

The draft defines, for regulatory purposes, broadband Internet transmission services--or BITS--as "a packet-switched service that is offered to the public,"

...opening the door to an "owned by the public, therefore censored by the federal government" argument such as the one used by the FCC to decide what content may be broadcast over the "public" airwaves.

No reason to block port 25 inbound, ~ever~

[Dammital]

As you suggested, the ability of ISPs to block ports is, in many cases, a seemingly-necessary evil

Bellsouth blocks port 25 outbound and inbound, which irritates me no end. They started the latter when they upgraded my line to 3Mbps. They have no legitimate reason for this; it only serves to artificially push users to expensive "business" lines.

Would to Bog I could get Speakeasy in my neighborhood. Alas, too far from the CO. RR business class is competitive in my area, and they don't block ports last time I looked... so they're next on my things-to-investigate list.

Re:No reason to block port 25 inbound, ~ever~

[Anonymous Coward]

So then use other ports. I run a mail server at home that has 110 and 25 blocked, and I use 111 and 26 without issues. I also have a failover in that if my mail server can't send an email, it will relay it through my ISP's (Cox-suckers) mail server. So my email all still comes from me and like hell if I'm paying 100x as much for a damn biz line that is slower than what I get at home, and has those 2 damn ports unblocked. There is no reason to gouge businesses more money for less capacity.

Doh

[Lifewish]

Sorry, my co-workers are acronym freaks. I'd forgotten that Real People [tm] might not have heard them :-/

For the uninitiated: the point of Local Loop Unbundling and similar initiatives is that, if someone wants to start up a new telecoms company, they can specialise in either large cross-country fibre networks or small local set-ups. Like a network stack, the modularisation means that companies can focus on one at a time rather than having to do the lot.

The more layers, the easier it is for new companies to join in because they need fewer wires to achieve independence from other companies. And the easier it is for people to join in, the more competition and hence better service. And the better service, the less lag CEOs get on their Counterstrike games so the more likely they are to move to your country. Or something like that.

(That last comment wasn't completely a joke - my old Economics teacher always used to talk about the "Golf Course Principle" whereby building a new golf course massively increases the price of surrounding land. The reason is that CEOs want to live near golf courses, and don't want to commute to their place of work, so they ensure that the two are located together.)

This looks interesting

[jonwil]

Does the defintion for "BITS" also cover fibre optics, ISDN, T lines, Wireless, Sattelite etc?

the bit about "any devices" sounds good.
It means that the providers cant say "you have to use our gear to connect to our cable/DSL connection"
or "You cant use routers on our network"

What about other services?

[erroneus]

So if I want to host a web site or email services, I cannot be blocked under this? I have read about DSL and Cable services denying their ability to do these things under their acceptable use policies. Does this now trump the acceptable use policy?

Re:What about other services?

[einhverfr]

IANAL, but this is an interesting question:

So if I want to host a web site or email services, I cannot be blocked under this? I have read about DSL and Cable services denying their ability to do these things under their acceptable use policies. Does this now trump the acceptable use policy?

On the surface it would seem so, but this raises another question:

Can you waive such rights as part of the service contract? I.e. can a BITS provider ask you to waive your right to some services? I.e. how does this interact with contract law?

I have a feeling we won't know until these are litigated. :-(

77 page draft

[HomerJayS]

Anything that comes from the government that is 77 pages of regulations should be required to be named:
The Legal Professionals Full Employment Act of 2005

I will be happy if its passed

[visionsofmcskill]

My number one question is would this force verizon to stop filtering inbound port 80?

I would pay for someone elses services if verizon wasnt a monopoly in my area, and their port 80 filtering is beyond aggravating.

will this finally force the providers to stop messing with the connections they sell for their own greedy gains?

Its just a matter of time before they start to force people to pay "premiums" for access to additional "services" via different ports if left unchecked.

Yes there are many work arounds, but they are all nasty kludges, and with supirior firewalls they will be able to filter based on application making the problem even harder to work around.

I hope this bill will start the process of forcing them to give us what we pay for without artifical limitations.

Hmm? What's that?

[wramsdel]

Overhauled Telecommunications Law Daft

You don't say!

Worrisome for free access points

[leighklotz]

The provisions look great if you're worried that your cable company is going to block MSN from you, but if you are have a free 802.11 AP in your cafe (or even your apartment?) it looks to me like you are now a BITS provider:

...a packet-switched service that is offered to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the pub1lic, with or without a fee

Does that mean that the the cafe must

...provide subscribers with access to lawful
content, applications, and services provided over the
Internet, and not to block, impair, or interfere with
the offering of, access to, or the use of such content,
applications, or services;

I guess that means no port filtering or web-only proxying, for one thing...

DUMBASS!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously "tgd" doesn't understand a thing about economics.

You live in a city.
You pay more money to live in a city for everything.

You really don't pay any more or less into the USF fund than the rural people. The phone companies that serve the cities just have more people paying that little bit of USF charges.

I live in the country.
I pay less for money to live in the country for everything.

I made a choice to live in the country.
You made a choice to live in the city.

I pay my USF charges just like you do. And, you don't see me bitchin about it.

Re:Regulations will stifle development and raise c

[AK Marc]

The FCC must convene an inquiry into whether to compel VoIP providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund,

Ahhhh! Income for our friendly feds.

That's not the goal at all. For one, the USF is not ever touched as general income. It is one of the few sources of income that is actually used for what it is earmarked for. Additionally, this seems to be attempting equalization. They screwed over DSL with the 1996 act because DSL was regulated and cable wasn't. They don't want to do the same where circuit switched voice calls are hampered with fees and taxes and packed switched calls aren't. That will be an unfair practice that will quickly be exploited and cause regulations to determine the direction of the marketplace.

The question isn't one of whether USF is or isn't a good thing. The question they are asking is, "Given that USF will continue to exist, should we collect from all telephonic calls, those that originate and terminate on the PSTN, those that originate or terminate on the PSTN, or some other measure?" And that is a very hard question to answer. If you put it just on PSTN calls, then VoIP is going to have a $5 per month regulatory advantage over POTS, in addition to all the claims of the technology being cheaper as well. If they are similarly encumbered, then the technologies will fight head-on. Which would you prefer?

Ownership

[N1XIM]

A problem that I don't expect all of this to sort out is that unlike most other infrastructure required for the daily function of the USA (roads, water mains, sewers, airways, seaways, canals & rivers, and others) Telecommunications and Power Distribution are still owned by private companies wholly and completely on a local monopoly basis. (Railways are the other exception that I am aware of. I don't know how the subways are managed, but I suspect those are government owned and run.) This was a good way to build these systems out when they were meerly a luxury of those whom could pay the fees (like the old toll roads of the 1800's), but the time has come to centrallize the ownership of these essential portions of the country's infrastructure. These are no longer optional systems in the infrastructure of the USA.
I do not think, however, that we should have a single government telco or power company. What would make a great deal of sense would be to take a cue from how roads are currently maintained in many places, and have the various telcos and power companies bid to maintain the infrastructure of each locality and the backbone for each region in a competitive fashion every 3-4 years. Current owners of infrastructure would be compensated (most likely over time) for the cash value of the resources that are turned over to local and regional ownership. This would be the base tier of the system--and interoperability would need to be mandated by law.
The middle teir of services would still be provided for by the existing telcos and power companies (mapping phone numbers to endpoints, for instance--and controlling energy flows)--as would the customer service, "optional services" (call waiting, voice mail, etc. for phone service), and metering at the "front end" of things. There would technically be no requirement that the two actually be done by the same people (and they often aren't at this point anyway).
There's more rant where that came from, but I'll hold on it for now. Any better ideas out there? (Please hold on the free-market ideology--it obviously didn't fix the problem now did it?)

Re:Ownership

[Red Flayer]

"A problem that I don't expect all of this to sort out is that unlike most other infrastructure required for the daily function of the USA (roads, water mains, sewers, airways, seaways, canals & rivers, and others) Telecommunications and Power Distribution are still owned by private companies wholly and completely on a local monopoly basis. "

Except, of course, that water supplies and sewers are often local monopolies as well. Airways are not even infrastructure; they are a space whose use is regulated by the government. Seaways are often maintained by local NGOs (like the Port Authority of NY & NJ), even if they are quasi-governmental.

Asking government to step in and either control infrastructure themselves, or to set up an NGO with sole control, is a bad idea -- even if maintenance and operation is farmed out. Because some technologies, like Telco, have a large barrier to entry, it makes sense for government to regulate a natural monopoly. However, Telco is slowly becoming less dependent on physical infrastructure, and so the barrier to entry is disappearing.

The problem with centralizing telco infrastructure is that you get stuck with current tech. If telco A develops a more efficient infrastructure, telcos B and C will adopt, even if not in direct competition with telco A.

IMO, the only time government should be in the business of managing and developing infrastructure is if it is impossible for private industry to do so.

Finally: "Please hold on the free-market ideology--it obviously didn't fix the problem now did it?"

Except, of course, that the free-market ideology was never applied to the telco industry. Regulated local monopoly != free market. If you mean prior to the inception of public power and telecommunications, the conditions were totally different -- the barriers to entry were sky-high, and there was little private financing available for uncertain ventures.

One thing comes to mind...

[Skudd]

Spam.

Many ISP's currently block inbound SMTP access on broadband connections. One such ISP is the one I am currently using: Earthlink.

While this has been a bit of a pain for my legitimate use of an SMTP server, it has cut down on the number of spam relays out on the web.

Will this new regulation force Earthlink and others to open up port 25, thus causing a major increase in spam, or will they continue to (illegally) block SMTP?

upping the speed is cheaper than expanding coverag

[Anonymous Coward]

upping the speed is cheaper than expanding coverage, duh

Wireless Mesh/Monad Networks Regulated Out?

[Safe Sex Goddess]

Do y'all think any of this excessive regulation will make it impossible for people to create mesh networks from their network access points?

I'd love to see an "Othernet" made up of inter-linking wireless access points made up of individual homes and businesses.

Who even needs to connect the Othernet to the Internet? Businesses will move where the customers are. You can't tell me that Google would not buy it's own wireless points to join the mesh and index everyone serving things up if there was a significant Othernet?