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

Ahead of the effect.

[cente]

PDF Mirrordot.

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.

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.

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: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)