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

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.

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: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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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. :-(

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.