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

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?

[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?

[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.

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"New services shouldn't be hamstrung by old thinking and outdated regulations."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