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

[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)

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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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: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.

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?!

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

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. :-(

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?