FCC Finalizes US Net Neutrality Rules

milbournosphere writes "The FCC has finalized its proposed rules regarding net neutrality. The rules go into effect on 20 November, nearly a year after they passed in a 3-2 vote. The FCC's statement (PDF) summarizes the rules thus: 'First, transparency: fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their broadband services. Second, no blocking: fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services. Third, no unreasonable discrimination: fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.' It should be noted that some of the language is a little ambiguous; who is to decide what constitutes 'unreasonable discrimination?'"

Comments

Judges, that's who!

[cfalcon]

"who is to decide what constitutes 'unreasonable discrimination?"

That can go to court. Yes, it's not perfect, but it's definitely more protection than currently available.

I'm more worried about "lawful" in there. If that's found to be "an application or webpage that is guaranteed to have no illegal content" or something similar, then we might end up with torrent and freenet blockers anyway.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[0racle]

If lawful is interpreted as "an application or webpage that is guaranteed to have no illegal content" the whole internet would have to be shut down in the US. HTTP, SMTP and BitTorrent all can be and are used to disseminate content that breaks the law.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[tverbeek]

Yes, this is how sound legislation is always written. Rather than trying to spell things out in technical details that will immediately be obsolete and also provide a roadmap for how to get around the letter of the law, they use subjective terms like "unreasonable discrimination" to allow judicial rulings to define and redefine it over time in keeping with the spirit of the law.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[bonch]

I'm more worried about "lawful" in there. If that's found to be "an application or webpage that is guaranteed to have no illegal content" or something similar, then we might end up with torrent and freenet blockers anyway.

Well, net neutrality supporters want the government regulating everything, including the private networks of private companies that you as a customer merely pay for access to, so the inevitable result is going to be abuses like restricting torrent traffic to prevent "economic terrorism."

Nobody has yet to offer a single valid justification for so-called "net neutrality" legislation. Internet access is a technological convenience, a service sold by private companies, not some right guaranteed constitutional protection. Sysadmins should be able to regulate their network traffic however they want.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[AngryDeuce]

And once it goes to the Supreme Court they will shoot it down because, despite what the UN says, internet access is not considered a right here, it's a privilege.

I doubt there is anyone with the money to lobby on behalf of the consumer in this case (there never is) so, at the end of the day, this will get struck down and the ISPs will continue to throttle and do whatever they want because it's "their" network. Never mind the fact that there has been ridiculous amounts of public money involved in the creation of said network, either way, it belongs to them, because our representatives didn't care enough to fight for it. It's too damn late, now. The time for this battle was 10 years ago before the major ISPs became entrenched.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[spidercoz]

No, dude. Net Neutrality supporters want to be able to access whatever they want, unhindered by CORPORATE interests. It has nothing to do with private networks. People pay for access to the Internet, a PUBLIC network, and they want to be able to use it however they want. It's about freedom, not regulation.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[geekmux]

Yes, this is how sound legislation is always written. Rather than trying to spell things out in technical details that will immediately be obsolete and also provide a roadmap for how to get around the letter of the law, they use subjective terms like "unreasonable discrimination" to allow judicial rulings to define and redefine it over time in keeping with the spirit of the law.

I see what you're getting at here, leaving it mostly up to interpretation, which can be a good thing in the end.

But I also read this as an incessant and perpetual "need" to continue to bring interpretation in front of the court system in a pathetic attempt to continue to justify jobs within the legal system...a legal system that is of course, free-flowing, ultra-efficient, and never backlogged with massive amounts of bullshit exactly like this.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[hedwards]

Sure they have, one single valid justification for it is that the ISPs are using public resources to run their business and as such should be required to engage in neutral policies.

I love how you slipped in the word "valid" as if it allows you to ignore the fact that ISPs make use of the public right of way to conduct their business. As long as they're using easements on public land or publicly owned spectrum, the government has the right to expect that they maintain their businesses in a way that is neutral to the various parties that wish to do business with the consumers.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[jellomizer]

The Lawful bit it is prevent a loop hole where Illegal Content would become legal, at least unenforceable.

So if you get blocked for Illegal Content just like if you get blocked for unreasonable discrimination you go to court to try to prove otherwise.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[NoSig]

Well, net neutrality supporters want the government regulating everything, including the private networks of private companies that you as a customer merely pay for access to, so the inevitable result is going to be abuses like restricting torrent traffic to prevent "economic terrorism."

Please private update your outdated private Newspeak private dictionary. The approved private term is private now "money rape" private. It has always private been private "money rape" private. Private private private.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Bengie]

When you pay for "the internet", you're paying for full access to the "public network". If the company interferes with that, then they should not be able to advertise it as an "internet connection" in any form.

Also, your connection may flow "over" their private network, but you do not actually have access to that private network. Not to mention, their "private network" runs over public lands and crosses state lines.

If they don't like it, then they should have to fully purchase an own the land where their fiber/cables run.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[tverbeek]

This legislative/judicial system of law is badly flawed.

But it's better than the alternatives.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Teun]

In other words, you'd rather have corporate interests to 'govern' the world.

The proposed legislation is to enable corporations to compete on a level playing field, not to hinder them or their customers.

But according to your remarks your bread might be buttered on the funny side...

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, net neutrality supporters want the government regulating everything

Not true and you know it. You have repeatedly had explained to you what net neutrality is, and not one single time have you ever changed your critique to reflect the actual position. You are lying about what net neutrality is, because you know you are not competent to draft an intelligent critique of what it really is.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Anonymous Coward]

its a privilege?? try denying someone access due to the color of their skin and see how long its a privilege, and instead turns into a right.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[danbuter]

That's one of those little carrots they include to make lawyers really happy. Everyone knows it will lead to hundreds, if not thousands, of new court cases. All of which will pay attorneys millions of dollars.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Curunir_wolf]

Yes, this is how sound legislation is always written. Rather than trying to spell things out in technical details that will immediately be obsolete and also provide a roadmap for how to get around the letter of the law, they use subjective terms like "unreasonable discrimination" to allow judicial rulings to define and redefine it over time in keeping with the spirit of the law.

No, it's not. It's how tyrannies are built. It's a way for an oppressive police state to arbitrarily decide when and against whom they are going to enforce the law. Fail to provide the right media support or bribe ... err, I mean "contribution", and you're targetted - and the law is simply made to apply.

Sound legislation must disallow discrimination, provide equal protection, and enforce the tenets of the rule of law. It should be clear to anyone whether an action they take will violate the law or not. It should be unambiguous. In fact, overly broad or ambiguous legislation is often overturned on Constitutional grounds, and should be.

It's a simple idea - if the laws are so many and confusing and open to interpretation, it means anyone and everyone can be said to be breaking the law at any time. And it's up to the enforcers to decide who to actually bring down.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[geekmux]

This legislative/judicial system of law is badly flawed.

But it's better than the alternatives.

When greed and corruption grow large enough, it's merely given a new name and reclassified. We call it "Government" these days instead of "Mafia". Illegal extortion becomes legal taxation. Hit men and murder-for-hire turns into the CIA and "wet work". And so on.

That doesn't mean it makes it any better than the alternatives. It just appears that way due to it's inherent legality. And how far does it need to become "badly flawed" to reach the point of "Unconstitutional", or is the legal system even remotely concerned about the very document that they supposedly adhere to...

Re:Judges, that's who!

[AngryDeuce]

Like I said above, I agree that Internet Access is a right in this day and age, but the reality of the situation is that many of our fellow citizen's do not see it that way, and honestly it doesn't even matter as none of the people that make our laws or enforce them advocate on behalf of the people anymore. Consider the majority of Americans that want Universal "European Style" Health Care; even though some polls say over 70% of the population in this country wants it, it will never happen, because the people aren't represented by our legislatures.

Call me a pessimist, but frankly, at this point, I'll believe that the people have a voice in this country again when the will of the people is actually done, and I see no evidence of that happening any time soon.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[meerling]

Also, the internet has become a major portion of our communications and cultural dissemination and participation. As such, interfering with it potentially infringes upon our already 'guaranteed' rights.

Just imagine what it would be like if you wanted to walk downtown and talk to George Arneston, maybe give him that invite to your birthday party. But you have to pay Sidewalk-Co a $20/month fee to walk faster than 5'/minute downtown. If that wasn't bad enough, George is a member of the organization WalkFree which Sidewalk-Co doesn't really like because they are in competition with them for the pedestrian transportation contract. Why is that bad? Because every time you try to go talk to George, Sidewalk-Co blocks the sidewalk so you can't get to George. Of course maybe you could get to him, if you went through all the back alleys and cut across a few empty weed choked lots, but that's going to take all day, and even then you'll only get a sentence or two out before Sidewalk-Co sets up a new block that separates you from George.
That's what the real world would be like if it were the internet, and net neutrality isn't enforced. I know it's not that bad in most parts of the net right now, but it's still a frontier town, and people attempting to proclaim that they own the sidewalks is pretty much laughed at. Problem is they have lawyers, connections, and other resources. Some of them are already testing the waters, so to speak. If we don't act now, greed and anti-competitiveness with turn the internet into a series of roadblocks and restrictions. That's why we need Net Neutrality, so we can stroll around the internet unimpeded.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, net neutrality supporters want the government regulating everything, including the private networks of private companies that you as a customer merely pay for access to, so the inevitable result is going to be abuses like restricting torrent traffic to prevent "economic terrorism."

We can't let this pass. It is ridiculous. Here's what net neutrality supporters want: A company (like a Comcast or a Verizon) to be unable to degrade the performance of a competitor's media products. For example - Comcast sells an on-demand service. So does Netflix. Without net neutrality Comcast can slow down Netflix traffic so that it sucks on their network to get people to use Comcast's version. We don't want to have Verizon throttle Google to pimp Bing. We don't want to have slashdot pages served slower than microsoft.com just because Microsoft paid Comcast to be in the "top tier" (notwithstanding having CDN's in comcast's network of course - that should be fine). If you still don't understand this it must be because you don't want to understand. We can't let "the magic market decide" because the ISPs have effective monopolies in their areas.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC has no jurisdiction over the net and this law doesn't change that. The first enforcement case will challenge the law validity because they lack jurisdiction to begin with. Just another attempted power grab.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[sgt scrub]

Sysadmins should be able to regulate their network traffic however they want.
An ISP's network is not a private network. If the only machines your users are allowed to access are the machines on the private network you are offering them access to, you are not an ISP. Net neutrality is: If your an ISP you do not have the authority to sensor, disseminate, or restrict access to legitimate lawful content outside of the limits of the contracts with your users.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Anonymous Coward]

From a merely technical standpoint, I'd consider something like "Fair Service Curve" to describe a form of reasonable discrimination, in that it is positive discrimination to ensure that all have equal availability of the network. It is still discrimination, packets aren't treated absolutely equally, but it's a form of discrimination that doesn't hurt any ISP, user or process, it merely prohibits any ISP, user or process from hurting other ISPs, users or processes.

Likewise, a packet dropping scheme like RED, BLUE, GREEN, PURPLE or BLACK (anyone spot a trend,here?), where the idea is to minimize actual loss by controlling what is lost and when, that too would seem to be reasonable discrimination.

Yes, it is perfectly true that these sorts of schemes aren't currently used on the backbone, but it would seem entirely sane and rational for the law to permit them to be. If ISPs have an actual case for their claims of users abusing pipes, then equal-opportunity traffic calming schemes would seem to be fair game. Squelching traffic merely because the ISP is being paid protection money by one site rather than another, or because one application vendor has paid them to kill a competing product - that should rightly be illegal.

The FCC is unlikely to have actually looked at such an aspect - too common-sensical - but were it to have done so, it would have needed to have devised a system similar to the one they're implementing to distinguish packet control that maximizes everyone's use of the Internet from packet control that minimizes everyone's use of the Internet. Ultimately, just banning packet control wouldn't distinguish.

It's now down to the courts as to whether the new rules pass muster and, if so, whether a rational, optimal-for-everyone stance is taken, or an irrational, control-freaks-r-us stance is applied.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Obfuscant]

If lawful is interpreted as "an application or webpage that is guaranteed to have no illegal content" the whole internet would have to be shut down in the US. HTTP, SMTP and BitTorrent all can be and are used to disseminate content that breaks the law.

You're kidding, right? You really want to make the argument that because a website uses HTTP, and HTTP can be used to disseminate illegal content, that the website should be blocked as containing illegal content? Are you an **AA shill?

I can guarantee that the website I run has no illegal content, and would thus meet the definition you propose for "lawful", because I put the content there and know the status. The fact that someone else uses their website to distribute CP in no way changes the lawfulness of my site.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[ravenshrike]

+1

Re:Judges, that's who!

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Like hell. I happen to own the copyright to the number 0x65, which happens to be a secret key, and you're distributing it. Luckily, I don't need to tell you about this - I only need to tell your provider. Start packing, buddy.

Also, just because your website is legal *here* does not mean it's legal in The People's Republic of Zabundi. The Zabundi Grand Council has stated numerous times that your site is grossly illegal due to the forbidden topics you mention, and would arrest you on the spot if it had an extradition treaty with anyone.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

Net Neutrality supporters want to be able to access whatever they want, unhindered by CORPORATE interests.

Yes, but what they are going to get is what the government bureaucrats decide is acceptable. So instead of Corporate interests determining what content you can access, you are going to have POLITICAL interests deciding what content you can, and cannot, access.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[StikyPad]

Yes, but the Constitution limits what the political interests can filter. That, and your vote. Yes, you only have one vote, but that's probably more votes than you have with AT&T or Comcast.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[hedwards]

That's FUD. Congress has tried to do that many times in the past and has routinely been swatted down by the courts for doing it. Rarely do they manage to get away with it. I don't personally see any reason to believe that it's more likely to change than corporate nature.

OTOH, there is no constitutional restrictions on what corporate interests can do and as a result the only court decisions that can stop it are ones in response to violating regulation or law. As a result, it's far less likely that anybody is going to be able to stop it as you'd need to create a new regulation or law in order to prevent such abuses.

All in all, the corporatist FUD is more than a little counterproductive.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, it is very possible to make laws that are easy to understand and highly technical that make no room for loopholes or misinterpretation. The Legislature just doesn't have that kind of mentality to do so however so they kick it to more people who don't have the technical expertise to truly judge the laws anymore than they can make them in hopes that it's no longer their problem. Instead of making a system that actually helps protect citizens they create a bureaucracy that does little more than shift responsibilities from one unqualified person to another leaving room for corruption and places where people can slip by on technicalities. I don't see this act going any better than the previous paradigm.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Rockoon]

Yes, but the Constitution limits what the political interests can filter.

Yep.. and with the help of the commerce clause, there ARE no limits.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Shotgun]

Nobody has yet to offer a single valid justification for so-called "net neutrality" legislation.

That's only because you have your head so far up your butt that you can't smell tyranny when it comes knocking at your door.

*Warning: US centric rant to follow*

The founding fathers of my country left it to the federal government to establish "post roads". Why would a group of men so hell-bent on limiting the federal government specifically give them the power take land to create roads? Because leaving it up to individuals or the various states would leave the country with a mish-mash of levies and fines to get from one place to another, and ultimately weaken us all. Government is the grease that allows the machinery of society to operate efficiently. Open roads enables free and open commerce, which benefits us all.

An open communication system is the same thing. The railroads, telephone, telegraph and electric lines should have been nationalized from the outset. Not the rail-cars, or switches, but the actual lines themselves. Anything that requires the power of eminent domain to implement should remain in control of the government entity that took it. Only then can we guarantee everyone equal access, and not tie up free commerce with entities that would like to see you tied up and limited to their walled garden.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[rollingcalf]

Except that Net Neutrality isn't telling any ISPs to block anything. It's telling ISPs what NOT to block. With Net Neutrality we'd get to access whatever the ISP would let us have anyway, plus other services that they wanted to block or throttle but the government wouldn't let them block it.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[EuclideanSilence]

Also, the internet has become a major portion of our communications and cultural dissemination and participation. As such, interfering with it potentially infringes upon our already 'guaranteed' rights.

Just imagine what it would be like if you wanted to walk downtown and talk to George Arneston, maybe give him that invite to your birthday party...

Problem is they have lawyers, connections, and other resources. Some of them are already testing the waters, so to speak. If we don't act now, greed and anti-competitiveness with turn the internet into a series of roadblocks and restrictions. That's why we need Net Neutrality, so we can stroll around the internet unimpeded.

In the case of the internet providers and the hypothetical sidewalk company, these are not regular private companies. The internet and sidewalks are not provided without tax dollars and imminent domain, powers that regular citizens don't have. No private company should be required to help uphold constitutional rights, but in the above cases (and net neutrality issues in general) the companies are already in bed with the government. If a company is getting special treatment by the government then of course they should have to uphold the rights guaranteed by that government. On the other hand, if a company is competing fairly, which means without special government help or hindrance to competitors, then you get what you pay for.

The problem isn't corporations and it isn't lawyers. The problem is that we live in a country that has decided that it is ok for certain people and companies to get unique treatment, permissions, and tax dollars from the government. The problem is that congressmen who write special legislation and provide special finances for special groups of people don't get immediately voted out. We've gone from a country with a goal of equal rights to one with a goal of getting as much as you can vote for yourself.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[DarkOx]

you only have one vote, but that's probably more votes than you have with AT&T or Comcast

Actually for lots of people that is probably not true. I can go buy practically as many votes at AT&T as I want. Its called common stock. I bet I can get more proportional representation there afford-ably than I get in the federal government.

Also if I don't like ATT&T's rules I can go elsewhere, while I might not like those choices either, and they may be few, I at least have other choices.

I will take corporate overlords over dear old Uncle Sam any time.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Obfuscant]

But you have to pay Sidewalk-Co a $20/month fee to walk faster than 5'/minute downtown.

Analogy failure. Sidewalk Co. doesn't own the sidewalk. The ISP owns the wires. Even though they may run on or across public rights of way, they do not become public property.

My driveway crosses the sidewalk, and serves dual function in that location. Would you argue that my entire driveway has become public property simply because it crosses a right of way? My driveway leads into my garage. Is my garage, by being connected to my driveway, also public property?

At best, your argument would make the specific wires and/or fibers that run on public rights of way public property. The servers in the private buildings that those wires connect to, however, are not on public rights of way and are thus still private property. Good luck getting your packets onto those public wires and fibers without using private servers at each end.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt they'd require that it's "guaranteed" since there is the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Even if they have the nasty habit of ignoring that from time to time, it'd be a pain in this situation. There are few things that annoy judges more than having their time wasted (just look at Righthaven). I find it highly unlikely that judges would ever propose a "block first, then take to court" since their courts would be swarmed with cases where a a site was blocked for stuff like copyright, only to find that 99% of them are fair use, if there's copyrighted material at all. Having to go to court first decreases the likelihood that charges like that would be spammed - less court spamming means happier judges.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[LordArgon]

Medievalist had a great response to this, but I have a few points that I'd also like you to see.

First, it's utterly ridiculous to expect laws to start and remain unambiguous. Any half-decent engineer knows there are many ways a once-clear specification can be misunderstood, especially as your system grows and interacts with other systems. People miss cases or simply can't yet conceive of new situations. The goal of the law is what's important; losing site of the goals is what leads to ridiculous lawsuits and the litigation-heavy society we have now.

Second, unambiguous laws are not necessarily just. For example, if you exceed the speed limit by 1 mph, you've technically broken to law, but have you really violated the spirit of the law? I would argue no; I would argue that the spirit is to keep people driving responsibly and safely and I don't think there's a magic speed where everybody drives like that. In a perfect world, I would rather have a subjective law focused on safety and rely on intelligent, upright enforcers to uphold the spirit. It's not a perfect world so we end up somewhere in the middle.

Finally, you're really focusing on the wrong thing. What we need are simple laws with clear goals and accountability for the people who enforce them (at all levels). Unfortunately, effective accountability is a very hard thing to create, but I'm sure we could do a hell of a lot better than we do now.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Anonymous Coward]

"anyone and everyone can be said to be breaking the law at any time"

This is the United States of America. Deal with it.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[hedwards]

The thing is that it's legal precedent that private companies can't do whatever they want just because they own the property involved. If it were unconstitutional then you'd expect for anti-discrimination, environmental protection and workplace safety legislation to be unenforceable.

Which is a moot point anyways, considering that there are subsidies and that the wires cross public property in getting to their final destination.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[nine-times]

Internet access is a technological convenience, a service sold by private companies...

No, it's not. It's public telecommunication infrastructure. The fact that we allow private companies to built/maintain our vital infrastructure may be a mistake, but allowing them to control our infrastructure without oversight is moronic.

Do you think we should let FedEx own the roads?

Re:Judges, that's who!

[imric]

You are incorrect. The type of law that you want to see is the type that is ALWAYS gamed; laws that disallow interpretation are the tools of tyranny. That's why the founders of the US specifically made the judicial system a separate branch of government on a par with the legislative and executive, rather than a simple tool of the executive, as the right would like it to be.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[spidercoz]

You have unlimited funds to "buy votes" from AT&T? Good for you. Most of us don't. And no, you don't always have the option of "going elsewhere." Sure, monopolies are supposed to be banned, but for some reason ($$$) that only seems to be for national scale. Regional and local, not so much. Your choice of "corporate overlords" who are not truly accountable to anyone, over government, which is accountable to everyone, is simply retarded.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Obfuscant]

Like hell. I happen to own the copyright to the number 0x65,

Ok, so you aren't planning on any civil or reasonable discussion. Check.

Also, just because your website is legal *here* does not mean it's legal in The People's Republic of Zabundi.

Well, good thing that the FCC doesn't write the rules for The People's Republic of Zabundi where the assholes live.

The Zabundi Grand Council has stated numerous times that your site is grossly illegal due to the forbidden topics you mention, and would arrest you on the spot if it had an extradition treaty with anyone.

This has, of course, great significance in a discussion of the FCC implementation of US net neutrality rules. Somehow. I guess.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

Government regulations are the reason there are monopolies. Those local and regional monopolies exist because the government mandated them into existence. What makes you think that the government that created those monopolies is going to act to limit them?

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

I have the choice of not doing business with AT&T or Comcast if I do not like their practices. I do not have the choice of not doing business with the government if I do not like their practices.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

Really, so, the Fairness Doctrine never existed and was never enforced so as to marginalize those opinions that the political powers found inconvenient?

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

For now.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Also, the internet has become a major portion of our communications and cultural dissemination and participation. As such, interfering with it potentially infringes upon our already 'guaranteed' rights."

Your argument goes both ways - do you consider having the government say what you can and can't do online to be "interfering?"

Let's go to your example, but put ourselves in a different pair of shoes. George's Sidewalk-Co is trying to provide everyone with a reasonable, helpful service, and then gets sued because someone thinks they're not being allowed to walk fast enough. So then Sidewalk-Co, if it doesn't go out of business, has to protect itself from lawsuits, and its prices for everyone go up so it can pay its lawyers. Customers decide to move to WalkFree because they're cheaper, and they'll be able to talk to their friends who use that service.
But then, WalkFree sees Sidewalk-Co get sued, and has to retain its own lawyers too. Prices go up for everyone, and now customers have one more set of Terms & Conditions to read.

Also, "may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic?" Does that mean that it's now legal to "reasonably" discriminate? What about traffic that might not be lawful, or that hasn't been decided one way or the other yet? Who will decide what content is "unlawful?" Does this mean that soon, it will be illegal to transmit unlawful content?

"Problem is they have lawyers, connections, and other resources."
How do you know that this isn't their first step toward staking their claim on the internet? How is it better to have roadblocks and restrictions designed to "protect our freedoms," than to have no roadblocks or restrictions at all?

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Obfuscant]

Which is a moot point anyways, considering that there are subsidies and that the wires cross public property in getting to their final destination.

Which is the real moot point, because, as I pointed out, someone's wire crossing a public right of way does not convert that wire into public property, any more than my driveway crossing a right of way converts my driveway into public property. And, as I pointed out, the analogy fails because Sidewalk Co doesn't own the sidewalk, it's a public right of way in and of itself. Now, if Sidewalk Co put in concrete paved pathways on property that it owns, then it has every right to charge people 5$/month to walk on them, or walk faster than X.

By the way, look up the meaning of "franchise fee". It's a fee that companies that use the public rights of way pay to the local governments for the privilege of using those rights of way. Using a right of way is not a subsidy that would convert the privately owned wires into public property.

As for the examples you give of laws that limit the actions of corporations, you are not listing anything that is a contractual issue. How you get to use company A's wires is a matter of contract between you and that company. How company A deals with the environment is not. How it deals with worker safety is not. How it deals with hiring practices is not.

The fact remains, the wires are not public property. There really is no "public internet" involved here. The "inter" part should be a clue. It is a network between many different organizations, most of whom are private companies. And no, sorry, discrimination deals with people, not packets, so anti-discrimination laws don't apply.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[spidercoz]

Sure you do. Move to a different country.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[spidercoz]

They do it all the time.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[NiteShaed]

I do not have the choice of not doing business with the government if I do not like their practices.

I was unaware that Americans were no longer permitted to leave the country. When did this happen?

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Anonymous Coward]

this is not legislation.

This is from the bureaucrats. None of our representatives will ever get to vote on this.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Renraku]

Funny you should mention that. Someone from my past bought a house recently which came with a reasonable home owner's association, or so they thought. They even met the 'board' who seemed down to earth and friendly.

Anyway, they collected 'dues' for misc expenses, such as sidewalks. A neighborhood next to them also had a different HOA.

Someone had an idea to set up a walking 'track' by linking the two neighborhoods at both sides, so their sidewalk networks connected and formed a nice big rectangular loop. People regularly made this journey. HOA-B decided HOA-A should pay for all the appropriate linkages and do all the work, since they had the idea. HOA-A said they should split the cost. HOA-B ended up building walls/fences/impediments to keep HOA-A people out, and to keep HOA-B people from getting to HOA-A. They went so far as to block off every way HOA-A had to get in to HOA-B, severing roads, connections, etc, except for the main and only entrance into HOA-B. It cost them 10x more to be jerks than it did to simply pay for the connections themselves.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

Where I will have to do business with that government.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Obfuscant]

Do you think we should let FedEx own the roads?

Do you think you own the FedEx trucks because they drive on the roads?

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

No, the government acts to favor certain companies at the expense of others, not to limit companies.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

If I leave the country, I will have to do business with whatever government holds sway wherever I go. I can choose to not do business with either Comcast or AT&T, or any other company. I cannot choose to not do business with any government.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[spidercoz]

Jesus, man why don't you just bitch about the weather? Be about as productive.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[spidercoz]

Oh so corps being slapped down for anti-competitive practices never happens.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[nine-times]

No, but I don't think I own other people's traffic over the internet either. Do you think that we should have privately owned infrastructure with no oversight? Should there be no rules about the practices of water, power, and sewage? Should private companies own the road with no rules about how they can restrict/control traffic?

Can GM buy the roads and make rules that only GM cars are allowed to drive on them? Can Amazon buy the roads and make FedEx pay extra tolls for transporting goods purchased from other online stores? Would that sort of thing be a good idea?

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

I replied to someone who said they would rather have government censoring the Internet than corporations because they thought they had more say with the government. The fact is that if you do not like the way that corporations choose to manage the Internet, you can choose not to do business with them. This might mean giving up the Internet, but it is a choice. Corporations very much want you to do business with them. If enough people choose not to use the Internet because of the way the corporation manages it, the corporation will change its behavior. I cannot choose not to do business with any government.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

It happens, in response to another corporation complaining.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[WinPimp2K]

Umm...

Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but we are not talking about legislation here. We are talking about regulation given the force of law without going through the legislative process. And the justification Congress always gives for abdicating their responisibilty to enact legislation in these cases is because the matters require far more technical expertise than Congresscritters can reasonably be expected to possess. This is not an unreasonable argument.

So, they create a bureaucracy which is supposedly composed of people with the technical expertise to craft regulations that will address those technical details specifically. And further, said bureaucrats can always change those rules to prevent obsolesence rather than waiting to see how the judicial system will rewrite them later.

I'd favor keeping the bureaucrats, but requiring their proposed regulations to be subject to a straight up/down vote in Congress (no committess, no amendments - Congress admits they can't be expected to be experts in these areas) and from there presented to the President like any other proposed bill.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[spidercoz]

Or person, or a group of people. Never heard of a class-action suit?

Re:Judges, that's who!

[NiteShaed]

Somalia might be worth considering, or areas along the Pakistani/Afghani boarder. Of course, you wouldn't go there because they're shitholes, and you like actually living in places with civilization, which means that you choose to do business with governments because you value having a standard of living that isn't available in places that don't have functional governments. What you want is the benefit of living in a stable civilized area, but without the burden of the rules and responsibilities imposed by the societies that provide that stability. You can't have it both ways.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[spidercoz]

Large corporations are nigh-immune to that kind of thing, they've explicitly set themselves up that way. The "Invisible Hand" is a Utopian fiction as improbable in this day and age as true communism. And yes, you do have a choice with regards to doing business or not with a government. It may not be pleasant but it exists.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[HeckRuler]

Now THAT is FUD.

"Ah, what a nice beautiful day we're having... FOR NOW" (Dun dun DUN!!!)

Re:Judges, that's who!

[hedwards]

Wow, you're a very dedicated troll.

You might want to go back and read my post before you try to bullshit me. It doesn't matter who owns the wires. As long as they have to cross the right of way or use tax payer funds, they lose a lot of rights that they would otherwise have. It's a moot point whether you want to say it's because it's interstate communication or because it makes use of the public right of way, either way they are a regulated utility.

It doesn't matter what the contractual issues are between companies, they still have to be in compliance with the laws governing them. It doesn't matter if Company A agrees to something with Company B if there's a regulation that says they can't do it, then they can't do it. Same goes for contractual obligations that violate the law. They would have the option of suing the agency or renegotiating the contract. In neither case does a contract supersede the regulatory powers of the government.

And your point about the sidewalk company is another straw man. These are pathways that are paid in part by subsidies and they cross public right of ways. Now, if they want to turn down the subsidies then they can claim ownership over it, but as long as they accept the money they have to accept that it is in part public property.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

No, I did not say that was what I wanted. What I was pointing out is that I have the choice of not doing business with a corporation. without having to go live in a shithole. I do not have the choice of not doing business with a government. As you pointed out, if I do not like the practices of most governments, my choice is to go live somewhere like Somalia. On the other hand, if I don't like the practices of Comcast, I can choose not to do business with them and stay right here.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

Large corporations are nigh-immune to that kind of thing, they've explicitly set themselves up that way.

With the aid and assistance of the government. Giving the government more power is how we got corporations with this much power and now people want to give the government even more power?

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

No, that is experience.
Back in the 1970s people were upset with how much money was involved in politics and how much power that gave to corporations, so they backed campaign finance reform. Then in the 1980s, people saw that there was even more money involved in politics and that corporations had gotten more powerful, so they backed campaign finance reform. Rinse and repeat in the 90s and the 00s. This was not the only type of regulation that was passed in order to "reign in the power of big corporations." You would think that maybe people would start to see a pattern, as you give the government more authority to regulate, corporations wield more and more power. Maybe it is time to try a different approach.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[StikyPad]

The government already has as the final say on everything -- the power -- when it comes to matters of commerce. So the question is not whether or not we give them power, but rather how it should be exercised and who benefits. I would rather have the government mandating basic minimum standards for broadband -- "net neutrality" -- than allowing corporations to collude and set their own definitions of what they want us to have. If left to their own devices, they will *always* go the most profitable route, as is their mandate, but the most profitable route is seldom the one which benefits the most people. Hence regulation.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[sjames]

Their wires run through my property. They ask no permission and wrote me no check. Meanwhile, like all corporations, their charter is contingent upon their existence being in the public interest.

Net neutrality is the rent come due.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Objectivist]

I could not agree more. The same exact thing can be said about the evil anti-trust laws.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Lawful" is way too ambiguous. Maybe if they stated "within the law as written at time of transfer within fair use provisions"

Simply stating lawful makes no distinction between someone posting a mashup on youtube and someone breaking into the FBI. Both break laws. A better wording could also simply be...

"The registered account holder shall make their best effort to prevent the unauthorized use of and prevent illegal use of their connection to the internet. The Internet Service Provider shall make no effort to a third party to investigate or disclose the subscribers private information. The ISP shall notify the subscriber about potentially illegal and questionable activity (eg abuse@, DMCA, and Cease and Desist notices) and it is the subscribers responsibility wether to respond. The ISP reserves the right to terminate or suspend complete their customer relationship and may block specific activities only with the subscriber's agreement to remedial action"

Or in otherwords, the ISP should only engage in blocking if the customer asks for it, or as a remedial issue to another problem (eg the subscriber generates 100 DMCA notices a day or something.) Most people playing games or using Skype won't have this issue. High profile file-sharers get bit the most (the ones with 0-day/1-day releases,) but the average filesharer that drops the torrent a few hours after it completes, or deals mainly with unlicensed media shouldn't be raising these kinds of issues.

One-strike, three-strike laws are just silly. Notice-and-Notice is the correct means, and only if the copyright holder has a solid case (eg they can identify the subscriber and machine) can they even file a report. It's one thing to report an IP address is sharing a specific file, it's another to prove that there is a specific computer that has that file. The strike laws punish users when the rights holders just DMCA-spam that files containing keywords their content has is infringing. They may be right at least 30% of the time, but the average file sharer only shares 0.05% of a file in a popular torrent, and up to 0.15% if there are few seeding users. Seeding users can't be expected to share the file in perpetuity. The only users that share more than 1.0 are the origin seed, and users in countries that have no bandwidth caps and relaxed piracy rules (Sweden, and South Korea mainly.)

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Medievalist]

Well, thanks for the kind words.

Your second point used to be a commonplace; they taught it in school 35 years ago. My teachers told me that the "letter of the law" is less important than the "spirit" of it - by which I think they meant that understanding the goals and intentions of the law are essential to applying it. We used to have classes called "citizenship" and "social studies" but my kids don't have anything like that in their school.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[RoFLKOPTr]

You're kidding, right? You really want to make the argument that because a website uses HTTP, and HTTP can be used to disseminate illegal content, that the website should be blocked as containing illegal content? Are you an **AA shill?

You're kidding, right? He was playing devil's advocate to point out the flaws in the phrase "application or webpage that is guaranteed to have no illegal content". Now put some pants on and get the hell out of my front yard you crazy drunk.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Anonymous Coward]

Protection against what? Companies using the property they own as they see fit?

Re:Judges, that's who!

[davester666]

Simply put, if the law could be unambiguous, there would be no need for any kind of appeal system.

For example, most everybody owns or has viewed pictures of small children either nude or mostly undressed. The only thing that prevents everybody from being paraded into court is that for 99.99% of the population, there is no sexual intent in the taking or viewing of the picture.

However, if the local police officer and prosecutor happen to decide you do have this intent [which is entirely in your head], to a judge or jury, you have to prove you don't have this intent.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Anonymous Coward]

It has nothing to do with right versus privilege, it has to do with companies that use land and spectrum that belongs to all citizens to carry these signals.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[tverbeek]

"Tyrannies" created by laws which outlined a principle instead of detailing specifics? Cite examples, please (so we can laugh at them).

You have a point about overly broad and ambiguous legislation. But as you note, the courts in the U.S. throw those laws out, leaving those that are merely broad (like this) intact.

The fact that you lump "too many" and "too broad" laws in together shows a misunderstanding of the issue, because those are two different things pulling in opposing directions. When laws are broadly worded, they tend to be few in number (e.g. Moses' commandments). When they are obsessively specific, they fill up lengthy rule books (e.g. the Torah).

For laws that are not obviously unambiguous (like this one), those do get clarified into greater specifics, by the executive and judicial branches, which put more specific current interpretations of the law into writing in the form of regulations and court decisions. If you want to know whether you're violating a law or not, you can; you just need to do the research by consulting all three branches of government.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Curunir_wolf]

You are incorrect. The type of law that you want to see is the type that is ALWAYS gamed; laws that disallow interpretation are the tools of tyranny. That's why the founders of the US specifically made the judicial system a separate branch of government on a par with the legislative and executive, rather than a simple tool of the executive, as the right would like it to be.

I hate to tell you this, but the right AND left have a clear history of demanding increased power for the executive. Each only does it when their guy is in the office, but of course when the party changes, all that extra power is retained.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Curunir_wolf]

However, if the local police officer and prosecutor happen to decide you do have this intent [which is entirely in your head], to a judge or jury, you have to prove you don't have this intent.

If that's the case, then this is another good example of a law that, while well-intentioned, is too ambiguous. If "everybody" is breaking the law (or the law can be interpreted that way), then it's bad law, plain and simple.

Your statement exposes the real problem: in the US, accused are provided the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If a law is written such that it turns that basic principle on it's head, it's obviously a bad law.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Curunir_wolf]

"Tyrannies" created by laws which outlined a principle instead of detailing specifics? Cite examples, please (so we can laugh at them).

Laugh at this, then, next time you're traveling in I-20 and the local cops pull you over, and "arrest" your property because it's "suspected of criminal involvement". Asset forfeiture laws create a good example, of how laws are abused in this way. Everyone can be said to be open to suspicion of having drug-tainted property, and jurisdictions that find ways to take advantage of it certainly act like tyrants.

You have a point about overly broad and ambiguous legislation. But as you note, the courts in the U.S. throw those laws out, leaving those that are merely broad (like this) intact.

Maybe. If you're a judge and decide it's okay as written, then uphold it. There are plenty of judges that would disagree. And I was really commenting on the OP's comment that sound legislation is always written to allow subjective interpretation that requires citizens, police, judges, etc., to use their own subjective ideas to decide when the law is being violated.

If you want to know whether you're violating a law or not, you can; you just need to do the research by consulting all three branches of government.

So you have to break the law and get arrested and go to court to decide whether you're breaking the law or not? Because that's the typical method for "consulting" the three branches. In fact, you generally cannot consult a court about a law unless you have "standing" - that is, you must demonstrate some harm, or be under prosecution for a violation. That's exceedingly impractical, risky, and the antithesis of the rule of law. The US is (or ... was) a country of laws, not men. But when laws are so (yes, numerous) and broad that anyone can be said to be breaking the law at any time, it concentrates power to the executive, and they will SOLELY decide when to enforce the law and against whom. You MAY have some chance of avoiding a conviction - but when prosecutors have a long list of laws they can throw at a subject they are likely to get something to stick even in front of the fairest judge. (Here is how "too many" and "too broad" work together - not in opposing directions at all).

Re:Judges, that's who!

[HeckRuler]

Sure dude. Regulation makes corporations powerful. Sure.

Blanket statements like that are guarenteed to be bullshit. Now if you tried to say that some regulations raise the cost of entry into an industry, that's a bit of a smaller bite and easier to chew. Political campaign finance reform is NOT the problem. It helps. If you're really old and cynical and have no hope for the future you might say that it only forces the money to be more subtle. But that's like complaining that the rapists have only moved off of the main streets to the allyways, so nothing is really better.

Corporations are getting more powerful, and that's a bad thing. I'll agree with you there. But we disagree on the cause and how to fix it.

Also, you didn't actually suggest a different approach, and I feel the whole "rah rah, blood for the liberty tree, rah rah" rant coming up, so I'm just going to head you off at the pass and say; no, that's a bad idea.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Yes, wholly uncivil. Meanwhile, you appear to suffer from a severely myopic persecution complex.

Last I checked, most IP trolls aren't interested in what is civil or reasonable, either. In fact, some already have tried to claim ownership of a simple number. You clearly did not know this if you missed the joke. How convenient that you call someone a **AA shill, and then completely forget that such entities exist.

You also don't seem to be very "up" on international Intellectual Property treaties that are in force, or are being negotiated.

> great significance in a discussion of the FCC implementation of US net neutrality rules.

It wasn't supposed to be. As opposed to "I can guarantee that the website I run has no illegal content, "because a website uses HTTP, and HTTP ".

No need to reply, you've demonstrated what you are. Have a great day, anyway.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

Political campaign finance reform does not help. Campaign finance reform makes it harder to displace incumbents (after each campaign finance reform law was passed, the percentage of incumbents losing re-election went down). Incumbents are more susceptible to corporate influence for a variety of reasons (the longer one is in office the more time lobbyists have to find what buttons to push to get you to see things thier way, the longer one is in office the more one learns how to use the clout of office to get things from companies--and thus obligate oneself to deliver "goods" to corporations).
The most effective way to reduce corporate influence over government is to reduce the degree to which the government manages the economy and the regulatory burden that companies labor under (this would have the ancillary effect of significantly boosting the economy). If the regulatory burden was reduced the financial incentive for corporations to influence political races would be reduced. At current regulatory levels it is incumbent upon corporate officers to spend large sums of money to minimize the cost of regulations and to get regulations written in such a way as to fall disproportionately on any competitors who are not taking similar action.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[imric]

Funny, the left hasn't been pushing to eliminate the judicial branch's power though mandatory sentencing, 3 strikes, etc, etc.

As for a 'clear record', examples, please. Count all the attempts on the right vs. all the attempts on the left.

Otherwise it's just another false equivalence, IMO.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Curunir_wolf]

Self-filtered information FTW!

I'm sure you can site innumerable examples of the right trying to increase executive power - but note the ones you mentioned do not. They are legislative, and yes, they reduce the power of the judiciary, but do not increase the power of the executive at all. At least the legislators are accountable to the people, unlike many judges.

As far as the left support (or not ) of executive power - consider that the left decried Bush's "Executive signing statements" (as they should), but they're not a problem when Obama decides they are okay after all.

And when no legislative solution was forthcoming for Net Neutrality (probably not a partisan issue, until fairly recently), and reducing carbon emissions, the left pushed for (and got) administrative (controlled by the executive) solutions. Consider Yucca Mountain - nuclear storage facility mandated (and funded) by Congress, upheld (and ordered implemented) by the highest courts, yet the executive (via direct control of the Department of Energy) refused to carry out the necessary work.

Remember the recent "debt ceiling crisis"? What I remember about it was the calls from the left for Obama to unilaterally raise the ceiling through executive order, via some odd interpretation of the 14th amendment.

It's not a false equivalence - it only seems that way to you because you base your trust on the (D) behind politicians' names. I guess to you Rick Perry used to be a good guy but now he's evil? I see him as the same old self-serving statist he has always been.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[TangoMargarine]

Like hell. I happen to own the copyright to the number 0x65,

Ok, so you aren't planning on any civil or reasonable discussion. Check.

Replace "Zabundi" with "Iran" and "forbidden topics" with "anything that can be construed as irreverent to Islam" and now we're talking.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Obfuscant]

Replace "Zabundi" with "Iran" and "forbidden topics" with "anything that can be construed as irreverent to Islam" and now we're talking.

But not talking about US net neutrality rules, unfortunately, which is the topic of this discussion and the context for which the guarantee of legality can be made.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[imric]

Funny that my post was about decreasing the power the the judiciary to make it a simple tool of the executive - although - handing judiciary power to the executive (the police) probably DOES increase executive power, wouldn't you agree? The exec is not just the President after all.

"Remember the recent "debt ceiling crisis"? What I remember about it was the calls from the left for Obama to unilaterally raise the ceiling through executive order, via some odd interpretation of the 14th amendment"

Did he? No? Well, that's almost one. As for 'signing statements', I hate the damned things - don't care who uses 'em. It's wrong for Obama to use them, even if they aren't his creation. Of course, not using a tool is not the same as creating it and expanding power in the first place, it's qualitatively different.

As for yucca mountain, the executive has always used refusal to act as a tool; from the smallest rural PD all the way up to the President. It's not right either, but this is not exactly an expansion of power.

"It's not a false equivalence - it only seems that way to you because you base your trust on the (D) behind politicians' names. I guess to you Rick Perry used to be a good guy but now he's evil? I see him as the same old self-serving statist he has always been."

Actually I'm not a (D), and would have been considered a fairly radical right-winger until the right exploded into insanity when Obama was elected - you know, when the main objective was declared to bring down a Presidency, rather than to address any other urgent issues.

I -WILL- say that I will be voting negatively according to party lines. The Republicans or anybody else who willingly associates themselves with them will never receive my vote again. Signing on to the current insanity, especially in a cynical bid for power, is evidence of a fundamental unfitness for governance, IMO.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[TangoMargarine]

I'd say blasphemy is probably against Islamic law, which there are a few states I can think of that live under. And if the Danish cartoon thing is any indication, that aspect will probably factor into ours as well if it happens in the U.S.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[HeckRuler]

That's because they did something right, and those are the people we want to re-elect. It's a system with feedback.

The most effective way to reduce corporate influence over government is to reduce the degree to which the government manages the economy

Well, yes, this is true. They'll have less incentive to try and influence politicians. But if you loosen the collar on the economy... that IS GIVING POWER DIRECTLY to the corporations. Alright, that's the ENTIRE POINT. If corporations have more power then the poeople, we'll have rober-barons and dystopian cyberpunk-esque future. You've read snowcrash, you know what I'm talking about. It will reduce the power that the government has. And, as a citizen, I have some power over the government. Stop being cynical, we do. I only have as much power over the corporations as I have cash. And corporations have a LOT more cash then I do. Also I only have as much cash as the corporations pay me and they pay me as determined by my marketability. And given a little power they would bottom that out as fast as they could.

and the regulatory burden that companies labor under (this would have the ancillary effect of significantly boosting the economy).

Yeah, keeping workers safe and healthy sure is a burden. It costs corporate quite a bit of profit to clean up all that sludge. And think of the poor doctors that hardly have anyone to care for now that workers no longer have black lung to worry about.

At current regulatory levels it is incumbent upon corporate officers to spend large sums of money to minimize the cost of regulations and to get regulations written in such a way as to fall disproportionately on any competitors who are not taking similar action.

Which is ILLEGAL. Now, I understand that it happens. And there are economic forces pushing people to go do that illegal thing. But we're talking about influencing how people act. If it's illegal and they do it anyway you can't just throw your hands up in the air say all the laws don't work so we might as well legalize it all and (ahem) "Let the market sort it out". That doesn't work. It turns out they all conspire to bleed us dry. It turns out they're greedy bastards. We've learned this, we don't need to test it again.

Regulations are collars put onto corporations by the government. They are the embodyment of the people exerting power over business.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

Regulations are collars put onto the people by the government. They are the embodiment of people becoming serfs to the government.
I am not opposed to all government regulation. However, we have reached a point where government regulation diminishes individual freedom to a greater extent than it helps the health and well-being of the general populace.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[HeckRuler]

Only if you're a large business owner. In that case, yeah, regulations limit the shit out of you.

Re:Judges, that's who!

[Attila Dimedici]

If you are a large business owner, you can easily afford the regulations (although a large corporation can even more easily afford the costs). However, if you are a small business owner (say, a child having a lemonaide stand in the front yard), the regulations will be prohibitively expensive.

So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

I get it morons spam, but how about opening it for users on request when we want to have mailservers?

Internet service with blocked ports is not really internet service.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[0racle]

You might want to read your ToS on that residential line. I'll put money on you agreed not to run internet services on it.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

I don't care. The internet is a two way street. If they don't want you using it they should not be allowed to call it internet service. They should have to sell it as "one way consumption only service for ports 80 and 443."

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[erroneus]

Network Neutrality rules should trump ToS agreements just as local, state and federal laws trump EULAs. There are some things they shouldn't be allowed to do.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[cpicon92]

I'm running a web server on residential FIOS, it's allowed. So is running a mail server, port 25 isn't blocked. The FIOS IP block is on the spam blacklist.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[cpicon92]

Port 25 isn't blocked. The FIOS IP block is on the spam blacklist. See for yourself. Try sending mail to a server that doesn't have any kind of blacklisting.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

I have. My own hosted server at rackspace. I cannot telnet to it on port 25 from my house.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

Perhaps they don't block it in your area. I cannot telnet from my home to a server I have at rackspace on port 25.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[nmb3000]

I get it morons spam, but how about opening it for users on request when we want to have mailservers?

Internet service with blocked ports is not really internet service.

And I get it that 0.03% of users are like you and want to run a mailserver at home. Unfortunately, 60% of users have spam-spewing malware infesting their machine and blocking port 25 on all the big ISP networks is a huge step forward to reduce botnet/zombie spam.

Does Verizon not have an SMTP gateway you can use? I know when on a Comcast connection I can simply open up smtp.comcast.net and it will relay mail for me. A quick look shows they probably do, though you might have to do smarthost and authentication. Pretty easy.

Besides, any competent spam filter will increase the spam rating for mail sent directly from a network like Verizon and Comcast anyway. You're better off using a legitimate server (Verizon, Gmail, your hosting provider, whatever) to send those messages.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[berzerke]

It could be that you want to connect to someone else's SMTP server, not running your own. Blocking port 25 prevents that, forcing the user to find an alternative port. Admittedly, that alternative is usually encrypted, so overall this is a good thing.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[cpicon92]

That's weird, since it works for me. It's a non-issue, though because of the blacklist issue. If it were only a port 25 issue, you could just use a different port for sending mail...
Since you have a hosted server, why don't you use that for mail? It's not like it's a very resource-heavy task. If for some reason you need to have a mail server in your home, you could set up a relay system.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

They could open it on request only.
I do not want to use their shitty gateway. I do not want them reading my mail, or filtering it or fucking touching it. I do not want to be reliant on one of those companies. I want real internet service, which means a dumb pipe. I don't care if I get bounced for what ip I have. I care about this seller committing what is in any sane sense of the word fraud. They advertise one thing and sell another.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

I could but I don't want to. I want them to provide the service they advertise. Internet access, not this some ports of the internet bullshit.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Anonymous Coward]

h4rr4r is lying to stir up shit. I confirm what cpicon says because port 25 works for me too. His attempt to try to claim it's a regional thing is laughable bullshit. Yes only in his region did verizon for no reason block that port.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Anonymous Coward]

do they consider operating a mailserver a reasonable expectation for a residential account? Especially with the potential for abuse likely to happen over that port?

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[The Moof]

You have a point about running server violating terms (which was specifically mentioned by the GP), but there are other reasons I want port 25 opened that don't run servers. For example, my router is dying to send me daily status reports by e-mail, and I would love to send them anywhere but root's local mailbox. However, AT&T refuses to open port 25 (unless I upgrade to a business account) to let the MTA relay the messages to a more practical e-mail address.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Anonymous Coward]

So wait, you're actually trying to claim their blocking port 25 outbound? Yea, you're either blatantly lying or you don't know how to configure your router/firewall and are blocking it yourself.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[dbc]

My ISP has this one right, I think. Port 25 and other well-known server ports that are popular among the SPAMinistas are blocked by default (on residential service lines). But opening them up is a simple matter of signing into a configuration page and clicking a button to open the port. They have a few words of warning on the web page, but don't stop you from doing it.

Let's be realistic, many customers are going to be in the "What's a port?" crowd. They are the ones who's systems are likely to get compromised and have the least idea how to fix it. People who say "I want to run SMTP on port 25." are capable of finding the button on the ISP's web site and clicking it. Also, the ISP runs statistical monitors on anybody who opens port 25. Because you found and clicked the button to open port 25, the ISP has at least half a chance that an e-mail saying: "Dude, do you know your SMTP outbound traffic just spiked up by 20X today, and that you are sending out X MB per day now?" is likely to be read by a sentient being.

Overall, I think they have the balance about right -- they don't get in your way, but they do things to minimize problems and workload caused by compromised customer systems.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

I am in WNY.
I will update with logs when I get home if you like.

So either I am trolling and trying to hurt my karma, or more likely you are a full of shit AC.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[0racle]

Should not be a problem unless Verizons engineers are complete idiots and preventing you from talking to any SMTP server they don't own. Talking to someone else's SMTP server will make a connection TO other port 25 FROM your randomhighport. Residential internet typically blocks connections FROM randomhighport TO your port 25.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Tsingi]

Perhaps they don't block it in your area. I cannot telnet from my home to a server I have at rackspace on port 25.

Have you troubleshooted the issue? You may be running a firewall on a router, or if you are using Linux, iptables may be blocking ports by default.

Also, telnet is rather insecure, SSH is what you should be using. Rackspace might not let you telnet.

(apologies if I seem patronizing, not my intention.)

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

Telnet on port 25 is how you can test if smtp is working.
You can do the whole transaction at the terminal and watch it.

Thanks for having no idea what you are talking about. SSH is not going to connect to an SMTP server.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[cpicon92]

Give it a rest. They give you literally every port except 25. The recommended port for smtp is 587, now anyway. You can't blame them for trying to prevent botnets from using zombies to send out spam.
You have internet access at the advertised speed and unblocked port 80 (which most ISPs don't give). And all of this for a price that most people can only dream of. You should really consider yourself lucky.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want them "fucking touching it", then you shouldn't be sending it through their routers to begin with.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[geekmux]

I don't care. The internet is a two way street. If they don't want you using it they should not be allowed to call it internet service. They should have to sell it as "one way consumption only service for ports 80 and 443."

The term "internet service" 99.9% of the time in a consumer or residential contract is meant to DELIVER services to you, NOT for you to provide services to others. Of course, this works well because 99.9% of consumers only want or need exactly what is being delivered to them today.

Interpret that all you want, but the bottom line is chances are your ISP does in fact offer a business-class service that would unblock port 25, 80, or 443. Most consumers bitch about it only because they're too cheap to pay for business-class service, that's all. Go lease your own T1 line if you want to see what "expensive" really is.

If you want policy to change regarding consumer-class services, then shift the demand. Right now, ISPs don't have consumers in droves beating down their doors demanding they can run web and email servers. And it's not likely to happen anytime soon either.

And no, I don't work for an ISP. This is just common sense.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

Come to mention it, I do use their actiontec router and they do update the firmware and reset stuff on it on occasion. I will have to investigate it.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughts exactly... if they blocked 25 out then people using eudora, Thunderbird, etc would be screwed. I think the original port 25 out poster doesn't have something configured right or something just like the parent suggests

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Anonymous Coward]

Want some cheese with that whine?

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[tepples]

It could be that you want to connect to someone else's SMTP server

If you want to connect to a smarthost in a datacenter to send mail, that's what port 587 out is for. If you want to connect from a machine in your residential IP address block to the recipient's SMTP server and send mail that way, that'll be confused with a spam zombie.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[tepples]

AT&T refuses to open port 25 (unless I upgrade to a business account) to let the MTA relay the messages to a more practical e-mail address.

Have you tried configuring your router to relay on port 587 (SMTP message submission) instead?

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Tsingi]

(apologies if I seem patronizing, not my intention.)

Thanks for having no idea what you are talking about. SSH is not going to connect to an SMTP server.

No, I didn't look up the port number, I don't use telnet, although I have telnetted to mail servers before. I thought you were trying to telnet to your content server. Serves me right for trying to be helpful.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Teun]

Maybe they block insecure protocols and you should try ssh :)

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[lgarner]

How do you SSH to an SMTP server on port 25?

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

Look up the port number?
25 is smtp, 22 is ssh. Who needs to look it up?

It was not a good dead, you were trying to show off how smart you are. Turns out you made a mistake while doing it, live and learn.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Tsingi]

Apologies. I misunderstood the issue.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[DigiShaman]

ISPs do filter port 25 going outside their network for customers using heuristic behavior monitoring. In some cases, out-right block it all together. If I had to guess, all outbound port 25 traffic gets routed to an entire management firewall device to perform this CPU intensive task. Take ATT for example. Many of my clients here in Houston, TX can send out e-mail to a 3rd party POP server. But send more than 5 or 10 within a small window of time, and the entire port gets clamped down. I've personally confirmed this using Telnet commands. Again, not normal behavior. Definitely some activity management going on at the ISP level they're not owning up to.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Tsingi]

25 is smtp, 22 is ssh. Who needs to look it up?

It was not a good dead, you were trying to show off how smart you are. Turns out you made a mistake while doing it, live and learn.

I do. You win the pissing contest.

btw, it's 'deed', not 'dead'. Look it up.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Hatta]

The internet protocol is peer to peer. If I cannot run services, I am not a peer, and therefore I do not have internet access. If they have advertised internet access, and do not provide internet access, they are breaking the law.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Amouth]

well there is two parts.. they block port 25 incoming AND outgoing.. so if your on it you can't send e-mail via telnet. (and yes i send e-mail via telnet all too often)

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[sgt scrub]

Internet service with blocked ports is not really internet service.

I totally agree. The belief that allowing port 25 traffic to a user magically allows them to spam is a joke. Having an email server is not necessary for spam. Restricting outbound port 25 traffic is a bigger joke. It does not hinder spam in any way. Email sent over high ports >1024 (ie. virus/worms) makes up 90% of all email spam. Not only that, it is usually UDP traffic.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[sgt scrub]

True. But then they can't fuc.. er sell you business service. ie. Slightly more bandwidth over the same lines for twice as much.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[BradleyUffner]

Should not be a problem unless Verizons engineers are complete idiots and preventing you from talking to any SMTP server they don't own.

This is EXACTLY what they do. They block all outgoing connections with a destination of Port 25 unless it is one their SMTP servers. The alternative is to hope the server you want to connect to has an alternate port defined.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[ppanon]

Well, they could block port 25 to everything other than their own mail server to prevent zombie hosts from spamming. Then they could have spam detection on their own server.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

I lease many T1s at work, I don't need that level of SLA.
I don't even need the SLA the business class FIOS provides.

Common sense would be to make them advertise such limitations, not bury them in legalese.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[swillden]

My thoughts exactly... if they blocked 25 out then people using eudora, Thunderbird, etc would be screwed. I think the original port 25 out poster doesn't have something configured right or something just like the parent suggests

Nah, it happens, and the solution is to use 587 instead of 25. Technically that's the right port to use anyway. 587 is for mail submission, 25 is for communication between SMTP servers. RFC 4409 defines the mail submission protocol, which includes authentication. Because it's an authenticated submission channel it's easy to shut down any accounts being abused by spammers.

All mail servers and mail clients of note support authenticated submission on port 587.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

SSH does not connect to port 25 which is what SMTP is on. Also SSH is encrypted which normal SMTP is not.

Way to open your mouth and prove you don't know what you are talking about.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

Or maybe I want to run the email server at home, and some of the mail should be delivered to the datacenter and some to other mail servers.

Maybe I will get blacklisted, but outgoing connections should not be something the ISP fucks with.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[foradoxium]

No. They provide limited internet access packaged as "Residential." Read the fine print. I don't think its a secret that they block port 25, in fact I want to say all the ISP's put out big announcements when they started doing so. Also, by signing that contract you agreed to not run any servers.

Taken from the TOS at: Verizon Internet Access Terms of Service

"Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. You may not resell, re-provision or rent the Service, (either for a fee or without charge) or allow third parties to use the Service via wired, wireless or other means. For example, you may not provide Internet access to third parties through a wired or wireless connection or use the Service to facilitate public Internet access (such as through a Wi-Fi hotspot), use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). If you subscribe to a Broadband Service, you may connect multiple computers/devices within a single home to your modem and/or router to access the Service, but only through a single Verizon-issued IP address. You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service."

Do I agree with you that we should be able to do this stuff? Yeah. I run my own services (tversity, vent, etc.)..just not a mail server. hehe

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

Actually if you use one of those they do want you to use their smtp relay. So odds are they are blocking it.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

No, I want to run my own mailserver. Like I do at work. This is so I can provide myself activesync and to other family members who do not live in my household. Lots of people used to run their own mailservers, but you are probably to young to remember that.

You are a know-nothing AC.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[tepples]

E-mail servers run at home are more commonly used by people who abuse the SMTP infrastructure to send unsolicited bulk e-mail.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

Technically it is the wrong port. Unless you think I want to run a mail server off site just for this purpose. It is the right port for authenticated submission, which is not what I want to do. I want the mail server to live at my house.

I am surprised by the inability of some people to read, while being able to write so well.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[h4rr4r]

Then sent those people to jail. I think a simple 25 year sentence with no possibility of parole would be fine.

I have no interest in sending spam. I just want to send normal emails to friends, family and sometimes when forced to coworkers.

I do not want to be forced to continue to rent servers from someone else. I like being self reliant.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Teun]

Sorry I was wrong but that does not make you right :)

I was confused because I use SMTPS on port 465.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Obfuscant]

Residential internet typically blocks connections FROM randomhighport TO your port 25.

And, to prevent botnets from being able to do much damage when Joe Customer clicks the wrong link on the web pages he visits and his Windows system gets pwned, they also block connections FROM their customers on ANY port to any but a few restricted systems on port 25.

Botnets, at least historically, spew garbage by bypassing intermediate mail servers (that can implement throttles, etc) and talking directly to the destination. They run very simple clients, and often don't bother with retries. That's why greylisting works.

Not being able to get connections from outside to your own port 25 is a different issue than not being able to connect to random systems outside on their port 25. And neither has anything to do with net neutrality.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Hatta]

Sure, they can advertise one thing (internet access) and then sell you another (restricted network access). We usually refer to these cases as "false advertising" or "bait and switch". It's fraudulent.

The fact that fraud is tolerated simply as business as usual doesn't mean it's not fraud. It means the industry is thoroughly corrupt.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[MindSlap]

^^^ This!

I got tired of residential restrictions. The caps in particular.
So..I went biz class.. and I'm now 'in heaven'.
No blocks..NO CAPS.
I also got rid of cable TV. Because I have no caps, I stream HD content at will with no worries.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[cheekyjohnson]

If someone could abuse it, ban it for everyone!

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Anonymous Coward]

did they advertise to you that you would get port 25 open? no, you are interpreting that their advertisement of internet service = port 25 open, they don't agree. If you want to do something about it complain to Verizon or a lawyer, not /.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Obfuscant]

Then sent those people to jail. I think a simple 25 year sentence with no possibility of parole would be fine.

When sending email becomes a crime, only criminals will send email. Blocking botnets from being able to damage the rest of the net is a good thing. That botnet that your ISP is blocking from connecting to outside port 25 SMTP servers is causing damage to other people, including other users of the ISP.

I have no interest in sending spam. I just want to send normal emails to friends, family and sometimes when forced to coworkers.

An ISP blocking access to port 25 other than on their servers isn't preventing you from doing that.

I do not want to be forced to continue to rent servers from someone else. I like being self reliant.

You don't have to rent a server from someone else to send email. You will always be using someone else's servers when you do, you cannot avoid it. Unless, of course, you own the remote server. In that case, simply assign it an incoming port other than 25 for smtp. Nobody says you have to use the well defined port numbers for communications between your own systems. I've lost count of the number of times I've used an unfirewalled port in other people's networks to create links for things that are normally on other port numbers. UUCP on port 80? No problem. Telnet on port 22. Ditto. Got a firewall that only allows outsiders to connect to a web server? Run an ssh server on port 80, problem solved.

As long as you are using someone else's network, you will never be self-reliant. You will always need to depend on someone else.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Eil]

No, your ISP is correct to block port 25 outbound on residential service. It's actually one of the more effective spam-fighting measures. Not because residential customers are themselves spammers, but because their computers become botnet zombies under the control of spammers.

If you want your own server on the Internet, go rent a VPS. They're not expensive and you'll have the added benefit of getting a service was that designed for hosting server applications. I pay $15/month for a Debian VPS that handles email, a database, and a few websites. When hardware and energy costs are taken into consideration, I can't host my own server at home for anything near that cheap.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[cheekyjohnson]

Unfortunately, 60% of users have spam-spewing malware infesting their machine and blocking port 25 on all the big ISP networks is a huge step forward to reduce botnet/zombie spam.

Then a better solution, I think, would be to somehow notify them that they are possibly infected and take proper precautions to stop them from spamming (on an individual basis). I think that's better than blocking the port for everyone.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[StormReaver]

You're better off using a legitimate server (Verizon, Gmail, your hosting provider, whatever) to send those messages.

My mail server is a legitimate server. What the hell makes Verizon, Gmail, or my hosting provider any more legitimate than me? Because they're big companies? Whoopdeefuckingdoo. My company is incorporated, and legally operating in my state. That makes my mail server as legitimate as anyone else's.

Even if I didn't run my mail off of my own Internet connection, requiring email to be gatewayed through a chosen few high priests is a bad, bad, bad idea from any perspective. Any significant collection of power will ALWAYS result in an equally significant abuse of that power. History does not have a single example to the contrary.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[N!k0N]

...I do not want them reading my mail...

uh, encrypt it?

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad your kindergarten spelling helped you correct that for him, while your technical knowledge failed miserably.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[swillden]

I wasn't talking to you :-)

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[lewiscr]

telnet is a pretty good web client, smtp client, and port scanner. I haven't quite figured out how to use telnet as an ftp client though.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[u-235-sentinel]

I could but I don't want to. I want them to provide the service they advertise. Internet access, not this some ports of the internet bullshit.

Agreed. This is why the government (I know.. nasty word but..) needs to get involved and finally protect the consumer. Today these guys can do whatever they want (just about) and get away with it.

In 2007 when Concast terminated my families internet we were shocked. The contract says we had purchased unlimited use for a flat monthly fee. It was even on their web site when we signed up. But after 4 years while they still said they were unlimited, they didn't mean it. That's why I started my blog to document for everyone what kind of a mess we're in today.

Today we're on CenturyLink. The TOS and AUP are the same as we remember under Concast however we are monitoring the hell out of our usage. I'm running a linux firewall server with all sorts of cool bells and whistles. I know what we are doing and how much bandwidth we're using. Even though CenturyLink says we're unlimited usage (sounds familiar?) I don't believe it for one second.

We can't run any servers which sucks. I'd love to setup a Team Fortress 2 or Counterstrike Source game server. But the risk of being terminated for violating a TOS/AUP is too high.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fantastic post — and I suspect your instincts are on the money. I’m 40 with a 3 year old kid, and I think I just might be getting a head start on realization. Life’s too short and I have spent the past year downsizing and slowly extricating myself from the corporate law world. Still got tons of laundry and carpools ahead of me but am beginning to get my priorities straight and to let go of the notion that I can achieve all of my various dreams in a single lifetime if I “just worked a little harder.”. Maybe we can start making 40 the new 50!!
http://www.glam-webcams.com

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Amouth]

whats your issue?

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[geekmux]

I lease many T1s at work, I don't need that level of SLA. I don't even need the SLA the business class FIOS provides.

Common sense would be to make them advertise such limitations, not bury them in legalese.

So, you're going to engage an entire Marketing team to ensure that they "advertise such limitations" to address the concerns of the geeky few that likely represent about 5% of total revenue? Yeah...good luck with that.

And as I said before, they actually already address and advertise an answer for port blocking and cap issues; it's called business-class.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Obfuscant]

For example, my router is dying to send me daily status reports by e-mail, and I would love to send them anywhere but root's local mailbox. However, AT&T refuses to open port 25 (unless I upgrade to a business account) to let the MTA relay the messages to a more practical e-mail address.

I don't understand. If the email from your router is getting to root on a local system, then use a procmail filter rule to forward that email where you want it to go.

Why aren't you sending it to a different user on the local system which is then aliased to the desired recipient?

I can't see how AT&T not letting your router talk directly to any arbitrary outside mail server is preventing you from forwarding the email through the local system where you can connect. Do you not have email access out in the first place? If you do, then use the smart relay features of your local system to relay the email through AT&T's regular mail servers.

What am I missing here?

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[nmb3000]

My mail server is a legitimate server. What the hell makes Verizon, Gmail, or my hosting provider any more legitimate than me? Because they're big companies?

A "legitimate server" has a dedicated IP address which won't be immediately under suspicion by other servers just because of its address. That's all I meant. If you want to run a server from home, I'd suggest getting commercial service that comes with a static IP address.

Even if I didn't run my mail off of my own Internet connection, requiring email to be gatewayed through a chosen few high priests is a bad, bad, bad idea from any perspective. Any significant collection of power will ALWAYS result in an equally significant abuse of that power.

Again, get business-class Internet service and you can create your own "high priest".

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[sjames]

Who's to say which is which? I want my mail delivered to my mail server in my house and I want to be able to take advantage of the service other willing mail servers out there want to provide, namely delivery of mail within the domains they are responsible for. It's kinda like a webform comment only better formatted and structured.

If they want to block port 25 for specific users based on actual spam being sent, that's fine (particularly if they will remove the block once assured the problem is eliminated).

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[sjames]

Actually, it often blocks FROM your randomport TO any port 25 but their own mail server.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Rich0]

I don't think that utilities should have discretion to determine what services they do and don't sell at a consumer level.

In fact, I don't think utilities should even be allowed to sell internet service. They should sell a cable that goes to the CO, and you can then buy service from an ISP there. Suddenly the last mile problem is gone and the free market can address these issues.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[smellotron]

I do not want to be forced to continue to rent servers from someone else. I like being self reliant.

That's fine, but it is unreasonable to expect outbound port 25 to be open by default. Even a white-knight ISP is going to block it by default and only open it for customers who have requested it.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Jaysyn]

Sounds like you should have got a business grade account.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[smellotron]

I do not want them reading my mail, or filtering it or fucking touching it... I want real internet service, which means a dumb pipe.

You are paranoid about using your ISP's mail relay because you don't want them to read your mail? You know, they're your ISP, and they already have the power to read anything that's not encrypted when it hits their tubes.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[smellotron]

Then a better solution, I think, would be to somehow notify them that they are possibly infected and take proper precautions to stop them from spamming (on an individual basis).

Having worked at an ISP before, I can tell you that the 60% of users with malware are the same who just don't care. Unless by "somehow notify them" you mean "block their switch port." It makes the most sense to block something like this (port 25 outbound) by default and leave it to the more savvy customers to request an unblock.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[DarwinSurvivor]

He probably meant the root user on the router. Most 3rd party firmwares (and OEM ones for that matter) are minimalist linux installs that actually run as root.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most consumers bitch about it only because they're too cheap to pay for business-class service, that's all. Go lease your own T1 line if you want to see what "expensive" really is."

That seems a little backwards. T1 pricing an example of ISP's raping business customers. When you say consumers are too cheap you imply the prices are reasonable and fair for the service. This is far from the truth. A T1's bandwidth costs a major ISP (read telco) about $2 per... ever.

The equipment used to provision the bandwidth is full duplex, so there really is no technical reason for giving reduced upload speeds and refusing to allow servers. In fact, few ISP's do disallow servers anymore. They block 25 for spam purposes. Even if the port was opened you'd soon find that mail servers will block your consumer range.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[lewiscr]

telnet is the debugging tool I use when a daemon isn't working right. I've used it to see the HTTP headers returned (in the days before browsers made this easier). I've used it to test postfix plugins. I'll occasionally use it to send email when my local MTA is offline. I've used it to get more insight into SMTP, POP, and IMAP configuration errors. It's usually for debugging, but sometimes for bootstrapping.

The only thing I don't use telnet for (anymore) is remote logins.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to name your isp?

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[Amouth]

the question was geared towards you saying you haven't quite figured out how to use it as an FTP client.. my comment was an attempt to help you.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[poofmeisterp]

So, you're going to engage an entire Marketing team to ensure that they "advertise such limitations" to address the concerns of the geeky few that likely represent about 5% of total revenue? Yeah...good luck with that.

And as I said before, they actually already address and advertise an answer for port blocking and cap issues; it's called business-class.

The pharmaceutical companies have to do it. That's all I'm going to say.

Re:So will verizon FIOS now open port 25?

[lewiscr]

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I added in a standard dose of internet snark, and interpreted your comment as "What's wrong with you?". My apologies.

So far, I haven't figured out how to manage the multiple connections well enough to do anything. I usually get timeouts before I can get the secondary connections established (after I remember to put the connection in PASV mode). When I want to do something low level with FTP, I find it's faster and easier to write a debugging client with Perl's Net::FTP module. I know that a good chunk of the problem is practice, because I had the same problems with all the other layer 7 protocols. I eventually got past that with SMTP, HTTP, POP3 and IMAP, but haven't managed to get past it with FTP.

unreasonable discrimination

[Pat Attack]

I have a feeling that we are going to see some legal battles with the carriers over "unreasonable discrimination"

That can't be right.

[Anonymous Coward]

At first glance this seems to be reasonably sane, obviously this can't be right, so what's the catch?

Re:That can't be right.

[Tsingi]

Maybe there isn't one.

That does seem unlikely, doesn't it.

Re:That can't be right.

[RobertLTux]

the catch is the going rate for a Judge to decide things "your way".

the way "we" want things decided
The law is saying that Torrent , HyperCast, Tor and whatever CAN NOT BE BLOCKED at the service level

The Way ISPs want things decided
Any service not specifically stated to be unblockable (streaming media and VOIP) can and should be blocked if it causes the TOP TEN PERCENT USERS to increase or stay the same in useage.

Re:That can't be right.

[henrym]

You have some errors with your capitalization. FTFY.

The catch is the going rate for a judge to decide things "your way".

The way "we" want things decided
The law is saying that Torrent , HyperCast, Tor and whatever CAN NOT BE BLOCKED at the service level.

The way ISPs want things decided
any service not specifically stated to be unblockable (streaming media and VOIP) can and should be blocked if it causes the TOP TEN PERCENT USERS to increase or stay the same in useage.

Re:That can't be right.

[rollingcalf]

The catch is that the five right-winged judges in the Supreme Court will strike it down.

Good, but not far enough

[fingers1122]

This is better than nothing, but it's only a matter of time before some of the "ambiguity" in the rules are exploited. What scares me most about net neutrality is that virtually no one outside of those who are actively interested know anything about it, and we've already seen a crazy propaganda campaign in the press to define net neutrality as a "government takeover of the Internet."

If we have any desire for true net neutrality to be upheld, we have to figure out a way to reframe this discussion in the media--and we have to do it quickly or we're going to soon end up with an Internet that is going to resemble broadcast TV more than the open web of information that it is now. I have a bad feeling in my stomach about how net neutrality is going to play out as it seems almost no one understands how vitally important it is.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[h4rr4r]

You can't reframe it in the media. They are the ones you are fighting against.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[bonch]

What scares me about net neutrality is that people actually believe a private company running a private network doesn't have the right to regulate its network traffic however they see fit.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[AngryDeuce]

"The Media" have a vested interest in not accurately presenting the information. At the end of the day, it all comes down to money. Laws and regulations don't mean fuck all if you've got the capital and market share to protect you...two things ISPs have plenty of

I suspect the first ISP that gets nailed on Net Neutrality will take it all the way to the Supreme Court and they will rule that the ISP's have every right to provide whatever service they want because "hey, nobody needs the internet." The UN declaration of internet access being a human right was widely mocked here in the States if you'll recall (at least, widely mocked by those that get any real say in the matter anyway).

That conservative majority on the SCOTUS will take care of this no problem, you'll see.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[fingers1122]

Unfortunately, yes. But we are going to lose this battle if the conversation becomes about "government control" and not about freedom to communicate. Power structures all over the world fear the Internet as it is now--and they should. It is not in the interest of power structures to allow the public to communicate freely, and as a result they will eventually try to do away with it.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[cfalcon]

The private companies that are federally subsidized monopolies? Go look at how all that pipe got laid. That's tax dollars at work. You want to look me in the eye and tell me that anyone can just go run a giant network of fiber? Because these turkeys sure didn't, and even if you could, you would need massive government participation to bury stuff everywhere.

These things are "utilities" for a reason. This isn't like "the only difference between these guys and the store at the corner is total money". This is different.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[h4rr4r]

I agree they should be allowed to just as soon as they give up any right of ways or government subsidies/loans or tax credits.

A company that survives by laying cable over my land without paying me by using the force of government should expect this. What is sauce for the goose...

Re:Good, but not far enough

[causality]

What scares me about net neutrality is that people actually believe a private company running a private network doesn't have the right to regulate its network traffic however they see fit.

You really don't know how the telecoms came to run that "private" network, do you?

Put it this way: if they built it with their own money, your argument would be on much firmer ground.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[fahrbot-bot]

Of course, those private companies use public resources, like land use/right-of-way and public spectrum, etc... and are usually considered to be (or be like) a utility. Many (most?) receive some sort of tax consideration as well and have to get municipal charters (permission to operate) in various localities... I'd argue that the right to regulate these companies like this exists as, obviously, do the companies. The difference of opinion is to what extent and I'd argue that the only leg on which these companies are standing is protecting their profits - which is okay, that's why companies exist - but predatory, discriminatory and monopolistic practices are illegal - at least for the sole sake of those practices.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious how such legislation deals with content caching and other mechanisms used to bring high-bandwidth content closer to the consumers. It's easy to proclaim that everyone has to be on an even playing field, but stuff like Netflix makes use of distributed content servers for a reason. If Netflix contracts with an ISP to put that content within the network to provide better service does that run afoul of the new rules, especially when it comes to other companies that can't afford to provide that level of service?

Re:Good, but not far enough

[s73v3r]

What scares me most about net neutrality is idiots like you thinking that companies can slice up the PUBLIC INTERENT however they see fit.

If they want to "regulate their network traffic on their private network", then they need to have a private network to start with. The Internet is not a private network. If they want to regulate traffic, then they need to cut all connections to the greater Internet.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[fahrbot-bot]

Or, SCOTUS could finally declare the broadband suppliers / ISPs as Common Carriers, in which case the ISPs would be screwed. While they have generally been successful at skirting this definition to date,

Internet networks are, however, already treated like common carriers in many respects. ISPs are largely immune from liability for third party content. The Good Samaritan provision of the Communications Decency Act established immunity from liability for third party content on grounds of libel or slander. The DMCA established that ISPs which comply with DMCA would not be liable for the copyright violations of third parties on their network.

Too much dickish behavior could swing thinking against them

Re:Good, but not far enough

[fingers1122]

He probably cares very little about the fact that the government created the infrastructure of the Internet. People like him don't really believe in minimal government (as they love to claim); they believe in a very strong, robust government--but one that works only in favor of private business. We of course see this in the financial industry, where at the top, losses are socialized and gains are privatized--with no real effort to end the "to big to fail" policy. These people are not capitalist, they are Marxists, but they're on the other side. They consistently LOVE government when it funds and protects private business, but hate it when it asks for anything back--like, oh say, protection of its citizens.

At least government is accountable to the people in functioning democracies. Corporations are tyrannical in nature, owing no accountability to the public. We've seen what happens to unregulated industries. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it."

Re:Good, but not far enough

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Then if it is all private then I should be able to remove all of their private equipment from my private property since I am not uisng it and they aren't paying me anything for hosting their cables. Charter is the local cable company and I don't have cable tv or cable internet but yet they have lines that cross my property so maybe I should go rent a ditch witch and return Charter's property. I mean come on I am a private entity with private property so I should be able to decide what runs across my property.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[Bengie]

If they didn't get over 800bil in subsidies over the past 15 years and didn't run their fiber over public land and other's private property, then you may have a case. But as it stands, they've gotten over 1 trillion(after inflation) of free money and they run their cables along high-ways and cross state lines. There is NOTHING private about that.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[AngryDeuce]

Or, SCOTUS could finally declare the broadband suppliers / ISPs as Common Carriers, in which case the ISPs would be screwed.

I'm way too much of a pessimist to even entertain that notion. Citizens United v. FEC and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion is enough evidence in my mind to deduce that the Supreme Court is just another tool of Big Business, albeit not as obviously corrupted as our Legislative and Executive branches.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there is one company that ended up using most of their own private land to run the cables, that would be SPRINT.
You see the SPR in Sprint stands for their original parent company Southern Pacific Railroad. They ran the cables under the railroad lines and land they owned, this also helped them compete with AT&T and MCI for long distance services back in the old days, they were basically not paying for leasing land and could offer cheaper rates.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[sgt scrub]

The ignorance in the media over what is a public and what is a private network is what needs to be fixed. Someone needs to let the morons know an ISP is not a private network.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[0xdeadbeef]

What scares me about net neutrality

IT'S AFRAID!

Re:Good, but not far enough

[h4rr4r]

You confused fascism with Marxism. Common mistake.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini

Re:Good, but not far enough

[AmberBlackCat]

What scares me about net neutrality is that people actually believe a private company running a private network doesn't have the right to regulate its network traffic however they see fit.

Keep in mind, along with these private companies getting government deals to shut out competition, these private companies tend to sue governments who want to provide similar service paid for with tax dollars. If they want the government to make them the sole source of the service, they should be subject to regulation.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[causality]

He probably cares very little about the fact that the government created the infrastructure of the Internet. People like him don't really believe in minimal government (as they love to claim); they believe in a very strong, robust government--but one that works only in favor of private business. We of course see this in the financial industry, where at the top, losses are socialized and gains are privatized--with no real effort to end the "to big to fail" policy. These people are not capitalist, they are Marxists, but they're on the other side. They consistently LOVE government when it funds and protects private business, but hate it when it asks for anything back--like, oh say, protection of its citizens. At least government is accountable to the people in functioning democracies. Corporations are tyrannical in nature, owing no accountability to the public. We've seen what happens to unregulated industries. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it."

I know just what you mean. I really do believe in minimal government. But I don't play childish games with the definition of "minimal". There are three basic things government does well: national defense, law enforcement, and public works (roads, bridges, infrastructure, regulation of utilities, etc). A government that is unable to do those three things is less than minimal. It is inadequate and insufficient.

I'll add that for law enforcement, the only proper role here is to prevent one person from using force or fraud to deprive another person of their life, liberty, or property. I'm tired of the lives we destory and the money and effort we keep wasting trying to regulate what consenting adults do in their own homes.

Regarding Internet providers, the only reason they even have a network to administer is because tax dollars built it for them. There's another thing that built it for them: eminent domain, in the form of legally-granted right-of-way allowing them to dig up land and lay down lines. If not for the government handling this, the top-level ISPs would have to separately negotiate a contract with each individual homeowner whose land they want to dig up. We're talking perhaps millions of people, some reasonable, some unreasonable, some of whom would uphold their end of a contract, some of whom would be dishonest. It'd be a frickin' nightmare.

It only makes sense to handle this the way it was actually done. Since their business wouldn't be possible without great taxpayer investment, it only makes sense that the public has an interest in regulating these monopolistic corporations like any other utility. We did the hardest part of their job for them. Now they owe us. The whole debate is ridiculous. If this were water or sewage or electricity we wouldn't even be having these arguments about it.

A desire for minimal government is not the same thing as a desire for anarcho-capitalism. I believe the distinction has been deliberately confused by cowardly individuals whose ideas would not withstand honest debate (and who don't have the guts to respond to that by changing their ideas). It's an age-old rhetorical (and PR) tactic. If you cannot win on merit, use underhanded tactics like associating your opponent with something truly undesirable, then speak about them as though they had always been the same thing. It tends to sway uneducated masses who don't understand reason and critical thinking but love to feel "right".

Re:Good, but not far enough

[Anonymous Coward]

"These people are not capitalist, they are Marxists"?

I think you need to be educated. What the US practices is corporatism which is the real form of capitalism. Since capitalism needs a state to enforce the system.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[fingers1122]

I agree with you and think your post is honest and rational, except in your assertion that the definition of minimal government has been distorted in an attempt to make a straw man of those who are rational endorsers of "minimal government." The distortion--and I do agree that there is a distortion--has been made by the political actors who have claimed for themselves the title of being proponents of "minimal government." The government grew under Reagan as it did under Bush; what changed was the appropriation and allocation of tax dollars to favor private enterprise, and away from programs that assisted lower-income people and minorities. They distorted and confused the meaning of "minimal" by separating their words from their deeds. The other side just sat back, spineless and watched it happen.

The tea party are obviously lunatics, but they're right when they proclaim their outrage at the traditional GOP for being as fiscally irresponsible as the democrats. The problem is the movement doesn't offer any real answers--and certainly isn't pushing for "minimal government," as you defined it. God only knows what they want, but if they get their way, we'll end up with some sort of corporate tyranny. They accepted the PR of the conservatives they'd previously elected who then squandered their money. They have become so disillusioned at how the candidates who promised minimal government spent all their money away. They don't understand that those candidates never believed in their own rhetoric and had no intention of ever implementing reasonable government programs, because their candidates were bought off by corporations. And now as a result there is such skepticism in government that we can't even get people to accept that some government is vital to protect our individual pursuit of "life, liberty, and happiness."

Re:Good, but not far enough

[sjames]

Just as soon as they deposit money in my private bank account for running their private cable through my private property. That and surrender any exclusive franchise agreements they may have with local governments.

Re:Good, but not far enough

[MacDork]

For the sake of argument, let me concede for one moment that this is a private company that built its infrastructure without government assistance.

What scares me about net neutrality is that people actually believe a private company running a private network doesn't have the right to regulate its network traffic however they see fit.

Your question is your answer. This is not a healthy free market you're describing. A company doesn't care what you think if there is no real competition to which customers can flee. Most places in the US have 2 or fewer realistic options when it comes to broadband. Just like Microsoft can't stipulate certain conditions in contracts because of their monopoly position, so too must broadband provider deal with government involvment when they try to illegally leverage their monopoly position to enter into new markets.

Ok.

[unity100]

Great. Empty variables in the form of 'lawful'. Now all you need is a few small laws to block stuff at will.

Re:Ok.

[Dunbal]

Not to mention it's the perfect excuse all IP's need for regularly performing deep packet inspection, because after all they have to make sure that your content is "lawful".

"unlawful"

[girlintraining]

You guys do realize that everything you do on the internet is unlawful in one fashion or another, somewhere. It's like a police officer following you while you drive. At some point during the trip, regardless of who you are, you're going to do something that is an offense the officer can stop you for. The internet is no different.

Look at how we've made breaking an EULA a crime. Tell me, how many EULAs do you interact with during your average browsing session? That's just one example... there's thousands more buried in a byzantine legal framework. So basically, the exception that they cannot disrupt "legal" traffic is a carte blanche exception to do whatever they want... because everything is illegal somehow.

And if not, your ISP will simply adjust their EULA for their website, and set your default homepage to it, and viola.

Re:"unlawful"

[Anonymous Coward]

Most "Common Law" systems have some provision that automatically legitimizes anything that a reasonable person would have a reasonable expectation to be able to do. Fair use is a derivative of this. Far as I can tell, this provision was intended to prevent abuse of the legal system of the kind you're describing. Of course, Common Law is horribly unfashionable these days - in part because people found ways of abusing it too and it was easier to abolish than fix.

Re:"unlawful"

[fingers1122]

Before Andrew Jackson went into full ethnic-cleansing mode, he reasoned one way to deal with the native-American problem was to allow them to stay on their land but tell them they had to abide by state law. Obviously, this was impossible as the native way of life did not conform to US law. This gave him an ability to make the argument for removing the natives by force because he could claim that he was doing it because they were not following the law.

These things happen in small steps. We're being treated like idiots, and it's not long before we're going to hear arguments like, "We would love to keep the Internet open and free, but no one using the Internet is following the law, so we--the ISP--have to control it to stop people from violating the law."

Re:"unlawful"

[DigiShaman]

Soon, every adult will have to be paired up with a police officer. Even police officers will have to be paired up too. The rotation is random each day so as to not to form close relationships. We're all watchmen to ensure we become the perfect citizen. All actions are to be time and performed flawlessly. Robots, born and raised in the flesh. A handicap that will eventually need to be addressed.

Re:"unlawful"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't interact with any EULAs during an average browsing session - nor are any laws broken during my typical session on the Internet. What the hell are you kids doing online now, anyway?

Re:"unlawful"

[sgt scrub]

Considering some users go through 3 EULA's to get a machine capable of using a browser, yes. You are fucked before you even connect to an ISP.

Re:"unlawful"

[TemporalBeing]

You guys do realize that everything you do on the internet is unlawful in one fashion or another, somewhere. It's like a police officer following you while you drive. At some point during the trip, regardless of who you are, you're going to do something that is an offense the officer can stop you for. The internet is no different.

(Emphasis added above) The problem is one of jurisdiction. The FCC rules only apply within the US jurisdiction. So it does not matter what any country/state outside of that jurisdiction says; only US law applies. Therefore the somewhere noted above is limited to within in US jurisdiction, and more importantly (i) where the person lives, (ii) what they presently are (in case of mobile), and (iii) the overlapping (federal, state, local) jurisdictions for the previous two.

So the matter of jurisdiction is really only an issue for those moving about via mobile Internet connections as they will move between various local and state jurisdictions.

Re:"unlawful"

[AwesomeMcgee]

It's police officers all the way down?

You'd get more mileage out of outlawing QoS...

[Anonymous Coward]

...than banning "blocking."

Now you'll be able to use their service, but if you do something they don't like you'll be slowed down to less than a crawl. But you can still access it, so it's not blocking per se.

Re:You'd get more mileage out of outlawing QoS...

[hedwards]

QoS would presumably fall under the unreasonable discrimination clause. As dropping or delaying packets would be discrimination. Now, the specifics and court cases would determine when that is and is not reasonable.

Sounds good in the summary

[Loopy]

A year from now, I wonder how many aspects of this will be abused by the FCC to the detriment of businesses or practices they just happen to disagree with, politically or otherwise.

Re:Sounds good in the summary

[s73v3r]

I'm gonna guess 0. Now, on the other hand, how many times have ISPs abused their power to the detriment of businesses or alternative distribution means they just happen to disagree with, politically or otherwise?

"Real" net speeds

[Moheeheeko]

Does this mean they will stop claiming im getting 3.0 megabit when its really 1.2 and below?

DARN TOOTIN'!!!!11!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And people actually believe a private company hirin' private employees doesn't have the right to refuse them Negroes and darkies however they see fit.

GLORY HALLELUJAH! GOD BLESS 'MUR'KA!

Re:DARN TOOTIN'!!!!11!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. Just because the government has suppressed that right doesn't mean it does not exist.

If you have a problem with that, perhaps "anti discrimination" laws need to be passed in regard to your anus. When you're dying of AIDS after being raped bareback by hundreds of negroid penises, maybe you'll realize that private property rights are a good thing.

Queue prophetic Ayn Rand quote

[Quila]

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

She was a bit whacko in ways, but man did she hit the nail on the head with this one.

Re:Queue prophetic Ayn Rand quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain yourself... Or was it just idle trolling?

Re:Queue prophetic Ayn Rand quote

[dkleinsc]

Ayn Rand is in fact completely wrong about this.

For starters, in addition to cracking down on criminals, government also has the power to finance investments that otherwise wouldn't be made. For instance, every single one of the early trans-Atlantic trips was the result of a government-financed venture, because for a private financier the risk would be high and the rewards unclear at best. They also have the power to fend off other governments militarily, if it comes to that. That gives them quite a bit to do with the money they'd save by having fewer criminals in the world.

As far as who would want a nation of law-abiding citizens, and what's in it for people, I'll just say that the only folks who would really want a nation of criminals (and creating criminals if they aren't already there) would be those who take pleasure in locking people up and/or inflicting pain on people, in other words, sadists. The rest would be perfectly happy to keep people under enough control that they aren't hurting anybody.

Re:Queue prophetic Ayn Rand quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, no, that'd be wrong. Unless you're talking about "every single" being "the very first single, ever."
Lookup "proprietary colonies," and "charter colonies," just for America for starters. Pennsylvania, Maryland, those ring bells for you?

Re:Queue prophetic Ayn Rand quote

[Antisyzygy]

You assume the government is a benevolent entity without self-interest. Most "projects" benefit one set of people or another at the expense of others. For example, the head (maybe former, I haven't followed it since) of the Homeland Security department was instrumental in getting the naked-body scanners in Airports, and lo-and-behold he owned part of the company that makes them. Government is full of shit like that. Most of their legislation is meant to keep us all happy while maintaining the status quo. I.e. keep the rich getting richer, and make sure we all can't get rich as easy since thats more money for them.

Re:Queue prophetic Ayn Rand quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, even if you agree that she's right on the money here (which, it appears, many people don't) this is hardly original thinking. This is the method by which Christianity has controlled believers for millennia.

You cannot offer "salvation" to someone who doesn't need to be saved. You don't need to be saved unless you've sinned. So, simply, make everyone a sinner. Original sin is a good way, and then make it so that thinking dirty thoughts about that girl with big boobs is a sin, as is wishing you had a hut as nice as Zachariah across town and boom... you've got yourself control!

Re:Queue prophetic Ayn Rand quote

[sgt scrub]

and you create a nation of law-breakers

A nation that allows profiting off imprisonment should incite revolts. The U.S. managed to get around this by allowing prisons to be run by the private sector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex

Re:Queue prophetic Ayn Rand quote

[dkleinsc]

When I meant "early", I was thinking of the period from about 1000 CE (Leif Erikson) through about 1550 CE. Typically what would happen in that period was that monarchs would sponsor expeditions, the explorers would try to map out the place and also frequently "seed" the new territories with livestock for future settlement. By the time they were establishing Pennsylvania and Maryland, they had some clue what the area might look like, and some reason to think that the new settlement would survive.

In other words, the highest-risk investments involved government, when they became lower risk, the private investors moved in. This is a pretty common pattern.

Re:Queue prophetic Ayn Rand quote

[Quila]

I'll just say that the only folks who would really want a nation of criminals (and creating criminals if they aren't already there) would be those who take pleasure in locking people up and/or inflicting pain on people, in other words, sadists.

It's not about sadism. It's about power, and those at the top are quite often the ones who want that power. As you say, the rest of us are perfectly happy that people just don't hurt each other, but we're not the ones in power, we're not the ones making the rules.

Now pardon me while I go have a smoke, making sure to light up at 20' away from this privately-owned business where everybody smokes. But not 19' away, because that's illegal.

No, I don't smoke. That's just an example.

Re:Queue prophetic Ayn Rand quote

[ppanon]

She was a bit whacko in ways, but man did she hit the nail on the head with this one.

Well, she came from a country (Communist Russia) where the Communist Party government controlled everything, was stifling initiative and individual aspirations. She was understandably appalled by this system and considered any government control a step on a slippery slope to the Soviet system, without consideration that it's actually a hill with a slippery slope on both sides and that other side that leads to a different set of unpleasant conclusions.

Now the thing is that Communist Russia was also a police state to maintain its unpopular control, and she correctly analyzed how those work. Ayn Rand was consistent in being against the pillars of the Soviet system, understandingly so. However she failed to continue her analysis to the consequences of a no-government control policy. She wrote most of her books at the height of the Cold War so it's understandable that it was so popular, especially since it was useful propaganda. However it's been 50 years since with much research done since (especially in economics on natural monopolies through network effects), so there isn't as much excuse for people to swallow her philosophy whole.

Re:Queue prophetic Ayn Rand quote

[BJ_Covert_Action]

And yet, despite her seemingly prophetic nature, innocent men have been under the rule of government in one form or another for the entirety of recorded history, and, still, the mass majority of people manage to live their lives out happily, safely, and contently without getting their doors kicked in by the thought-police. Hell, we've even managed to progress our species and society forward a notch or two over the last few millenia under government rule.

Go figure.

lawyers

[Iniamyen]

This is why lawyers have jobs. Lawmakers just kick the can down the road to the next set of lawmakers & lawyers for them to interpret/repeal the laws they made, as they are too concerned about offending interests to actually take a stand on a policy.

Re:lawyers

[jellomizer]

The alternate is very strictly written laws that are inflexible, that will just make more criminals.

Re:lawyers

[s73v3r]

Actually, you want things written like that. You don't want them to mention specific protocols or anything, because what happens when those protocols are obsolete a year from now? Too bad, the law only mentioned these protocols.

"Lawful" content

[Haedrian]

There you go, one giant gaping abuse-hole.

Fixed? Bullshit it's fixed.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

The word "lawful" and "unreasonable" are thrown around a lot in this like they're some kind of barrier.
You know as well as I that those on top can bend both the law and reason to their will.
Replace these words with the word "any", and when this happens, then it shall be "fixed"
Unless there is no blocking or discrimination of ANY content, this is not truly neutral.

Let's agree to meet here in 5 years

[Tokolosh]

We have differences of opinion, each with some validity. In a few years' time it should be apparent which way things are going.

Personally, I'm with the "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" as a nightmare crowd.

Buried under state roads; tantamount to press

[tepples]

Internet access is a technological convenience, a service sold by private companies

For one thing, people who buy a service have the right to know up front, in easily understood language, what limits the service will have. For another thing, fixed broadband providers operate under municipal franchises due to the state's monopoly on roads under which the last mile can be buried.

not some right guaranteed constitutional protection

Watch lawyers for a civil liberties advocacy group talk a judge into considering Internet publication tantamount to "speech or ... the press".

If you want to talk privileges

[tepples]

internet access is not considered a right here, it's a privilege.

Nor is wireless ISPs' access to FCC-owned spectrum a right; it's a privilege. Nor is wired ISPs' access to conduit under post roads a right; it too is a privilege.

Re:If you want to talk privileges

[AngryDeuce]

I agree with you whole-heartedly, but the reality of the situation is that what is fair and just for the people is of little consequence to those in power anymore. The days of fighting through legal channels is pretty much at an end, because the legal channels are all corrupted and totally preferential towards those with the most money to throw at it.

Re:If you want to talk privileges

[fortfive]

While it may not be a *natural* right, it is certainly a legal right. The government in both cases has granted the rights.

Re:If you want to talk privileges

[Anonymous Coward]

internet access is not considered a right here, it's a privilege.

Nor is wireless ISPs' access to FCC-owned spectrum a right; it's a privilege. Nor is wired ISPs' access to conduit under post roads a right; it too is a privilege.

Actually no, The governmental organizations have ruled Internet to be a need and that it cannot be cut off willy nilly. You should do your research before you open your mouth.

Re:If you want to talk privileges

[StikyPad]

You're so silly. There were never days where legal channels weren't corrupted and totally preferential toward those with the most money to throw at it. Things are actually much better than they've been by historical standards. You don't wind up in jail for missing a payment to a private entity on their say-so, for example.

Re:If you want to talk privileges

[AngryDeuce]

Things are actually much better than they've been by historical standards.

No, things were much better. From WWII-the late 70's, things were great. Then Reagan, the first fully Corporate Owned President, came along and they rectified that thorny "democracy" problem.

Re:If you want to talk privileges

[HeckRuler]

The same way my ISP granted me rights to the full unfiltered unthrottled unlimited Internet connection that I paid for?
You know, the one that they've secretly filtered out their competitors from. The one that they send false packets to just to stop downloads. The one they throttle after you hit your bandwidth cap for the month. The cap that they don't advertise. In the advertisement where they claim it's unlimited.

Is it anything like that one? Because if so, they either need to spend some time in prison, or they need to shut up and accept some regulation which they so clearly deserve.

Re:If you want to talk privileges

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Just a curiosity, when were you born year wise? I've noticed a funny trend that folks born just prior to a certain time period often consider that time period to be then "Golden Age" of their society. So, when were you born?

Don't get me wrong, the 50's through 70's did have a lot going for them, true. But there was a lot of fucked up stuff too: Vietnam, Jim Crowe Laws, lots of unhealthy drug abuse (and no, I'm not talking about Mary Jane here), extreme sexual orientation prejudice. Women were still treated very subserviently and poorly quite often. Large portions of rural America did not have clean water or electricity supplied to them. Roads to anywhere except the main cities were often shoddy, windy, bumpy horse trails that added hours to travel time, etc. etc. etc.

Of course, there were cool things going on then too: Elvis, Rock& Roll, the Apollo program, a continual ramping up of investment in infrastructure, etc.

But on the whole, the 50's, 60's, and 70's had their problems just like every other decade in human history.

Re:If you want to talk privileges

[StikyPad]

Fuck no they weren't. That's just some crap fantasy your parents have. Thalidomide, DDT, the KKK, political assassinations, Cuyahoga River, Watergate, the red scare(s) and McCarthyism, stop, drop, and roll, Vietnam, Korea, AT&T, the oil crisis, the Bay of Pigs, lobotomies, legalized racism, and on and on.

Leave it to Beaver was an escape, not a documentary.

Re:If you want to talk privileges

[Objectivist]

That's the problem. Internet access is NOT a right. Imagine if the ISP's closed their doors tomorrow just because they chose to. If we have a RIGHT to the internet access they provide, then by definition, we would need to force them to stay open to satisfy our "right". The fact that the FCC "owns" the spectrum is another issue, but equally wrong. The spectrum should be owned by the engineers and scientists who discovered its existance, are capable of making use of it, and able to market it to customers for whatever use they choose (including keeping it to themselves). We do not have a "public right" to a spectrum that we do not have the scientific knowledge to use or comprehend. At some point someone discovered the spectrum. And at some point individuals made the scientific discoveries of which utilize the spectrum. The idea that those individuals' work should be expropriated and given to the public as a "right" is a violation of those scientists' rights. Imagine if the scientist(s) who discovered the spectrum had instead decided to play baseball, or be a realtor, or waste their lives with drugs. The very thing that you and others think is a "public right" would not even have been discovered in the first place.

Re:If you want to talk privileges

[Objectivist]

This "concept" of rights is a fallacy. Rights are what morally SHOULD be, based on observable facts in reality. Rights are not what any particular government has determined are so. Those would be referred to as laws, and laws are often in conflict with what properly should be rights. Essentially, there is only one basic right (as can be proven through observation of reality and philosophic discovery) and that is the right to life. All other proper rights are a derivative and extention of one's basic right to life. A government does not "grant rights". They only protect or violate them.

Re:If you want to talk privileges

[fortfive]

You seem to be claiming that all rights are, derivatively, what I have been calling "Natural" Rights. I personally think that many rights, especially property rights, are created by consent or by force.

In the U.S. legal view, and enforced by consent or coercion depending on your perspective, "Natural Rights" are granted by your creator, and are said to be inalienable. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

On the other hand, "Legal" Rights are granted by laws. These include, for example, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They also include contract rights, such as your right to connect to Comcast's network, subject to the terms in the ToS, in consideration for the money you pay them.

Diaspora and other friend-to-friend protocols

[tepples]

Right now, ISPs don't have consumers in droves beating down their doors demanding they can run web and email servers. And it's not likely to happen anytime soon either.

That depends on how quickly Diaspora developers can get something working.

Re:Diaspora and other friend-to-friend protocols

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that there are still 4 or 5 people working on diaspora, and given that it's been over a year since they started work, and they still don't have an actual product to show for their effort, I'd estimate the "how quickly Diaspora developers can get something working" to be somewhere around the fifth of never, in the year of the Linux desktop.

In other words... don't hold your breath.

Re:Diaspora and other friend-to-friend protocols

[Anonymous Coward]

They have over a hundred people working on it and they have an active alpha service that at least one of my friends is using as his primary social networking. They certainly have marketing problems in getting people to use the service, and it's far from feature-complete, but it exists and is usable today.

And on Nov 21st

[ThatsNotPudding]

The GOP-controlled House will move to zero out the FCC budget.

Re:And on Nov 21st

[Rockoon]

and the DEM-controlled Senate will move to raise it back up just enough to enforce RIAA and MPAA whims.

Down when you need to use it

[tepples]

Does Verizon not have an SMTP gateway you can use? I know when on a Comcast connection I can simply open up smtp.comcast.net and it will relay mail for me.

I've read horror stories on Slashdot of ISP-provided SMTP relays having unacceptable availability. If you were to find that smtp.comcast.net was often down when you need to use it, what would you use instead?

Re:Down when you need to use it

[h4rr4r]

If it is as bad as the TWC dns servers that would be a good call. Those things were down all the damn time.

FIOS dns servers lie about queries and respond with a search page instead of NX domain. They have another set they want you to use instead but I opted for another option.

Claim with no support

[Quila]

Reasoning?

Mod parent up

[Hatta]

I was going to object vociferously to the grandparent post, but I couldn't say anything that hasn't been said here.

A good start, at least

[GameboyRMH]

Well it has loopholes big enough to drive an aircraft carrier through, but it's a good start.

So this means

[Anonymous Coward]

So this means I can sue Comcast for blocking port 25 and forcing me to buy "business class" cable to host a family pictures server out of a garden shed... what, NO????

Copy/Paste form Chile

[nomorecwrd]

Sounds suspiciously similar to the Chilean Net neutrality law. :-)
Greetings from the south cone.

Laws not subject to interpretation do not exist.

[Medievalist]

No representational symbolic system (such as legal language) that has a functional relationship with a practical reality (such as the human condition) can eradicate paradox and ambiguity. You cannot create laws that are both useful and incapable of alternate interpretations, that's why we have judges and juries. Lawyers and kings figured this out long before Kurt Godel wrote down a suspiciously similar principle.

This is why it's better to have fewer laws, of course - what did Tacitus say? Oh, yes, In pessima republica plurimae leges - "In the most corrupt republic, the laws are most numerous". Lao Tse said it even earlier, and it's an idea that seems to have been independently derived throughout history.

Fewer, simpler laws (like: "don't kill anyone who is not doing harm" and "don't take stuff that isn't yours") are not only easier to understand and enforce than a large body of complex law, they are less prone to corruption by the powerful.

Hey, didja ever notice how after "deregulation" there are always more laws than before? Deregulation is just a corrupt politician's code word, brought to you by the Ministry of Public Enlightenment. I think it means somebody has their hand in your pocket; whenever you hear someone say "deregulation" you should probably reach for your gun.

I haven't read it, but here's a question...

[eepok]

I haven't read the document, but here's a questions for those who have:

Will the current document allow the practice of a provider putting a bandwidth cap on an account, but offering services immune to the cap?

An example would be the user having a set cap of 50 GB per month (limiting video consumption from sites like Netflix), but the user's provider offers their own streaming movie service that, when used, does not contribute to the consumption limit.

Re:I haven't read it, but here's a question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, does it allow an ISP to have a walled-garden business model? For instance, could they offer a childrens' account that blocks legal pornography? Could someone legally sell me Internet service that blocks all content related to Gilbert Gottfried? It seems to me that there are all kinds of walled-garden models that are perfectly legitimate, but that would seem to be outlawed by the terms of these rules as described in the summary.

Re:I haven't read it, but here's a question...

[mdmkolbe]

The document explicitly mentions this case and it is allowed.

Page 58: "Broadband providers also may implement reasonable practices to address traffic that a
particular end user chooses not to receive. Thus, for example, a broadband provider could
provide services or capabilities consistent with an end user’s choices regarding parental controls,
or allow end users to choose a service that provides access to the Internet but not to pornographic websites."

Re:I haven't read it, but here's a question...

[mdmkolbe]

I'd recommend reading the document. It avoids legalese and is well written in plain English with lots of explanatory text. The main failing of the document is that it is long and it is hard to find anything in it. However, I was able to skim it in 20 minutes despite its length.

Bandwidth caps are allowed but there is a general principal of being use agnostic. So they couldn't cap Netflix specifically. I don't recall if they address the situation you describe which could be used to get around this on a technicality but it wouldn't surprise me if they talk about it as an example.

Re:Laws not subject to interpretation do not exist

[LordArgon]

Great post! I'd also like to read your thoughts on my response to Curunir_wolf, if you're so-inclined.

Ambiguous to say the least!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing but a train wreck... All this ambiguity is left to the DC turds to 'define'... Dont be surprised if we end up with more than we bargain for! Soon there will be a government panel who's job is to 'interpret' this crap and decide what falls within it's scope. Spend Spend Spend, Fix Nothing, Deeper in Debt Debt Debt..

Follow the money and stop at the border

[tepples]

Then sent those [spammers] to jail.

Can't always. The money trail often ends outside the United States.

I have no interest in sending spam. I just want to send normal emails to friends, family and sometimes when forced to coworkers.

Then you can negotiate with each such ISP.

I like being self reliant.

Then give friends and family accounts on your e-mail server and have them dial in on port 587 to send e-mail.

They passed their law, lets see them enforce it

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC has zero authority to do this in any written form and was instructed NOT TO by the US Supreme court. I don't give a damn what their intentions are, they are going rogue and the entire bunch should be replaced with people that can be trusted with the authority they are actually given permission to wield.

Free and open competition is the answer ... the market needs less restrictions, not more. The flip side is that companies should NOT get bailed out for doing stupid things.

Re:Laws not subject to interpretation do not exist

[Hatta]

Basically what you're saying here is that the rule of law does not work. Only the rule of man (e.g. judges) works. If you were actually right, we could boil our entire legal system down to one rule "don't be a dick" and then rely on judges to do the rest. Obviously that won't work.

Which is really more just? A perfectly enforced law where you lose your license for going one mph over the limit? Or a randmoly enforced law where you can lose your license because the cop had a bad day? In neither case do you really deserve to lose your license, but in the former at least you know how to avoid those consequences. Accordingly, I will choose the former every time.

Re:Laws not subject to interpretation do not exist

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, didja ever notice how after "deregulation" there are always more laws than before? Deregulation is just a corrupt politician's code word, brought to you by the Ministry of Public Enlightenment. I think it means somebody has their hand in your pocket; whenever you hear someone say "deregulation" you should probably reach for your gun.

Really? The airline industry was deregulated. I don't recall a lot of laws being put in place hampering that industry. Their own greed and stupidity seems to be the issue.

Re:Laws not subject to interpretation do not exist

[LordArgon]

Basically what you're saying here is that the rule of law does not work. Only the rule of man (e.g. judges) works. If you were actually right, we could boil our entire legal system down to one rule "don't be a dick" and then rely on judges to do the rest. Obviously that won't work.

Whether intentional or not, I think you've set up a straw man here. What I see him arguing for is a system balanced further away from legalism and more towards common sense. I don't think anybody's saying the rule of law doesn't work; they're saying it's impossible to rely solely on the rule of law and, in fact, trying to do so (what it Curunir_wolf seems to advocate) is a major mistake. No matter what you do, people need to interpret and apply the law; when you take laws at literal face value instead of understanding what they're supposed to do, you get things like robbers suing their victims for injuries sustained during a robbery.

Which is really more just? A perfectly enforced law where you lose your license for going one mph over the limit? Or a randmoly enforced law where you can lose your license because the cop had a bad day? In neither case do you really deserve to lose your license, but in the former at least you know how to avoid those consequences. Accordingly, I will choose the former every time.

You've setup a false choice here. You also state the latter system as if a cop could arbitrarily target, convict, and sentence you. All just legal systems need a defense and appeals process.

As long as we're speaking hypothetically, the latter system does not have to randomly enforced and the cop does not have to be allowed to get away with abuse. I hint at this in my response below: what's important is accountability. Such a system would only work if the cops were held to an incredibly high standard of fairness and conduct (and compensated accordingly). On that note, I think everything cops do while on duty should be recorded and available as evidence, with any evidence of police misconduct taken very seriously. If this were the case, almost nothing would simply the cop's word vs yours and it would require a more concerted conspiracy to abuse the system.

Re:Laws not subject to interpretation do not exist

[Medievalist]

No, I certainly do not intend to say that the rule of law does not work. I like LordArgon's reply to you; thank you, sir, you are a noble gas.

A legal system comprised solely of "don't be a dick" would probably work fine if you had a small enough population that everyone could recognize and agree when someone's being a dick. That's probably a population of about three people, though, I'd guess. Unless you have an exceptionally strong and pervasive culture. Law, culture and language intertwine.

Re:Laws not subject to interpretation do not exist

[Medievalist]

The airline industry was deregulated. I don't recall a lot of laws being put in place hampering that industry.

Your memory might be faulty, then. Go weigh the amount of paperwork governing airlines before and after "deregulation". Or just look at the size of the laws enacted to partially cancel and revise the previous laws.

Slowing down traffic to match capacity

[lsatenstein]

This is not discrimination, but reality.
And yes, vendors do look to upgrading their infrastructure. They have no choice, or they will lose out to competitors or new technology.

Re:Laws not subject to interpretation do not exist

[Hatta]

Discretion is incompatible with accountability, by definition. If you give people discretion, and then hold them accountable when they use it in a way you don't like, they never really had discretion in the first place. Either there was a rule they should have followed when making the decision, or you're changing the rules ex post facto.

You also state the latter system as if a cop could arbitrarily target, convict, and sentence you. All just legal systems need a defense and appeals process.

This is in fact the case with many poorly enforced laws. Speeding laws are a good example. Enforcement is spotty so everyone speeds. Eventually you end up having to speed just to keep with the flow of traffic, which is the safest thing to do. This gives cops carte blanche to pull over anyone for any reason, and you have no defense because you were in fact speeding.

Why must discrimination have a qualifier?

[HalAtWork]

If you have to qualify it, it's discrimination! They're basically saying "It's not racism as long as it's reasonable"

Reading suggestion: "The Master Switch"

[rogerbly]

Reading suggestion: "The Master Switch" by Tim Wu, November 2010 http://www.amazon.com/Master-Switch-Information-Empires-Borzoi/dp/0307269930/ It's surprising how many people here don't know the history of telecom, recording, radio and motion pictures and how history suggests that early and active government regulation is required to avoid monopolies, cartels and barriers to entry. Government regulation can protect markets, competition and free enterprise. To many of us, the public Internet is the most important thing the human race has ever produced. Keeping an open public network is critical for human growth and free enterprise. We need to hold the FCC and carriers to provide Internet and wireless public networks that are open, regulated, common carriers for the greater public good and the greater economic good.