Slashdot Mirror
Internet Freedom Act
JoeyLemur writes "Surprised no one picked this up (then again, I'm probably the only one who browses Congressional records...)
--
Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia introduced H.R. 1686 to the House of Representatives on May 5th. The full scoop can be read here.
--
This bill, amongst other items, removes the FCC from regulating the Internet, preventing the forcing of broadband customers from buying Internet access from the broadband provider, and making it a Federal crime to "knowingly use another person's Internet e-mail address, or "domain name," to send unsolicited mass e-mails."
--
Sounds good, if you ask me. Write your congressperson to support this. " (Insert "I Am Not A Lawyer Clause" here). Anyone good at reading legal documents want to take a stab at this?
Is it as good as it looks?
Does Virginia really have that many geeks? This is the sort of legislative proposal I'd expect from a Silicon Valley rep. up for re-election.
It looks really good.
Virginia has a heavy tobacco constituency and lobbies hard for the industry. I wonder if this has something to do with not preventing tobacco advertising on the web?
How does this bit about allowing local phone companies into the broadband biz fit into this? If at all (I could be screwing this up)?
I don't know about you, but I buy my high-bandwidth pipe from the local phone company. So do lots of other people, since cable modems are so slow in coming (if ever! Especially in TCI-land) for most of the country.
Pac Bell offers so-called 384k CIR DSL for $50 a month. My experience is that it hits 1.5Mbit easily.
Sounds relevant to me.
The only thing you see in this bill is 'the wording in sec XVIII paragraph 137 subsection iiii is changed to read:' followed by an out-of-context quote, with some occasional readable text in some places but almost meaningless if you cannot do a full parsing without the other texts. This mean it's harder to analyse and probably has some hidden sutble oddities that are just waiting to fall in our face.
You don't have the right to spend my money to get your message through to me. If you sent it pr. snailmail, I'd accept it, since it would mean that you paid for it, not me. But if you'd sent me unsolicited bulk e-mails, I'd flame you to hell and back, no matter the contents.
It's a middle ground: instead of outlawing spam, they outlaw spammers that doesn't give you the courtesy of giving you the opportunity to tell them exactly what you think of them.
I'm all for it as long as they establish a seperate prison system for the offenders!
thanks for saying what i was thinking
That's not *actually* a problem. In order to use
the Citizen Direct service, all you need is a
mailbox that the system thinks is in the 6th
District of Virginia.
So, go create an account. Use your own name if you
want, but enter an address which you know is in
his district -- for example, something one door
down from his district office. Provide your
real email address, then use the account to send
the message.
And while you're at it, point out just how stupid
it is that you have to violate the bill in order
to submit a legitimate comment on it.
Working in close contact with the law, it's been my experience that you can't use intent as a clause in a law. The laws that do state that an act is criminalized only when malicious intent is involved are all to easily manipulated. When ever the law wants to prosecute you, it's all to easy for them to manufacture intent.
Yes, yes, we must have Internet Freedom! By all means, pass this law! We don't have enough laws protecting and establishing Internet Freedom! The fact that we do not now have Internet Freedom is such a shocking lapse that I propose that what we in fact need is whole new Federal Department of Internet Freedom!
Winston Smith
---
"fuckin' morons"
- Rev. Andre Schlesinger
Giving them the power to 'allow' something is just one step away from giving them the power to take it away. Once it is 'allowed', a thousand riders to unrelated bills will all start chipping it away until there is nothing left.
You lose.
>This means Spam over SNA or OSI is ok? (spam
>is defined only for the internet)
Who would read it anyway?
You can change services and still keep your
email address today, if you so choose. The big
problem with the concept of forcing open access
is that the other services that ISPs covered
by the $19.99/month price don't cost too much
to offer. It's the network access that costs
so much to offer, and with the new broadband always
offerings, most of the cost of maintanance is
really going to borne by the cable and local telcos.
I hope AOL does't think it's going to be able to get $19.99 per/month from each customer.
You applaud the technology bill he introduces, but think he shouldn't have taken money from a technology company?
I'd rather hear complaints about Tabbaco companies and such.
While I don't think either cable companies
or local telcos should have to open up their
lines, it at least is somewhat easier for local
telco's to offer their lines to other ISPs
because there are separate lines going to each
phone. Since cable modems use a shared media,
I think dealing with customer complaints will
be more complicated if multiple providers are involved.
Quite, I found an open relay in Austrailia, and the ISP just didn't seem to care...
You e-mail your senators telling them that you support the bill. This is especially good if your senator(s) is in whatever subcommittee this bill must go through. The letter could easily be reworded to do that.
The 'freedom' is telco freedom from the FCC. The point of the bill is that corporate special interests and their marionettes in Congress should be free of those meddling 'bureacrats'.
Everybody knows that politicians take money. It probably isn't possible for things to be otherwise. The point of looking at contributions is to find out who is giving the money and what they are getting in return
So, do you see this bill affecting that in any way?
For all references to the US Code check at http://www4.cornell.edu/uscode
The FCC is a collection of piss-boys and water-carriers for the major entertainment conglomerates. (Disney, Westinghouse, Sony, etc.) Expanding their purview to the internet will basically mean that they get to take (more) bribes from AT&T, Microsoft, WorldCom and GTE, and we, the users and builders, will get the shaft.
Just say no.
You consider 3000$ to be a large contribution? Give me a fucking break. They are one of the smallest contributors on that list.
If the donation was over 25 thousand dollars, MAYBE, just MAYBE you'd have room to bitch.
Shush with ye.
kait@illusion.org
http://illusion.org
" It seems to only forbid spam that falsifies
some header, if the sender includes a legal from
address it is probably legal (?) "
But that's OK! That means anyone can write filtering software and such - and it's illegal to work around it! It also means that any spam messages would be truly tracable.
Looks like a good solution to me... If I could just never again get a message from friend@public.com I'd be happy.
hitchhiker
Nope, Microsoft is not one of the smallest! They are one of the largest coporate political contributors both one Mr. Goodlatte (I thought that was the new decaf at Starbucks). The point is not that may not be the largest, they are the most evil, though. And what are they doing on that list? How many Microsoft development sites are in Goodlatte's district? Why can Microsoft contribute more than I can? Microsoft also funnels him money through other PACs, which you see on the list. Microsoft also hires people to lobby for them which doesn't show up on this list. I do hope people look at that list and ask the same question the original poster asked "Why can't politicians refuse special interest bribes and just do good work?"
I sure hope no Congressman in influenced by the money that out of state special interests shove in their pockets.
Wow, public money for campaigns, now we only need to decide who gets it. Would you like to decide who is a *valid* political canidate or not? :-) ) or to some select few selected by someone in power.
This is the scariest infrigement on civil liberties I've ever heard of. Either you have to give the money to any nut (maybe I should run for prez
Scary, scary, scary
The off the cuff answer might be that the monopoly for cable is hoped to promote the growth - that's more or less how Ma Bell got to the monopoly she used to be, y'know. So saying that phone companies don't have a monopoly is true only in a view that ignores the majority of the time there have been phone companies.
This isn't to say that I think monopolies for cable providers is a Really Good Thing - though as with the telephone system, it probably was a necessity to get the basic plant built. And it seems quite defensible to me to say that the cable plant isn't built out yet, so some sort of uncompetitive market guarantees may still be appropriate in order to make it clearly inthe best interests of the franchisees to do that quite expensive wiring. It's not the most delicious prospect, but I think it's a damn sight better than making the cable infrastructure a government project, eh?
I'm imagining our broadband access run by the equivalent of the Post Awful... Can you see it now? "First Class" message fees that help underwrite the delivery of bulk ads, for example. It's sick-making, no?
There are already public subsidies for elections. The Presidential elections are paid for my the check off box on you federal tax returns. Candidates get money based on their party's showing in the previous election, so the Reform Party candidate got money last time just like Dole and Clinton. Unfortunately, the two major parties blow their money on those anacrhronistic party conventions which used to decide who was going to be the nominee but are now just booze parties for the Democratic and Republican aparatniks.
Then he'll respond to you.
excuse me, dumbass, but you seem to imply that We the People do not "decide who is a *valid* candidate" ...and YOU THINK THAT WE SHOULDN'T!!!
...giving good hearted average americans a shot at public office, instead of only ass-kissing toadies of the super-rich.
so, the rich decide what our choices are, and that's the way it should be?
you either an idiot, or a fascist.
and what exactly do you claim is the "scariest infringement on civil liberties"?
oh yeah... scary, scary it is indeed. but for who?
this is one reason why clinton is such a lightning rod for fascist rightwing numb-nut propaganda. he represents the greatest threat to the status quo: a genius level oxford grad from the wrong side of the fence--in ARKANSAS--of all places. he is the perfect example of the average american rising to a position of power that the blue-blood sob's claim as there sole territory. and they have been throwing crap at him since day one, because he is not supposed to be there!
If you don't think your opinion is worth spending a bit of time to express, why should anyone else give a damn about it, let alone waste any time of their own? You get what you give. Spend no time and no effort writing an email and your rep will spend just as much time and effort thinking about what you have to say, then move on to the person who actually got off their ass to say something.
Looks like they're saying that the FCC shouldn't be allowed to regulate the internet at all (I agree) but that here in the U.S. telephone companies should have free reign to compete. Compete? I'm living in the midwest, and we're completely controlled by the mammoth Ameritech. We have no choice in who our telephone provider is unless we decide to move to another region where there's another local monopoly waiting. I really don't know what this bill will actually do or allow to happen.
I suppose "competition" isn't wrong, but... there is just something strange about calling it that.
Sincerely,
Nelson Rush aka Palisade
chesterrr@att.net
My garage and basement are mine a private citizen. Perhaps a better analogy (in keeping with storage) would be to force those U-store-it places or parking garages to be open to all comers. Still better might be that of a toll highway.
Hmmmmmmmmm..... something looks suspicious about a new flood of federal laws. I like to see spammers get nailed somehow, but I think Chris Smith's proposition for making spam the same as junk faxes, works better. hmmmmmmm....
DSL is amazing and this law helps CLECS get into the Bell facilities easier..
It is also a major step beacuse it will call for the opening of the Cable companies Copper to ANY qualified ISP.
With one install you get AOL, an internet browser, newsgroup access, Shockwave, RealAudio, ftp, chat, and email.
All of this without ever having to type in SMTP server address, newsgroup server, and DNS addresses. You don't have to understand IRC. You don't have to understand how to download and install RealAudio or Shockwave. You don't even have to undertsand how to type in a URL.
For tech geeks and people who want absolute control AOL is not the way to go. But for the vast majority of the population AOL is easier and faster.
Most laws enacted by congress seem to help big business, or an area of the country or some special interest. This law has none of the above, it helps the little guy and may even hurt the bigger telcos by forcing competition in the best markets!
The bill seems to help personal freedom and works to assure fair and uniform access to better quality/higher speed (broadband) lines to the internet yet it regulates spam, the current scurge of the internet.
One bill (hopefully one law) that makes everything right?
Hate to say this but it don't stand a chance. Ma Bell and her siblings have lobbyists who will kill it unless geeks unite and lobby and I doubt that will happen, never has.
Filing fee is probably on $50
First I'm no lawyer.
It seems to only forbid spam that falsifies some header, if the sender includes a legal from address it is probably legal (?)
``(13) the term ?Internet? means all computer and telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating
software, which comprise the interconnected network of networks that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any
predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.''
This means Spam over SNA or OSI is ok? (spam
is defined only for the internet)
Just reading the summary, a lot of it looks great...
As someone who has attempted to follow the problems with the Bells, local phone access, etc, the part about allowing the local phone companies access raises a few flags for me.
I know there were problems before with local phone companies controlling too much, and then being controlled by the gov to much... I admit I'm probably screwing something up here or not remembering/understanding something.
How does this bit about allowing local phone companies into the broadband biz fit into this? If at all (I could be screwing this up)?
(the beginning of the general summary at the link above has info on this)
BTW, props to the gov to get this kind of info online! I know they're supposed to and all, but it's still great to have this kind of information soo readily available!
So, this would criminalize my super-duper-anonymizer firewall. Wow, I'm concerned... NOT.
I'm not from the States. This mean we can do whatever we want. And what if somebody sent 128-bit-SSL'ed PGP-encrypted anti-traffic-analysis stuffed-with-extra-random-noise email to an anonymizer to a non-Wessanaar place, and _that_ place anonymizes the email - hell, how in the fscking world would they prove it was an email and not web browsing? And _I_ didn't conceal the headers - the anonymizer did. Even if I were from the States.
So, what could we do? First, EFF+First ammendment (the oldest anti-law US trick). Second, civil desobedience. Third, use encrypted email for everything, and encrypt all the links. This would make the law unenforceable.
Geez, I _love_ not being from the States sometimes...
>Compared to many other reps, Microsoft doesn't
>sink that much money into the guy.
let's see: $2000 in a mere seven months?
what in tarnation are they contributing to the "other reps"?
...they should have passed the anti campaign contributions legislation. then the legislative process would be more focused on consumer/voter needs, not on hiding the big business influences behind a lot of legal jabber.
anyone who doesnt see how big money has already diluted american democracy is a fool.
>As to it being too broad, if you read the text of
... but government regulation isn't
>the bill you will find that the law specifically
>requires that the purpose of the transmission is
>"bulk unsolicited e-mail" for it to apply.
Programs like remailers, and things like IP spoofing and IP masquerade are designed SPECIFICALLY to affect ALL traffic to which they're applied. Since they can be used for spam, they are probably covered. Do you trust law enforcement and the courts enough to decide on their legality FOR you? Remember, encryption is a MUNITION.
Under this law, you couldn't send out bulk anonymous e-mail of ANY kind (not just commercial). So, for example, you couldn't get a political mailing list and anonymously e-mail everyone on why this particular bill isn't a good idea. I think that conflicts with free speech.
>I consider spam to be theft. Would you say "I
>dislike theft
>going to help"?
The point is, the Internet is something quite different, and allowing the government to impinge upon your online freedoms isn't going to help anything.
This law doesn't prevent theft, it's more like "burglary is illegal; all theft must be face-to-face, and no ski masks allowed (so we can see who you are)."
In other words, useless.
If you're going to write to Goodlatte about the
spam provisions, consider replacing the current
(nearly unenforceable) proposed provisions with
a law against open SMTP relays. (I.E., require
that a contractual or authenticable relationship
exist with at least one of the parties between
which you are relaying.) This would attenuate
spam levels "into the noise" while providing
unambiguous enforceability. (Anonymous remailers
do use hop-by-hop crypto nowadays; no problem.)
It sounds great, but...
... two-way voice-only interLATA telecommunications services originating in any of its in-region States until such time as the Federal Communications Commission approves the application of such company for such
Neither a Bell operating company, nor any affiliate of a Bell operating company, may provide
Why would the Sen. stick some voice-only prohibitive clause at the END of the bill? Can you say special interest group?
Not that this is a reason not to approve the other points, but DAMMIT he's mixing his purposes or construing the ostensible one.
You're right, they do seem to get alot of contributions from phone companies and cable companies.
It seems to me that the government agency that needs to be banned from regulating the internet is Congress and not the FCC. Anybody still remember the CDA ? We needed another government agency known as the Supreme Court to save the internet from that one.
The reason telephone companies don't offer DSL in rural areas is that the signal can't travel more than a few miles. Do these congressdudes think lightening the regulatory burden on telcos changes the laws of physics ?
It looks like I'm going to have to do a review of that Telecommunications Act again. Off the top of my head, the FCC has generally been incredibly cool about the internet as I recollect from Boardwatch interviews with their commisioners. The Telecommunications Act was so twisted around by all the special interests that by the time it was enacted it actually made it easier for monopolies to grow by removing restrictions on how many local stations the big broadcaster could buy.
Yes, the devil is in the details...
AOL isn't in this guy's district- his district is the Shenandoah Valley, an area of great scenic beauty (I've been hiking there, and I recommend it highly) about two and a half hour's drive southwest of the Washington suburb where AOL is. I'm sure that voters in his district strongly affiliate against that area (thus explaining, to some extent, why their member in Congress is a very conservative Republican). Looking at his PAC contributions list, though, his financial support is firmly nationalized. Somewhere in that list of campaign contributions that was posted earlier is probably the real reason for this bill.
If your thoughts aren't worth the effort to actually spend less than a dollar and walk to a mailbox, you should expect your elected representative to take that into account.
What prevents us from creating, say, let's call it Xnet, by running wires from one person's house to another and, to cross larger distances, laser/IR beans, tunneling, or even plain radio? What prevents us to create that based on all the RFC'ed knowledge we have, modified slightly to provide for built-in oportunistic encryption, signatures, noise adding to prevent traffic analysis and encrypted loose source-routing to provide for almost-perfect anonimity? What prevents us to use some ammendment that says that "it's our house" to protect it?
/. article.
I think we should stop thinking about a 'geek-only country' and provide a 'geek-only network' with all the freedom of ITS and the old days of phone routing/warez boards, plus all the current crypto technology.
I would love to be able to 'dial in' (in fact Xnet-telnet in) to some random box and use his processing power, while at the same time allowing people to use mine. I would love to share all the bits of info I want with people without any stupid government stepping on my toes and MIB'ing me. And I would love to be able to do it in the 'old hacker ways': no commercialization, full access, and community government (with the help of good forums slashdot-like).
Then we add tunneling of IP on top of it (with some fancy protocol to let the host cooperate with the NAT), tunneling of it on top of UDP or IP, and let conscious people set up gateways. We use a random address generator to create addresses on the fly (this would need software that won't crash if two hosts have the same address).
This bill would do nothing to such a net. It's not the Internet - it would not use TCP/IP, unless for gatewaying, and one can gateway email and proxy the web too.
Sorry if this is offtopic. But I couldn't help thinking about it when I read this
The reason to mail it is that it may actually wind up on your Representative's desk. Most Representatives are old or have been away from the academic and business worlds where people now use e-mail all the time. A "Rep" considers himself too busy too deal with computers and let's the lowest staff people deal with e-mail. Many Reps do read an occaisional hand written letter from people who live in their district.
It's the government's JOB to protect our surplus of crops. The subsidies, however, cause what is called a "price floor", or inflated minimum price. (I.e., milk.) People buy less milk as a result, causing surpluses. The surplus is passed over to welfare (hence the term "government cheese"). We need surpluses in case of disaster.
We do not need subsidies for banks, and all the other secondary industries sucking off the gubbymint tit. We may or may not need subsidies for infrastructure, but these companies should be expected to give back in return when subsidized. There should also be an expiration time - kind of like a bird being thrown out of the nest and told to fly on its own.
The initial cost of infrastructural industries (roads, airlines [in the past], the internet [in the past], etc.) makes it impossible for customers to access them and turn an "in the black" profit at the same time. For some industries they'll never get off the ground without subsidies, and thus the US will be left behind other countries. It's as simple as that - do you want to be as technologically competent or do you not? When the customers make too little to pay enough to support the emerging infrastructure, you either subsidize or let the country sink into a third world status.
The US subsidized the Internet for a long time and it was upon that horse that we DESTROYED the advantage of the Japanese electronics industry! Does ANYONE remember when the Japanese were known for their cute radios and videogame gadgets and were tearing us a new butthole in that industry? I guess we don't, since we nullified that with the emerging Internet industry, in which home computers now do just about everything those gadgets used to. (Even if all the components come from international sources
This bill essentially attempts to fill gaps in the Telecommunication's Act of 1996 with regard to the Internet. The bill is also a rehash of the ongoing battle between the local baby Bells (e.g., Bell Atlantic) and the major long distance phone companies (e.g., AT&T). Companies like AT&T "control" the major cross-country telecommunication infrastructure, while the baby Bells control the local infrastructure. In terms of the Internet, companies like AT&T need access to the homes; that is why AT&T is pursuing cable access. Conversely, the baby Bells are consolidating (e.g., Bell Atlantic & NYNEX); what they need is unfettered nationwide telecom capabilities (hence Bell Atlantic attempted merger with GTE).
Baby Bells will provide broad-band access using DSL. AT&T and other long-distance carriers will provide broad-band access via cable TV companies (cable modems).
I believe that this bill benefits the interests of the baby Bells.
But the big problem is not with the FCC, but with the bozos who put together the Telecommunication's Act of 1996. For instance, the word Internet appears in only two sections of the Act with all but one occurence being in the section concerning the screening and transmission of offensive material. Hello, Congress? Maybe the 1996 Act could have contain more stuff about the internet? It was around back then, IIRC.
Additionally, the FCC has had to deal with the courts. The most critical issue concerned calls to one's ISP; was this a local or long distance call? A high court ruling said long distance call, hence the FCC was then "granted" jurisdiction. It is not clear how this bill that minimizes the role of the FCC in internet issues, squares with the court ruling that says that this is a long-distance call issue (which the FCC controls).
This is not to say the FCC has not screwed up. However, Congress tends to pass laws that look good on paper but are difficult to implement. For instance, the Universal Service clause within the 1996 Act forced the long-distance companies to upgrade their capabilities to rural areas and to schools. Okay, who pays for this? (Answer: those that live in urban areas).
Note: I'm not blaming Goodlatte; at least he seems to have a clue. But check out the list of ppl of the Congressional Internet Caucus link. Strom Thurmond?
This sounds like a good bill. Mr. Goodlatte is from Virginia and AOL is in Virginia. The anti-spam provision is a good thing (for AOL, and for most of us). But Mr. Goodlatte has also supported some really bad and unpopular legislation designed solely to benefit his corporate contributors. Some things scare me about Mr. Goodlatte. Please check out http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/_ptoc.exe?H2VA06115GOO DLATTE,$ROBERT$W98. This is the FEC report for Mr. Goodlatte. Please note carefully that Microsoft, the richest company in the world, is a big contributer to Mr. Goodlatte. I am very concerned that companies like Microsoft are turning otherwise good people into puppets who do what they are told. I think that Mr. Goodlatte can turn down the money from Microsoft and still be a good legislator. I just wish he would do it.
I don't see how government regulation is going to help. Getting rid of FCC regulation is good, but making it a FEDERAL CRIME to use someone else's e-mail address or domain name when spamming -- this is really pointless. Most spammers use either completely fake addresses, or an actual one where they can be contacted (most are trying to make money from you, after all).
However, in the section-by-section summary, it doesn't say anything about using someone ELSE'S address -- just something that "falsely identifies the source or routing information". This is a VERY broad prohibition.
Furthermore, it also criminalizes "the intentional sale or distribution of any computer program designed to conceal the source or routing information of such E-mail."
This basically criminalizes IP masquerade, anonymous remailers, and IP address spoofers (all of which have legitimate uses).
They can also toss you in jail if any of this results in "damage" to a "protected computer".
Just whose definition of "damage" are they going to use?
This is NOT going to prevent spam, and just adds a useless law to the books which is going to make a federal criminal out of some unsuspecting person. It doesn't have to be commercial, just unsolicited. And you're still going to get plenty of spam from people not spoofing the source.
I dislike spam as much as the next person, but government regulation isn't going to help.
After all, once they start regulating one thing... it'll be another and another and another, until at some point, years from now, you'll be wondering what happened to that wonderful freedom you used to have.
It would also be illegal to send out written notes pretending you're him telling people to go home early. It's called forgery. Why should email be different?
The message you responeded to did not have ANY country specific references in it. He may have intended it to mean American voters, but it can be applied equally well to voters in New Zeland. Quit yer whining and get back to coding.
While cable has spiraled up in some areas, I really suggest www.directv.com as an alternative. No, it's not going to offer cable modem, but when compared to my local cable service it offered more channels, better picture and sound for the same price. easy decision.
He's a good guy. His district includes several colleges: James Madison University, Eastern Mennonite University (where I went), and Bridgewater College. All have plenty of computer people.
AFAIK, his district does NOT include Dulles and the DC suburbs, but maybe I'm wrong.
Except the rights of the people who invested billions to build broadband fiber networks.
Maybe the government should force you to rent out space in your garage and basement to all comers. After all, you'll still be able to get the full value of out your house. People should have the choice of where they store their stuff after all. The fact that you bought and paid for your house is meaningless. At least that's what you seem to think about broadband networks.
I'm specifically referring to cable TV lines. AOL attempted to force AT&T to resell unbundled network elements from the cable TV facilities as a condition of the TCI takeover. The phone company situation is quite different and I outline some of the differences between phone and cable in another reply on this topic.
Cable companies pay to use those rights of way. Typically they pay franchise fees and also give several free channels on their system to the local government/community.
Lots of businesses use public ROW. In fact, anybody who leaves their own property uses it. That doesn't entitle the government to strip people of their private property rights just because someone uses public ROW. Instead, we are charged for the public ROW we use.
First, you are wrong. The whole point of DSL is that is uses the existing copper plant. That's the expensive part to replace.
As I posted elsewhere, phone companies are also fighting the pure resale model for DSL. Additionally, phone companies are getting something in return for offering unbundled resale of network elements, namely entrance into the long distance market from which they were previously barred. The cable companies would get nothing in return for opening up their networks. But AOL would sure get a huge boost.
Another thing I forgot: cable companies don't have locally granted monopolies. In most cases the local government is free to award additional franchises and many of them has. Ameritech (the phone company) brags that it has nabbed well over 100 cable franchises where it plans to compete against the incumbent cable operator.
Some of the laws regarding pure resale in the telphone business might not be so great either.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, the phone companies are fighting total service resale of DSL and just might win that regulatory battle. Unbundled network element access is part of a quid pro quo whereby the RBOC's are compensated for the opening of their network through entry into the long distance market and the removal of price cap/profit regulation once the market is competitive. AOL wants the cable companies to open their networks and get absolutely nothing in return for it.
Also, cable companies have to basically replace their entire cable plant in order to offer digital broadband services. Phone companies don't have to re-wire the neighborhood. All they have to do is invest in new CO equipment that is largely success based. That is, they purchase DSL CO equipment as they need it due to customer demand. There is much less stranded capital risk for the phone companies.
Unfortunately, most agricultural subsidies are designed to keep prices high, not low! Paying farmers not to plant, setting production quotas, government price supports (wanna buy some cheese?), import restrictions, ethanol programs, etc all are an attempt by the government to keep food prices high in order to subsidize farmers. They are not designed to benefit the poor.
I encourage you to take a look at a signle agricultural product and look at all the government subsidies and rules about it. You will be shocked. I suggest looking at milk. Not only is is a staple product for most people, the regulations and price fixing on it are particularly outrageous.
If you don't like the cable company, but a satellite dish. You've got choices.
Rural subsidy programs are a sham. I live in the city and nobody subsidizes my supply of fresh fruits and vegetables. People make a choice to live in rural areas. As with any choice, there are tradeoffs to be made. In the country you get wide open spaces, no traffic congestion, cleaner air, etc. But you also have a hour school bus rides. People in rural areas want to pocket the benefits for themselves and get people in the city to pick up the tab to reduce the costs. And yes, I lived in the country for 18 years, so I know what I'm talking about.
There is a difference between telephone and cable. Telephone lines are used to connect to private parties. You can dial anybody. That's the service that is provided. So when you dial an ISP you are making use of the service in the way it was intended and sold to be used. Cable TV was never about connecting to anyone but the cable company.
As for DSL, there are two different scenarios. One is where a company like Covad or Rythmns leases an unbundled loop to your house. This is the pair of copper wires running from the CO to the demarc at your house. These companies are colocated at the CO and after the unbundled loop is cross-connected to their equipment, they are responsible for all aspects of service provision. Thus the major cost of service provision is borne by the DSL provider, not the local phone monopoly. The phone monopoly is only reselling the local loop (which is probably already fully depreciated on their books) and some space in the CO. This rental is mandated by the Telecom Act. However, there is a quid pro quo involved. The local phone monopolies are being allowed into the long distance business and other businesses from which they were barred under the 1984 consent decree in return for opening their markets in this way. It might not be the best way to go about opening markets, but at least the phone companies are getting something for something. AOL wants the cable TV companies to resell services without getting anything back in return.
The second part of DSL is where someone is doing a straight resale arrangement of the DSL service provided by the local phone company itself. Interestingly, the local phone companies, like the cable companies, are seeking regulatory relief from being forced to resell this service. They also claim it is unfair for others to piggyback on their investment. The FCC has broad authority under the Telecom Act to promote the deployment of high speed data services could easily allow the local phone companies to also be exempt from a "pure resale" requirement on DSL, perhaps so long as it was part of a separate subsidiary.
I outline some of the differences between cable and telephone in another post in this topic, so I won't repeat myself here. But I will add some addtional explanation.
1). The cable companies paid for their infrastructure. They own it and it is not right for us to demand access to it in any manner we chose.
2). The cable companies basically have to replace most of that infrastructure in order to provision broadband services. This is a huge multi-billion gamble. It could be that DSL or satellite or wireless or whatever makes their investment not worth much. A lot of the technology they are counting on is relatively young and untested. It would not be fair to let AOL hop on the cable bandwagon if cable broadband is a huge hit, but be able to sit on the sidelines and leave AT&T holding the bad if it bombs. If AOL is so convinced this is important, let them forge a joint venture with AT&T and invest a few bil of their own in rebuilding the infrastructure. Microsoft put $5 billion of their money where they mouth was. Let's see AOL do the same.
3). Big companies like AOL don't need government handouts. They can take care of themselves.
This appears to something being done on behalf of AOL, which is headquartered in Dulles, Virginia. AOL is very worried about the trend of bandwidth providers, the cable companies and the phone companies, becoming access and content providers as well.
--
Perhaps this is just a reflection of my own disillusionment with politics, but I would bet that most geeks don't vote, especially in off-year elections. We're a busy group, and the busier you are, the less likely you are to vote.
Interesting idea for a Slashdot poll: The last year I voted was
(a) 1998
(b) 1997
(c) 1996
(d) 1995
(e) 1994
(f) 1993
(g) 1992
(h) I've never voted
(i) I'm not eligible to vote
--
Posted by Tom Cleghorn:
I just wish something could be done to limit spammers globally. So fine, there's this wonderful new law in the States that says you have to include a means for the spam-ee to request the removal of his address from your list, but this doesn't really help those of us in the UK who end up on US lists. I should probably also point out that I can't ever remember getting spam pertinent to British residents (and yes, I do skim through them - if only to satisfy a primal urge to know that people really are that stupid). More often than not, the end of a spam mail tells me to call some US phone number to get my email address removed - so not only is the mail totally wasted on me, but it would probably cost me in excess of a tenner to get my address removed. Personally, I have to admit to having no idea how one might go about making spam illegal over here, or preventing UK addresses from ending up on US lists. I'd love it if someone could suggest something though.
Most of those subsidy programs were not intended for people just living on the coutry side. They were intended for farmers, and farming families. Loopholes allow others to get in on the savings they don't need. The operating costs of a midsized family farm are enormous. Rural subsidy programs are needed for for those that work the land, not those that just live on it.
Why should I have to use up paper and quite a bit more time just to send a snailmail letter rather than email? Either my opinion is valid and valuable or it isn't. Whether I have to kill a tree to get it to my congresscritter or not shouldn't have anything to do with the value of my opinion. If they believe that it does, then they are the ones who need to catch up with the rest of us.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Right on brother. I live in Tallahassee as well, and I'm finally going to get a cable modem in June. How much will it cost? $250 a month. Whee. I still have cable TV service, but it costs an unimaginable amount of money compared to 1987. Don't you just love this wonderful new freedom?
There seems to be this global misconception
among American politician's, that the Internet can
be regulated. Now, personally, anything that does
away with spam is fine by me, but a law that is
completely unenforceable does nothing to create
confidence in me.
Point being. The Internet is not a 'thing' it's a
bunch of things. To regulate an international
network of machines would be like trying to
regulate every person on the planet. And I've seen
that the governments have a little trouble with
one rogue individual, I doubt they'd have much
luck with one user, anonymously, behind a computer.
You're spitting into the wind, America.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
Impressive paranoia, BTW. Have you considered becoming a legislator?
Those broadband fiber network people will still recoup their investment. Sure, they might have to charge a small amount more than they would have for the broadband itself, but it leaves the option over for us to select our ISP. And with the recent partnerships between AT&T, TCI, and Microsoft, this is VERY important. How would you like to be FORCED to use a Microsoft product in order to get cheap broadband access? I know I wouldn't like it at all...
InThane
At first blush, it's a windfall for the local telcos, allowing them into the local internet business without FCC regulation. Other ISPs, if they felt the local telco was undertaking unfair practices, could sue, and presumably, long after the local ISP went out of business, their creditors could collect. It would probably also gut the existing voice services as a side effect.
A quick check of Project Vote Smart reveals that local telcos are one of Rep Goodlatte's two biggest campaign contributors. Any questions?
The bill will only outlaw spam with a forged return address and will probably allow the local telcos to take over the long-distance voice market without any regulation as well. Let's give this thing thing the treatment it deserves!
I couldn't have put it better myself.
I've personally experienced this behavior- GTE operates the central office for DFW International Airport; there is no plans for DSL service for that area (even if I have several customers, some already there, some potential) that could use the service. They want you to use the T1 scheme of things- because it makes loads more money.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
790K bidirectional (which is one of the services that GTE offers with ADSL is half of a T1. They stand to lose lots of $$$ on the fractional T1 market with xDSL offerings.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I must remember not to move back to Tally if I can at all avoid it. Yeesh. No DSL yet either, huh?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
1). The cable companies paid for their infrastructure. They own it and it is not right for us to demand access to it in any manner we chose.
They may have paid for the wires but those wires are mostly on public property. The cable companies are granted a monopoly by regional governments. This arrangement should serve the public interest, period.
what I advocate is that those agreements should serve the public interest. It is my opinion that the public interest would be best served if those franchises were not used to eliminate ISP competition.
I currently commute from Silver Spring to Arlington and it's always a bitch! I'm hoping to land a job either in Beltsville or Rockville -- a WHOLE LOT closer.
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
I'm not sure if I get you here. If you mean people who invested in backbone, they may face more competition from regional phone companies, but I don't see any rights infringed.
If you mean local loop (which is typically copper, not fiber), the bill opens these to competitive use, which may harm some investments, and forbids bundling of ISP and local loop, which is basic anti-trust.
For metro fiber networks, I don't think these will be affected. The law specifically targets "incumbent local telephone companies", by which I assume they mean baby bells and other traditional phone monopolies.
The one thing I'd like to see is a prohibition on device-ISP bundling. For instance WebTV uses a proprietary dial-in, which turns a potentially useful device into a slow, expensive, and inflexible mess. This practice may already be illegal under the Sherman Act; does anyone know more about this?
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
I'm not sure if I agree with Mr. Renn about all this, but I can see AOL's hand in this law.
Section 102 doesn't *completely* forbid bundling of broadband and ISP. It forbids broadband local loopers from choosing the ISP, but the ISP *can choose its broadband*. So AOL can pick and choose between cable and phone, and if some schmoe comes up with a jazillion megabit, cheap local loop service, AOL can say "sorry, we want TCI to be our local loop" and shut him out. In fact I think AOL could charge the local loop carrier for exclusive rights.
It would be MUCH better if Section 102 made the unbundling complete, so that neither side could choose. For now it just sounds like unbundling.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
But if your ISP doesn't choose to support cable, the bill won't help you. See above for my posts on this. The bill is asymmetric; it allows ISP's to choose, but broadband has to service all comers. It's not unbundling in the pure sense.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
Mr. Renn thinks ISP and local loop should be bundlable. I think they should be as unbundled as possible, but the current law doesn't go far enough.
Example: I have a pacbell ADSL line for $40/mo. My ISP is pacbell.net, for $10/mo. If Covad, for instance, gets its ADSL price down to $30/mo., I would like to be able to switch to Covad ADSL + pacbell ISP. However I'm not sure if pacbell.net wants to support Covad. Does this law help me? NO.
Under the law, pacbell.net is still allowed to deny me access from a different ADSL or cable provider, because the law only specifies half of the unbundling - ISP's are still allowed to pick which broadband partners they like. The consumer should be able to say "I have broadband, now I want ISP X" and get connected. The current law doesn't do that.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
Nothing prevents it in reality, although in theory there will be bylaws in some places that prevent people communicatingfreely electronically with their neighbours because the local PTT has the monopoly on residential wiring.
The main problem is inertia and lack of technical knowhow. However, this can certainly be overcome if there is a techie group in each neighbourhood that takes it on as a project for the local community.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
While this does look like a Good Thing(tm), the motivations behind it are not pure, and thus the details really ought to get a lot of scrutiny.
The question others have asked ("are there lots of geeks in virginia?") is not the right question.
The question must be "are there rich, corporate geeks in Virginia?" The answer is yes- AOL. Under the terms of the bill, AOL gets a lot of benefits. The bill makes sure that it has full access to cable modems- who is going to pay for an ISP and AOL? It passes the buck on spam problems, making it the responsibility of the District Attorney instead of their tech staff (AOL just fired 1/2 their anti-spam staff. Coincidence?) Those are just the obvious benefits to AOL- I'm sure there are others to be found in a more detailed reading of the bill.
The bill does serve some important functions- but the devil is in the details. And if this is AOL's bill (which I'd guess it is) then the details are likely to favor AOL and not us.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
It's actually more up to the senator. He may have been elected because of his views on technology, but probably he just has support for other issues, was elected, and thought that his constituants wouldn't be opposed to this and it was a good idea. Besides, although I don't really KNOW, I'd bet most geeks vote, and when the US has about 20% of eligable voters actually voting on non-presidential election years, then appealing to voters would be a good idea. Tim
I like this idea.. but how do we prove that a spammer sent out more than 10 copies of the E-mail?
Ben
LOL....
"Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
It doesn't criminalise your anonymiser firewall
unless your anonymiser firewall is primarily
for spam, which presumably it isn't.
It's not just an American thing, it's a politican thing generally - They're trying to pass regulate the internet here, too (in australia). I find it ironic that they're trying when they have even less hope than the US :). Of course, the great firewall of china aparently does work, so............
Commodore 64, Loading up the dance floor!
I want to choose my ISP independently from the access provider. I want the Baby Bell to be so scared that I can switch to cable while keeping my ISP that they have to provide decent service. And I want the cable company to know exactly the same thing. I want competition and choice!
We have an incredible mess right now trying to separate the local telephone monopolies so that we can have local competition. I would MUCH rather go thru the screaming from AT&T right now than later. It is absolutely disgusting that the local phone companies are being dragged into competition while the local cable companies get away with an unnatural monopoly.
Yes, I am aware that if I don't like the cable companies' business practices, I can look elsewhere. But why should one form of access, the phone company, have to divorce wires from net access, while the cable companies don't? Why should I be forced to bundle ISP with access one way and not the other?
--
Infuriate left and right
All this does is apply fraud rules to email. I'd bet a paycheck that using someone else's return address on snail mail is fraudulent. Why should email be any different? All this does is say you can't fake your email headers.
Sounds damned good to me.
--
Infuriate left and right
Suppose you had sent that email on company letterhead using the company's postage meter? Is that too scary for you?
--
Infuriate left and right
No one has ever suggested stealing the cable compabies' investment. All I have ever seen requires them to wholesale their access.
They charge $x whether you use their ISP or not. I say split it up; charge $y for the cable modem and $z for the ISP, where $x = $y + $z.
Competition, I think it's called. Choice, Freedom. Phone companies are being fiorced into it right now. Why should cable companies be any different?
--
Infuriate left and right
You concentrate on AOL. This isn't about AOL vs cable, this is about cable and phone on an equal unbundling basis, and all ISPs, not just AOL.
1. The cable companies paid for their infrastructure -- and phone companies didn't?
2. The cable companies basically have to replace most of that infrastructure in order to provision broadband services -- And so do the phone companies for DSL.
3. Big companies like AOL don't need government handouts
AOL isn't getting a handout, they are not given free access to the cable. This applies to all ISPs, not just AOL. And if ISP choice is independent of phone company when using a phone, why shouldn't ISP choice be independent of cable company when using cable?
If unbundling is good for phone company competition, why isn't it also good for vable companies?
--
Infuriate left and right
I can't get DSL where I am because it's too far from the central office (and I don't live out in the boonies).
DSL bandwidth also drops off as the distance from the C.O. increases, very rapidly.
And if no upgrades were necessary, why do the phone companies whine so much about recovering the cost?
--
Infuriate left and right
Local phone companies are being forced to compete in local business; they are splitting access from service. Why should cable companies get a monopoly and not phone companies?
I want to choose media and ISP separately. When the cable company combines ISP and cable access, you have lost freedom. Cable companies have disconnected service for people running ftp or web servers on their home comnputers. Some of them have content filters. Do you really like this monopoly?
I want the cable AND phone compabies, and wireless to come, scared that I will switch access media if I don't like their service. I want them to know that I can switch media access without having to change my email address and ISP.
I want them scared by competition into giving good service!
--
Infuriate left and right
Phone companies want to milk the expensive T-1 business for all it's worth. They are EXTREMELY reluctant to sell you a $100/month DSL line when a $1000/month T-1 would generate so much more revenue.
They only roll out DSL where cable modems are threatened. They DO NOT WANT businesses to convert T-1 lines into DSL lines for a tenth the cost.
--
Infuriate left and right
Cynic that I am, I am amazed that such a simple, efficient, common sense bill can be introduced.
1. AT&T will scream bloody murder about losing their monopoly of tying access and ISP together; too bad. We have spent the last century dealing with local telephone monopolies. Separating phone access from phone service is an incredible mess right now. We have the chance to do broadband access correctly, right from the start. There are only a few hundred thousand cable modems right now. Think how much harder it will be ten or twenty years from now.
2. Most so-called anti-spam remedies involve legitimizing spam but requiring it to be labeled as such. That's not what bothers me about it. It's the fake header information and hijacking other peoples' machines for delivery that bother me. Valid header information is all I ask, so I can lodge complaints better. This bill simply requires non-fraudulent header information. Marvelous!
3. The FCC is too slow and tremulous to do any good. Getting them out of the way is a great idea.
--
Infuriate left and right
There used to to be lots and lots of independent phone companies in the US. AT&T did the equivalent of M$'s embrace and extend -- they jury-rigged "standards" so the small independents couldn't compete, they refused to connect long distance calls to the independents ("unsafe equipment" they said!), made them offers they couldn't refuse. By the time the smell got too bad even for Congress, it was too late for the independents, but AT&T co-opted everything by volunteering to become a regulated monopoly -- once they had driven everyone out of business.
It had nothing to do with promoting growth.
As for making the cable infrastructure a govt project, who said anything about that? What this bill proposes is simply to break the cable monopoly same as the phone monopoly is breaking. No one has said anything about making it a govt project except you.
The cable plant is just as built up as the phone plant in 99% of the country. There is no excuse for giving the cable companies a break that we deny to the phone companies.
--
Infuriate left and right
the thing about food is that it is a necessary substance to keep the population fed. governments, imho, allow more farmers (i.e. more food production) to survive than what the market would. excess is better than shortfall whenever there is the possibility of hungry people. market forces may force farmers out of jobs and make agriculture more efficient but the government wants insurance against the possibility of agricultural market crashes ... ergo the excess agriculture capacity. sociopolitics. complex issue. hmmmmmmmm.......
Why can't you reply to this guy via a plain old e-mail address like congressman.bob@house.gov?
Please, get that mailbox out of there.
Ah, I feel better.
Herk.
Well, in the text of the bill it excludes intermediate sendmails and other services, which is good, in the way it defines "transmits bulk email messges".
As far as IP masq issues, if someone is sending bulk email that is passing through an ipmasq system, it is possible if prosecuted that the use of the ipmasq system could be used as an additional count if the prosecution wanted to be pedantic.
It seems to me that responses to this legislation are mostly bordering on the naive. Why do people assume that the FCC is doing such a terrible job of supervising the telecommunications field? What is the basis of this assumption (name some examples)?
It should be obvious that the major beneficiaries of this legislation will be companies that already are major players in the tcom arena -- MS, AOL, ATT &c. Big companies already are slurping up the little ones left, right & center -- and now a lot of you seem to be of the opinion that this not only is great, but that we should have even more of it by eliminating all oversight of the matter.
I hope you don't get your way, because I think you're wrong. The way things are tending, a few years from now non-"portal" access to major portions of the Web is going to be a memory. We don't need to hasten that development by removing regulation of the companies that are turning the 'net into a commercial enterprise zone. Geeks on the net will be like the buffalo on the American Great Plains -- an isolated curiosity to be oogled by virtual tourists passing by on their way to the next "e-commerce" site.
mp
michael@trollope.org
"The secret to strong security: less reliance on secrets." -- Whitfield Diffie
Instead of just ranting here about it, we should all write letters to our Congressmen. Unfortunately, that's pretty much the only real thing we can do in a situation like this (other than vote resposibly).
Civil disobedience should always be a last resort, because if everyone performs civil disobedience at the first sign of a law they don't like, there would be no point to having laws!
What does being a farmer have to do with anything? Working on a farm is a choice, just like everyone else. It is no more ok to subsidize farmers than it is to subsidize rural non-farmers. If farming is too expensive, then some farms will close, food prices will go up, and we will pay for it in higher grocery bills. All subsidies do is give farmers incentive to produce more food than people want. A farm is a business like any other, and it should pay its own way like any other.
Microsoft is not one of the smallest! They are one of the largest coporate political contributors ... they are the most evil, though
This is in comparison to, say, Dupont (sells chemicals prepared for cocaine refining to South American suppliers, launched anti-hemp campaign in the 30s to sell chemicals to cotton farmers and reinforced it to sell synthetic fibres) or tobacco companies (drug pushers pure & simple)?
Microsoft is about as evil as McDonalds. Which is to say, it's not healthy and it crushes cultural diversity, but it's not profiting from substance dependencies (even if Maccas and billg do profit from other people abusing themselves).
J
Sounds more like the Internet UNfreedom Act to me. I love how you libertarian kids go around shouting about rights, yet as soon as one of these rights is inconvient to you, you make laws against it.
Virginia especially northern virginia. has the headquarters of a lot of high tech companies including AOL, UUnet, PSInet and various others
This is an interesting bill actually. But as I read it, It appears to lend more towards controlling and monitoring the service providers then anything else. Also the representative appears to be wanting more broadband service. Most sections in the bill deal with pricing and service of broadband connections (in the bill this is stated as anything bove 200 kb/sec) The following section shows something along that line.
Sec 101 excerpt
"knowingly failed to provide conditioned unbundled local loops when economically reasonable and technically feasible under section 715(a) of the Communications Act of 1934"
Far as I can tell this states that if a local carrier does not provide broadband service when it is capable of offering it it's in violation of parts of the sherman act.
Most of the parts of this bill are pretty cool Especially the e-mail section (though that one appears to be under heavy amendment) and the section about fair pricing for broadband providers (they wouldn't be able to overcharge if I read it right) Sec 101 (the above one) might cause the bill not to be passed, it would depend on how the bill appears to the companies that would be forced to offer the broadband service
Matt
I just thought I'd point that out. And I wish someone would step forward and call them the liars they are for claiming to be "the Internet" on their commercials.
AOL is an online service, they have their own network - seperate from the internet. They provided the ability to access the internet because if they hadn't, people would have jumped ship to find an ISP.
AOL has only recently begun the move to format their content in HTML since it's old for prevented non-AOL members from accessing their advertiser content. (Notice it wasn't done for the users.)
AOL=Online Networking for Dummies
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
Geez, I'de say that's the best part. I thought the whole point of the FCC was to control the "public resource" of the radio spectrum. Somehow they've expanded their role to regulate all communications infrastructures, even the privately owned physical wires, like phone lines and cables. There isn't any reason why the government should have ever gotten into that stuff in the first place, but somehow they've gotten away with expanding their authority. Pushing them back is a good thing.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Section 101-103 can be used to force a major provider to allow others to use their bandwith..kind of like the recent attempts by aol to force @home to open up their private network to them.
I don't think this is a valid objection. Certainly the provider has to allow other ISPs access to the bandwidth. As far as I can tell, though, it does not require the provider to give them free access. For example, where I live, USWest's DSL operates along a similar model to what this bill requires. USWest sells the DSL links, but you can select from any DSL-capable ISP. You have to pay USWest for the line regardless of which ISP you choose. The ISP has to pay USWest for the connection between the ISP's equiptment and USWest's ATM fabric, and for the bandwidth that ISP is using on USWest's network. All they're doing is seperating the DSL line from the ISP services at the other end of that line, and requiring the line provider to give anyone who can pay for it equal access to the lines. I can't see where this is fundamentally unfair.
As for section 104, I don't think you could make IP masquerading and the related tricks qualify under it as long as the modified version of the header was not itself false. My mail program, for example, needs the sender address modified from "tknarr@tknarr.users.xmission.com" to "tknarr@xmission.com". The original version is in fact false, the modified version is correct. Why would the modification to a correct header qualify as falsifying the header?
I never said that it would be free, what i meant is that it could force anyone with a private network to open it up to others. I myself wouldn't want to be forced to allow a customer (like AOL) that I know would suck off lots of bandwith. This bill would make it a crime to turn them away.
I disagree. From what I can read, all it does is mandate seperating the network from ISP services. In essence, if you have a network and provide ISP services, you must treat them as two seperate entities and if the network entity sells bandwidth at all it has to sell equally to everyone who wants it. And if AOL, for example, sucks down lots of bandwidth, you get to charge them for the network expansion needed to handle them. Just like phone service: the local telco cannot pick and choose which long-distance companies they'll allow their customers to use.
"has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to conceal such source or routing information; "
And masquerading cannot be forced under this, since it's purpose is not to conceal the source but to make the source and routing information appear correctly. After all, the real source and routing information for a masqueraded machine, by definition, shows IP addresses, host names and a route that does not exist on the internet.
Example: my home machine has IP address 192.168.171.1, hostname solitaire.silverglass.ttk. Were I not to masquerade it, the headers and routing information on mail coming from it would conceal the origin. The masquerading changes the mail to come from a place that does exist and where, if you send mail to it, the mail will get to me. I seriously doubt even lawyers would argue that changing headers to reflect the correct origin information constitutes concealing the origin.
Why do we let all of the local access providers use Ameritech, SBC, and Bell Atlantic system's network? To promote competition, even though it is a flawed system toward the small companies.
Yet cable doesn't fall into the same type of service? A phone company can't access that cable network, but a cable company could access a phone network. Is the purpose of control in markets to allow access for everyone so we don't get another Ma Bell or Microsoft?
AT&T can provide everything with the addition of cable. Except they need the local network of phones. So AT&T can access everyones network except they will restrict access to their own. That is the problem.
Or do you want AT&T to become another monopoly that has to be broken up into even more Baby Bells.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - F. Voltaire.
How do you prevent spamers to send different messages about the same product ?
You can build automatically different versions of a message and then say they are all different. More, there is no way to compare 2 such messages and say they are indeed the same (because an add of the same thing).
Therefore their claim that the message has not been sent to more than 10 people is technically right, but this is semantically false.
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
This is the internet, not America.
Why is it that Americans have this notion that everything and everywhere on the internet is yet another state of America?
And as if you thought I couldn't go further off topic..
And in general why do Americans re-write history to suit themselves? And forget who did what..
eg: It was a New Zealander that pioneered the research that lead to your a-bomb. (Ernest Rutherford).
And that the wright(sp?) brothers were not the first to fly a plane, that was a New Zealander too, beat them by about a year and a half. (Richard Pearse)
whine, whine, whinge, whinge...ra ra.
hmmm, I think I need more sleep.
--- "If a man speaks in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"
And then all of those living in poverty with food prices at their current level can just starve right?
You might want to try thinking about the effects of what you say before you start bashing something. I assume that most of us are speaking from positions of relative prosperity...as in we have enough spare money to afford a computer, an isp account, and the so on. We can all more than likely afford to pay a few dollars more for some flour or sugar or corn. There are many people in the country (the usa) and event he world who can't, and while you and I may be able to afford higher food prices what would it do to those who already have trouble feeding thier family? But of course, they should just be left to starve to death because they aren't able to pay thier own way. The subsidies are necessary to keep food prices low enough that we can afford to help other countries who have food shortages, and so that the poorer people in our country can eat.
The problem of poverty is definitly a social evil that should be fixed if possible, but in our current state it is _very_ unlikely that anyone will either care enough or be able to have a large enough effect in poverty for it to really matter. The lower subsidised food prices may be a small point, but still, everyone has the right to eat.
Sorry for going so far off topic.
becuase by nature adsl is asynchronous (sorry for the spelling) while t's are all synchronous the T lines have a bit of life left in them, but when someone comes up with a synchronous dsl service that is as fast or faster than adsl then the t's will be in real danger. I could be missing something huge, mostly becuase i know a good bit more about adsl than t lines becuase i can afford to look at adsl and reasonably hope to get it, where as a T i just dream about
Time for reality here people. What have been the effects so far of the deregulation of 1996? MY CABLE BILL HAS ALMOST DOUBLED!!!! Actually, the price went up so much that when I moved last, I decided it wasn't worth it. New services? BS. "Cable modems will be here in February 1997 at the latest" (here being Tallahassee). Now they are saying July of this year and I don't believe it yet.
In a limited number of markets in a few very large urban areas competition has helped, but for those of us who don't live in those (200 Million) we are in a transition phase. We do not yet live in a world where competition actually insures the best outcome for the consumer, and the republicans that believe this are living in a fantasy world. The republicans who say this and don't believe it (which is the majority of them), know that it benefits the industry which a) is giving them money or b) in which they and their friends own stock. Every action of the government results in some form of wealth transfer, and in the telecommunications market and deregulation this wealth transfer has come in the form of higher prices to the consumer. Transfer to the company and stockholders, and the rich get richer. The reason that rural America has electricity and phone service today (yes, today) isn't that competition was opened to this market, it is that Roosevelt required companies to develop there and set up the cooperatives. No rational businessman wants to compete in those markets; it is too expensive.
This is the Brave New World with all its vices and virtues. Now we are experiencing more of its vices than anything else.
National Big-Bell, Local Little-Bell, a dog a Taco-Bell said it best "GreenGo Loco-Bell!&*#$". there were other comments about GreenGo Americans being treated like sheep, because Loco-Bells only know shear servicing of customers. Anyway that dog (a very wise and inteligent dog) started making sence to me, so I left ASAP, because if US American Politics and Market Control economics by big bussiness ever make sence to me I'll have to leave the land of my birth the I love.
Don't expect any favors most (not all) politicians are there to service US.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Yeah, I set up one REAL account, only to find out that I wouldn't get access to his email address unless I was in his district. So I got the address of City Hall in Roanoke, and I was going to set up another account from there (kinda of like telling the cops your address is the baseball stadium in Chicago ;-)). I'm sitting there at the form, and I was intimidated to falsify the info (pussy). So I posted it here. I'll fax it to his office on Monday.
.
Dear Congressman Goodlatte,
h tml
Overall, I think that your bill is on target. I don't read much legislation, but it seemed to be direct, readable, and not too full of legalese. I currently subscribe to @Home's broadband cable access, through the cable carrier Comcast cable in New Jersey. My current monthly bill is $40. Since I have a linux box acting as a firewall/router, I am able to (legally) share the service with a housemate. A year and a half ago, I never knew what Linux, a router, a hub or a firewall were.
I learned how to set that up on the Internet. There's a great deal of high quality documentation out there. Its amazing and empowering, when instead of feeling held back by not knowing how to do something, that you follow the links, subscribe to a mailing list, read a newsgroup and solicit help. As long as you've done you homework, read the FAQ's (Frequently Asked Questions) and ask in an appropriate format (provide enough info that someone else can reproduce the problem) - someone will reply back with a solution.
I feel fortunate that I currently live in an area that was in the initial roll out plan for Cable modem access. I can now work more effectively from home, learn much more in a shorter amount of time, etc. But the cable companies face a shortage of trained personnel to accomplish installations. Any company that is rapidly growing is usually not doing so at the lowest costs possible - they're attempting to gain the most market share, usually at an operating loss. I believe that to give AOL (or other ISP's) free reign of the cable providers' backbone at no premium to be a mistake. First to market has to be able to recoup a premium, else we've removed the incentive. If you have a cable modem, you don't need AOL. You find things yourself.
I used AOL back in 1995. I hate AOL. Its like shopping at "The Gap".
The best thing about AOL is that it keeps newbies off of the internet. It spoon feeds them. I much prefer the use of search engines and links on other pages for finding my content - not what Steve Case decides that I should be reading. AOL may be a large employer in your area. Great, as a Congressman, it's your duty to look out for your district. But in providing AOL a completely level playing field in access over existing and future broadband, you're changing the rules here as we go along. If anything, AOL is too large, and should be regulated. They have enough market share that they'll do just fine, for consumers can buy access via @Home, but still subscribe to AOL. If AOL is that good, they'll still subscribe. That is their existing choice. Of course, if they're not using AOL's modem pool for dial-up access, then AOL should cut their monthly rate in half. I don't see requiring @Home to cut its' rate. I don't use the portal service provided by @Home. I choose my own.
A free market relies on incentives - that first to market will mean a large enough market share to eventually become profitable, even if you lose hundreds of millions in the initial scramble. I hope that the net effect of your legisilation does not remove the economic incentives (profits) from the first to market companies.
The best competition is one based upon competing technologies, not just on competing companies of the same technology. In rural areas, satellite-based transmission may turn out to be the most feasible solution. Near the point of presence for the ASDL provider, ASDL over POTS may be the lowest cost solution. Let the market decide that.
Now, with the major 'home' computer manufacturers offering "cable ready" computers - including an ethernet card installed, much of the installation time has been reduced. As newer products emerge, in which the cable modem is incorporated into a single expansion card, the installation could be as simple as connecting the Coaxial connector onto the back of the (pre-installed) internal cable modem card. But that product isn't out in the market as of yet. For consumers with an existing PC, someone trained would still have to perform the installation and configuration. For now, there's a limited number of bodies that can install cable modem access into consumers' homes.
So my point is, in a new market, lets leave enough economic incentives in place until more players produce real products to drive the margins down. I don't want the major players holding back rolling out services. I wish everyone that wants a cable modem had access to one - and they're not going to care if its an extra $10 or $20 a month - they just want one. Now.
As far as falsifying IP addresses, I currently use IP Masquerading on my firewall. I don't do work on it - it just sites there, keeping out everything that I don't want - like "Script Kiddies" that want to crack my computer. So the IP Address (192.168.1.22) of the machine that I am currently working on is not the IP address of my point of presence on the internet. Don't criminalize this - that like taking away guns from law abiding citizens while all of the criminals have them. Actually, that's like making home security systems illegal.
Ever hear of IPv4 vs IPv6? Lots of people use Private IP addressses, with a router masquerading those addresses with a single, registered public address. We're running out of IP addresses. We'd be completely our if you can't maquerade.
here's a good look at informed people's opinions:
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/05/16/0032245.s
Thanks for the effort in reading this,
Paul Drake
.
anyone else here notice how laws are starting to become like MS bug fixes. they fix 1 or 2 bugs, and open up a floodgate of new ones. I mean, c'mon, look at the CDA. it was (supposed to) keep kiddies from lookin at their porn while mommy and daddy were away (sounds good to me) but it went a tad bit overboard, doncha think? Sure, this bill sounds good and all, but like others said, it could have some ill-effects, as well as helping out some of his contributors (AOL)
I agree with some other posters when i say that the US needs to pull our heads out of our arse's. The internet isn't ours. Sure, they can get rid of spamming from here, but what about from the rest of the world? its like the offshore gambling web sites, they aren't in the US, so they can do what they want.
*shrug* sometimes i wonder if i should try to make my room its own independent country... all i need is food, water, and my connection and i can live happily
Try this: mailto:talk2bob@mail.house.gov
His auto-reply:
==
Thank You for Your E-Mail.
In order to help me respond more efficiently to your letter, please include your full name and U.S. Mail address in every e-mail.
If your previous e-mail did not include this information, you may reply to this e-mail with the above information.
This is an automatically generated response to all e-mails. If you are a resident of the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia, you will receive a response via U.S. Mail.
==
Making the company lose more than a certain amount may make it a state felony anyway. If it is a criminal act in your state, your state may classify it as being a felony when the loss is greater than a certain amount ($1,000? $2,000?).
This is wonderful. A bill that actually doesn't take any rights away. It addresses the real problems with very simple solutions and doesn't hinder the rest of us in the process. I like.
I really like.
Of course, I haven't read the whole law yet.. I suppose theres some riders in there that do more damage than I would prefer.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I never said that it would be free, what i meant is that it could force anyone with a private network to open it up to others. I myself wouldn't want to be forced to allow a customer (like AOL) that I know would suck off lots of bandwith. This bill would make it a crime to turn them away.
"has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to conceal such source or routing information; "
That's the part that can be twisted. If you run a masquerade and route something through it you can be opened up for problems. Even if the gov't never prosecutes the harrasement can be enough to take something out. Part of how the gov't can work it not necessarily sending you to jail just making you life a living hell. And most time federal prosecutors are immune to any reprisals like lawsuits, etc.
this space for rent
I've been reading through the bill, it first off attempts to regulate something that has boundaries far beyond us soil, which is it's first failing.
Here is a more sectionized look. Disclaimer : I'm no lawyer.
Section 101-103 can be used to force a major provider to allow others to use their bandwith..kind of like the recent attempts by aol to force @home to open up their private network to them.
Section 104 is also kind of broad in it's determination. It's a stab at spam but it goes about it wrong. This could illegalize things like ip masquerade, many services mask their internal ip's, if someone sends spam through them then it's their responsibility if they are hacked? I like california's attempt to control spam, it's much more realistic about SPAM. What I'm worried is that this could be twisted to go after ppl they don;t like..you sent an email to the wrong person? What you use IP masquerade at home? $10,000 please, yes I know that is an exaggeration but the possibility exists.
Provisions:
The Commission that controls the "Accelerated Deeployement" has no real power beyond initial approval. They also temporarily outlaw Voice-Over-IP by any of the baby bells or their affiliates.
This bill is an attempt to control something by the government that it cannot control, the FCC has done an ok job in staying away from it Internet and letting it grow itself. I wish the government would take a lesson from it's own agencies.
this space for rent
Your analogy is weak, if not completely unrelated. The cable system and phone company are public utilities that provide a public service. The Phone company cannot refuse to serve an ISP because of their public status. The cable system is now becoming a common carrier and therefore, needs to be treated the same as the telco. If not, the cable company can start to monopolize the local access. This bill levels the playing field changing the cable providers to a common carrier status.
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire
LATA = Long Distance Area (Your bell's piece of the phone system).
This forbids baby bells and derivitives to provide long distance service like AT&T. This basically reregulates the bells again after the regs they live under are being phased out.
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire
Even though the internet is a global thing, the net has roots (Servers, routers...). And where those roots are, are in soverign nations which unfortuntately do have the right regulate, or not regulate, the hell out it.
This bill might actually do a little good since many of the major points of access are in America and many of the spammers are in America. They will move their base of operations out of America but if they do decide to keep the HQ of their ops in USA (which many do because of a lot of benefits), then they legally can be regulated by the US Govt. (Think of the US v. Cuba thing going on...).
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire
I understand the concerns about AOL trying to piggy-back on the efforts of Cable companies (i.e. getting access without the costs of rolling out the cable). However, I think it makes sense in light of the way telephone and DSL services are governed. In the Northwest, US West controls the lines and we pay US West for the lines. However, the ISP is open. When it came to DSL, those were the conditions established.
Cable has traditional been viewed as a local monopoly. The barriers for entry into the cable market were too high to promote competition; therefore, local governments negiotated contracts on behalf of their citzens with the cable companies. I believe it is entirely feasible that as a condition of that contract that the cable companies should have the same competitive situation as the phone company. Sell the line as a monopoly--compete on the access.
Of course, I have a larger stake in this argument than most. In Portland, where I live, the local government refused to approved the TCI-AT&T merger and refused to allow TCI to offer cable modems unless TCI offers alternatives for ISP selection. The local government argues that its contract with TCI stipulates that the utility commission approve changes in service and ownership. Hence, unless AT&T/TCI agrees to a DSL-like model where they compete on as service providers, they will not be able to sell cable modems. AT&T/TCI are suing the City of Portland and Multnomah County over this issue. For a brief article look at Oregonlive.com.
As many people have stated, the strength of the Senator's bill is in the details. However, the concept and logic are solid. Of course, even if the bill looks good, it doesn't mean that it won't get buried or that the House will approve a similar measure. Where is AT&T based? What are the chances that the Senator for AT&T state will filibuster and kill the bill?
So under this new bill, if I get on my boss's computer and send an "everyone" email telling everyone to take the rest of the day off I might not only get fired, but also get charged with a felony? Too scary for me man, considering that's just what I did last week.
No todo lo que es oro brilla
The bill is nice, so far as it goes, but it still gives each mail account at least one free bite at the apple -- one spam with an "honest" routing message, before it gets killfiled. This means that the cost of spamming is only the cost of setting up a new account for each new broadcast, which is, as we know, bupkis.
.), let's simply regulate affirmatively false speech. (False speech is not constitutionally protected).
The way to stop spam is to stop the spammer's incentive to spam. The problem with spam is simply a matter of economics -- the spammer has no reason not to spam, and substantial incentive to spam.
On the other hand, when asking the question: "what is spam?," it is hard to find a definition that doesn't adequately characterize spamming in a manner that enforces unwanted speech upon the spammer, making it constitutionally suspect. (Indeed, many of the pro-spam in anti-spam-sheep's-clothing apologized for the weak teeth version by claiming more would be unconstitutional)
But there is a better way . . . and its the internet way!
Instead of forcing certain language upon spammers based on their content (commercial, uncommercial, warranted, unwarranted, etc. .
Assume that I added to each e-mail message, the following:
"This message (and messages equivalent) have not been sent to more than 10 different e-mail addresses within the past week, except for e-mail addresses of persons who subscribed for receipt of bulk mails."
And assume, since we are smart, that this is done more efficiently with a standardized message in the header:
> X-DIST 10
or the like. Now, we do not require that anyone includes this message in their header -- everyone is free to use it or not use it as they wish.
However, we ban, bar, provide hefty penalties for, criminalize, or whatever, the falsifying of this header. (Indeed, Goodlatte's bill might already catch this, since it does bar false header information -- but the way the law works, I'd want this to be clear before asserting it against anyone).
Better yet, standardize the header and its meaning with an RFC, get on the stick with e-mail programs to routinely generate them, and in a generation or two of e-mail revisions, EVERY LEGIT MAIL HAS THE HEADER, and EVERY LEGIT SPAM HAS THE HEADER, but with a number bigger than 100, or no header at all.
Now we can filter spam easily, and anyone who sneaks by the filter is violating the law. This is the desired effect. IF the anti-spam desires of the people are sufficiently great, the convention will be adopted, and spam is dealt with without the first amendment being trodden upon. If otherwise, the bill does no harm.
This will require some work by the technical community, but not much. And if Goodlatte amends to capture fraudulent header information related to manner of distribution, we won't need any further help from the legislature to give it teeth, at least in intro-US of A communications.
Don't shoot down the bill and/or its author merely because he's adding a rider. This is done in practically every other bill out there; little bits added onto the end because the main point is likely to succeed.
Looks like a pretty good bill, to me. Imperfect, but I'll live with that.
The part about making it a crime to use another's email address for spam is awesome, but... is taking away the FCC's jurisdiction really a good idea?