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?
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.
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.
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 -------------------
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
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
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.
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
.
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
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?