[86564] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blaine Christian)
Thu Nov 10 21:50:09 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0511110145220.20032@marvin.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@merit.edu
From: Blaine Christian <blaine@blaines.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:49:40 -0500
To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>>
>> I have to admit I like this part... It somewhat addresses my concerns
>> about the monopolies that Chris Morrow and Sean Donelan are
>> perpetrating on us (just kidding guys...).
>
> you are an evil man :)
>
My fingers are tented... can you see?
>>
>> Since port 80 and port 25 are lawful services everyone offering
>> broadband will have to drop filters and provide full routing! Can
>> you hear me now? Why yes, port 80 and port 25 are open, of course I
>> can hear you.
>>
>
> Interesting, the filtering in question (for uunet atleast, SBC is in a
> slightly different position) is put in place at request of the =20
> customer,
> who might be 'protecting' their customer (radius port 25 filtering). I
> wonder who's responsibility this situation covers?
>
I think Dial is "safe" from this Bill. It looks to be targeted to =20
Broadband. Personally, I was thinking about Verizon's port 80 and 25 =20=
blocking and the verbiage that has been attributed to SBC regarding =20
making content providers pay to see SBC customers.
>> ---snip-----
>>
>> SEC. 104. ACCESS TO BITS.
>> (a) DUTIES OFPROVIDERS.=97Subject to subsection2
>> (b), each BITS provider has the duty=973
>> (1) not to block, impair, or interfere with the4
>> offering of, access to, or the use of any lawful con-5
>> tent, application, or service provided over the Inter-6
>> net;7
>>
>> --end snip----
>>
>
> What about outside the boundaries of the USofA? Hrm... good thing =20
> all that
> legislation we put in place is cleaning up the 'bad content' all =20
> over the
> Internet... Wait, it's not :( Legislation isn't the answer to this
> problem, unfortunately the gov't hasn't realized this completely :(
Well, I have to agree that legislation typically does not help. If =20
we end up with state run Internet it would probably stink even =20
worse. How about just leaving the pipes open and charging for last =20
mile service? It seems like an easy enough task and seems like you =20
can make money. Sigh, it used to be all about getting folks high =20
bandwidth connectivity. More and more it seems like folks are =20
focusing on ways to sell bits and pieces of service (blocking ports =20
and sites to charge premiums for "business class") instead of coming =20
up with their own new and innovative services.
Sorry, I have plenty of buddies at Verizon/MCI and SBC/ATT... Not =20
slamming you guys, just worried and watching.
Port filtering as an ongoing routine is bad practice for the Internet =20=
in general and eventually leads to folks shifting ports and making it =20=
even harder to track traffic types and worms. I am always quick to =20
take the filters down when the worst of the worms were over. Let =20
folks use the natural ports and they will be much easier to track =20
down and deal with. Force everyone to high ports and they will be =20
all over the place. If the customer has, or is a, problem then deal =20=
with them! If you offer "Internet" service your base level of =20
service should be completely open. If you feel like you must filter =20
ports then offer a "firewall" package or something that folks can =20
remove if they desire.
Regards,
Blaine
