[86603] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Arch-econ] Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is being quoted on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet neutrality bill
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Fri Nov 11 11:13:51 2005
In-Reply-To: <FE15398E-AB91-4AAA-A469-1C94C6DBC18F@blaines.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:13:23 -0500
To: Blaine Christian <blaine@blaines.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Blaine: This is about all I can offer under the circumstances. It =20
is from page 45 of my nov-dec issue published about sept 30.
you do ask a Reasonable question.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=46rom Brett Glass on September 17 via Dave Farber=92s IP List - Here =
it =20
comes: Regulation of the Internet and ISPs
Here=92s some information on the broadband bill that=92s about to pass =20=
out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. A bag of goodies for =20
the reconsolidating Baby Bells, it has lots of implications for =20
independent ISPs and WISPs -- not all of them good. For example, it =20
requires all broadband ISPs to register with the FCC and allows the =20
FCC to deny the application and prohibit it from offering service. =20
Yes, that=92s right, folks; if this bill goes through, you must say, =20
=93Mother, May I?=94 to be an ISP. It also requires all VoIP providers =
to =20
ask government permission to offer VoIP.
It also mandates E-911 services for VoIP, thus disadvantaging =20
independent VoIP providers. And it requires that VoIP providers be =20
able to provide geographic information about callers (which implies, =20
in turn, the ability to determine the physical location of any =20
Internet user). So much for privacy or anonymity on the Internet!
Other provisions (it=92s a long, meaty bill) would likely give the =20
cable/ILEC duopoly major advantages over independent ISPs and WISPs. =20
Below is a Washington Post article on the bill, followed by a press =20
release from the Committee, followed by links to a brief analysis and =20=
the text of the bill itself.
Draft Legislation Aims To Aid Competition In Broadband Services
By Arshad Mohammed Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 16, =20=
2005; D02
A key House committee released draft legislation yesterday requiring =20
broadband providers to allow their subscribers to view any legal =20
online content, a policy aimed at keeping big Internet companies from =20=
restricting access to competitors=92 Web offerings.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee draft is a victory for =20
advocates of =93net neutrality=94 -- the idea that Internet providers =20=
have to stand aside and allow customers to access any Web pages as =20
long as the content is legal. The principle is considered crucial to =20
preserving the open nature of the Internet and preventing big =20
broadband providers from squeezing out smaller competitors that offer =20=
voice, video or other services.
Another provision in the proposed law also makes it easier for =20
telephone companies to offer television over high-speed lines. It =20
seeks to free cable and telephone companies from having to negotiate =20
video franchises with numerous local authorities around the country, =20
instead giving the Federal Communications Commission more authority =20
over the process.
That would largely benefit the major telephone companies like Verizon =20=
Communications Inc., SBC Communications Corp. and BellSouth Corp., =20
which hope to offer television over fiber-optic lines. Yesterday, =20
officials at those companies reacted favorably to the legislation.
Other aspects of the draft legislation are aimed at making sure cable =20=
and telephone companies get equivalent regulatory treatment as they =20
offer broadband Internet access.
The draft is a first salvo from the committee, which is led by Texas =20
Republican Joe Barton, in what is likely to be a lengthy battle in =20
Congress over any rewrite of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
Article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/=20
2005/09/15/AR2005091502257.html
Cook on November 11 There is more but I REALLY need to bow out now =20
that Vin't has given a current point of view.
I would certainly trust Brett Glass on this as well as David Isenberg =20=
and Fred Goldstein to name a few
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ =20
08618 USA
609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) cook@cookreport.com =20
Subscription
info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet
Economic & Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:52 AM, Blaine Christian wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
>
>> thank you Vint.
>>
>> folks please note Vint's remarks on common carriage. This stuff =20
>> gets very complicate very fast and i do not have it all at the tip =20=
>> of my tongue by any means. Vint did engage with Fred Goldstein, =20
>> Andrew Odlyzko, David Isenberg and others in a discussion of this =20
>> about 3 weeks ago.
>>
>> Please note also Vint's remark:
>>
>>
>>> If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of =20
>>> competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider =20
>>> that a violation of the principle of network neutrality.
>>>
>>
>> I have NOT been reading this bill carefully myself
>> dangerous i know. BUT if i understand it correctly this is =20
>> precisely what this bill would allow and this is NOT I think what =20
>> any of us want. For whatever my opinion is worth I hope you all =20
>> will oppose this loud and clear.
>>
>
> Gordon, from what I read the "interfere" part was specifically =20
> called out in the Bill...
>
> I have probably missed some of the "gotcha's". Do you have the =20
> sections where BITS providers will be allowed to interfere/=20
> inspect? The inspect part does not appear to be referenced.
>
> Here is the section I am talking about...
>
> ---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----
>
>
>
>
