North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

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

  • From: Gordon Cook
  • Date: Fri Nov 11 11:14:50 2005

Blaine: This is about all I can offer under the circumstances. It is from page 45 of my nov-dec issue published about sept 30.

you do ask a Reasonable question.


From Brett Glass on September 17 via Dave Farber’s IP List - Here it comes: Regulation of the Internet and ISPs

Here’s some information on the broadband bill that’s about to pass out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. A bag of goodies for the reconsolidating Baby Bells, it has lots of implications for independent ISPs and WISPs -- not all of them good. For example, it requires all broadband ISPs to register with the FCC and allows the FCC to deny the application and prohibit it from offering service. Yes, that’s right, folks; if this bill goes through, you must say, “Mother, May I?” to be an ISP. It also requires all VoIP providers to ask government permission to offer VoIP.

It also mandates E-911 services for VoIP, thus disadvantaging independent VoIP providers. And it requires that VoIP providers be able to provide geographic information about callers (which implies, in turn, the ability to determine the physical location of any Internet user). So much for privacy or anonymity on the Internet!

Other provisions (it’s a long, meaty bill) would likely give the cable/ILEC duopoly major advantages over independent ISPs and WISPs. Below is a Washington Post article on the bill, followed by a press release from the Committee, followed by links to a brief analysis and 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, 2005; D02

A key House committee released draft legislation yesterday requiring broadband providers to allow their subscribers to view any legal online content, a policy aimed at keeping big Internet companies from restricting access to competitors’ Web offerings.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee draft is a victory for advocates of “net neutrality” -- the idea that Internet providers have to stand aside and allow customers to access any Web pages as long as the content is legal. The principle is considered crucial to preserving the open nature of the Internet and preventing big broadband providers from squeezing out smaller competitors that offer voice, video or other services.

Another provision in the proposed law also makes it easier for telephone companies to offer television over high-speed lines. It seeks to free cable and telephone companies from having to negotiate video franchises with numerous local authorities around the country, instead giving the Federal Communications Commission more authority over the process.

That would largely benefit the major telephone companies like Verizon Communications Inc., SBC Communications Corp. and BellSouth Corp., which hope to offer television over fiber-optic lines. Yesterday, officials at those companies reacted favorably to the legislation.

Other aspects of the draft legislation are aimed at making sure cable and telephone companies get equivalent regulatory treatment as they offer broadband Internet access.

The draft is a first salvo from the committee, which is led by Texas Republican Joe Barton, in what is likely to be a lengthy battle in Congress over any rewrite of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Article at: 2005/09/15/AR2005091502257.html

Cook on November 11 There is more but I REALLY need to bow out now that Vin't has given a current point of view.

I would certainly trust Brett Glass on this as well as David Isenberg and Fred Goldstein to name a few

The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [email protected] Subscription
info: IMS and an Internet
Economic & Business Model at:

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 gets very complicate very fast and i do not have it all at the tip of my tongue by any means. Vint did engage with Fred Goldstein, Andrew Odlyzko, David Isenberg and others in a discussion of this about 3 weeks ago.

Please note also Vint's remark:

If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider 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 precisely what this bill would allow and this is NOT I think what any of us want. For whatever my opinion is worth I hope you all will oppose this loud and clear.

Gordon, from what I read the "interfere" part was specifically called out in the Bill...

I have probably missed some of the "gotcha's". Do you have the sections where BITS providers will be allowed to interfere/ inspect? The inspect part does not appear to be referenced.

Here is the section I am talking about...


(a) DUTIES OFPROVIDERS.—Subject to subsection2
(b), each BITS provider has the duty—3
(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

--end snip----