| 5:44 pm on May 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
To block or slow Internet traffic is wrong, but "all content, applications and services are treated the same and have an equal opportunity to reach consumers", this isn't such a good idea. There should be a "priority" traffic, for application that require a constant, predictable bandwidth quality, and this traffic should be a certain % of all traffic. Like 20% premium, and the rest "ordinary".
| 6:02 pm on May 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
And who decide what's priority?
I'm a heavy user of voip and IM with webcam and i do not like slow motion or stamp size images.
Someone else may be interested in downloading a torrent with Ubuntu DVD image... Someone else would like to see a HD movie on demand.
The problem is world wide: ISPs wants "the wife drunk and the barrel full" = max revenue with min effort. It's much easier(and cheaper) to block bandwidth eaters than creating new infrastructures.
just my two cents.
| 7:26 pm on May 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Exactly Guido. It is either all or nothing. There is no room for a gray area.
| 7:38 pm on May 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Read the bill here:
Based on this bill, you could force any internet service provider that currently blocks access to SMTP ports to open up the port because it's a legal service, therefore also unlocking access for all the spammers, brace for impact.
| 9:13 pm on May 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Definitely all or nothing. The stakes are high for free speech, and free internet economies in the US.
| 10:18 pm on May 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
>>brace for impact
brace for veto
| 11:52 pm on May 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
>> brace for veto
As it's written, we can only hope...
| 4:04 pm on May 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
As usual a little bit of common sense would be useful.
An ATM machine is legal service, but you need your credentials to access it. I do not see that much difference with spammers accessing an SMTP server.
I'm Italian, and not really into the "law language" but the doesn't seem so dramatic to me.
Probably, a bill like that, here in Italy would be something like 200 pages and totally unreadable by the most. At least there is someone who cares of the problem. Our governments is usually too busy making nonsense bills.
| 7:01 am on May 12, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Blocking really bad sites out there is in the interest of the public at large. Let's hope they do not move into a territory where blocking malware distribution nodes effectively becomes a legal impossibility.
What the ISPs should be forbidden is to charge a 3rd time for the traffic.
- they make the consumers visiting the web sites pay
- they make the webmasters pay for hosting their sites
- now they want more money to connect the two more effectively
Collectively they already get paid twice for all traffic, if they cannot effectively distribute the revenue, perhaps a regulator needs to be created to make sure it's fairly distributed, and perhaps their promised abilities towards consumers need to be reviewed (if you promise you should be able to deliver what you promised).
Selling "unlimited" amounts is a bad business model in the long run, and it seems some are starting to feel that. Perhaps it's not bad that they go out of business and get replaced by operations that do care for the long term.
| 3:51 pm on May 12, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The thing the statement about spammers flooding the internet because of the port 25 being unblocked shows a little bit of ignorance about how smtp works. The real spammers are already out there getting around this block. You can set a smtp server to send out on any local port. Just as you can set a apache server to listen to any port of your choosing.
Unblocking ports is not the issue and not blocking content is not the issue for those who choose to break the law by harassing people via spam or virii proliferation. We should try enforcing the current spam law first.
If you are concerned about spammers and malware, then you should be requesting better tracking and more static ips. This too however presents the problem of loosing the anonymity that the internet has afforded so many of us who now live off of it. I very much enjoy the benefits of being a contract website developer and not having to answer to any one boss.
Unfortunately, this is similarly the issue with posting cameras and listening devices on every street corner. You may gain protection(through relocating crime), but you lose much of the freedom that privacy affords a person.
Currently the ISPs are already selling you internet based on bandwidth. Which I see no problem with. It is fine to set prices based on the bandwidth provided to you. Why would someone just looking at IMs or simple sites need more than a 56k modem and why should they pay the same amount as someone who needs t1 speeds and is hosting sites/databases/gaming servers? This law seems a little under researched before presentation similar to many of the other bills proposed by the government.
The problem is that not everyone has the same needs or demand for the bandwidth and the model of pricing your internet service based on how much bandwidth you wish to have is a good model. Similar to that of the real world highway. Most people would not want to go out and buy a semi and nor would it be practical to have everyone driving semis(could you imagine the headache rush hour traffic and finding parking would be if it were the case), such should be the same with the internet.