[IP] FCC not Schizo at all
Begin forwarded message:
From: hugh crawford <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 8, 2005 11:31:02 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: declan.mccullagh@xxxxxxxx
Subject: FCC not Schizo at all
Dave, Declan McCullagh's column was so wrong headed I just had to put
up a response at
http://www.thoughtballoon.com/fcc-not-schizo.html
Perhaps the IP list would find it of interest
FCC not Schizo at all
In Declan McCullagh's column: Schizo FCC deregulates DSL, but
regulates Net-wiretapping <http://news.com.com/FCC+schizo+on+DSL%2C
+wiretapping/2010-1071_3-5821077.html> he says
"The text of the FCC's CALEA order is not yet public, but early signs
are worrisome. The FCC's two-page summary <http://dw.com.com/redir?
destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fhraunfoss.fcc.gov%2Fedocs_public%2Fattachmatch%
2FDOC-260434A1.pdf&siteId=3&oId=2010-1071-5821077&ontId=12&lop=nl.ex>
says that voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers like Vonage
that mimic traditional phone service must rewire their networks to be
easily wiretappable."
It says nothing of the kind. Skyp , Vonage , et al have no wires ,
can't "rewire" anything and don't own the networks that they run on.
The FCC may act as dumb as a sack of wet hammers, but they aren't
dumb enough say that "(VoIP) providers like Vonage that mimic
traditional phone service must rewire their networks to be easily
wiretappable"
The summary is titled "FCC Requires Certain Broadband and VoIP
Providers to Accommodate Wiretaps" It sounds more like a possible
move to only allow the broadband providers themselves to offer VoIP
and to allow them to filter out other VoIP providers, since there is
probably not any workable technology to enable a VoIP provider to
"accommodate wiretaps" without owning the physical network.
This fits in with the other FCC news of the week, where the FCC has
defined DSL as well as cable broadband to be an "information service"
where the provider can pick and chose services to allow on their
network rather than a "telecommunications service" which is required
to allow competing services to ride over their network. If an
"information service" is like cable TV where you can watch anything
the cable company wants to let you ( sort of like the Soviet Union
where if you want cheap galoshes you get cheap galoshes, and if you
want basketball shoes you get cheap galoshes , want a car, you get
cheap galoshes ...) and a "telecommunications service" is like using
the phone to call anywhere you want and talk about anything you want,
or maybe even play your saxophone to friends, or listen to bird
songs, or ( after AT&T lost control of what you could attach to the
phone system) use a fax machine or modem.
Now that both DSL and Cable broadband are deemed "information
services" there won't be any regulatory pressure on the DSL providers
to open their networks , and thus no(t much) market pressure on the
cable broadband providers keep their networks open. In short both the
phone (DSL) companies and the cable broadband companies get to act
like cable companies with their soviet style marketing.What's more,
once both cable and DSL are "information services" then the FCC can
hold service providers responsible for the content, services, and
protocols that they allow on their networks. This comes back to title
of the summary "FCC Requires Certain Broadband and VoIP Providers
to Accommodate Wiretaps" . Note that it is not titled "FCC Requires
Certain Broadband Providers and VoIP Providers to Accommodate
Wiretaps" or "FCC Requires Certain Broadband, and VoIP Providers to
Accommodate Wiretaps" It seems clear that the intent of the FCC is
that only the Broadband Providers themselves offer VoIP.
Anybody who doubts that the FCC thinks that they can dictate what the
services and content the broadband providers offer need only remember
the recent comments by the commissioner that there isn't any real
difference between cable and broadcast TV and thus the FCC should be
able to apply the same standards to cable programming as they do to
broadcast.
It is clear that the FCC has a consistent model where there are only
Content Providers and Content Consumers. This is in contrast to Users
of tools like the Internet, personal computers and video recorders
all of which the FCC has proposed should be regulated to protect
Content Providers from Content Consumers.
Declan McCullagh made a comparison in his column to the Soviet Union
and I just couldn't help but do the same, but to make one last
comparison the precedent for the regulation of creative and
communications tools like the Internet, personal computers and video
recorders that immediately jumps to mind is the old Soviet Union
making its citizens register their typewriters.
Maybe if personal computers, video cameras, Internet phones and HDTVs
could undergo a little feature creep and be used to fire bullets the
current administration would leave them alone
Hugh Crawford
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/