On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > 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 :)
Why does this remind me of a Simpson's Treehouse of Terror halloween episode. Which one of us is Kang? and which one is Kodos? > > SEC. 104. ACCESS TO BITS. > > (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 > > net;7 > > > > --end snip---- > > > > What about outside the boundaries of the USofA? Hrm... good thing all that > legislation we put in place is cleaning up the 'bad content' all over the > Internet... Wait, it's not :( Legislation isn't the answer to this > problem, unfortunately the gov't hasn't realized this completely :( Get ready to click on "Network Neighborhood" on your PC, and see PCs from all your real neighbors. There are reasons why ISPs filter things like DHCP, websites that download trojan codes, etc. Just because someone invented it, doesn't mean you should use it over the Internet. That's what VPNs are for. Should Google's toolbar be illegal because it blocks access to lawful content, applications or services over the Internet? Why should it be ok for Google to block access to things? Its always fun to watch legislatures write networking codes, almost as much fun as watching network geeks try to write laws. Unfortunately, I think the floodgates have been broken now. Be careful of what you ask for, because you may get it. If every change to the network requires new legislation, things are going to get slow.
