Subject: Re: [sipcore] Legal controls over sip signaling

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 00:07:31 -0600

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>wrote:

>
>
> I don't understand how a legal restriction would work.
>
>
Did you understand how SOPA and PIPA would work? Me neither. But that
wasn't enough to stop Congress. Fortunately, Congress does understand mass
protests.

It's easy to envision laws banning one's "unauthorized signaling
implementation." Easy to enforce, too -- just add an App Store check for
unauthorized signaling. After all, pretty soon the computer you "use" won't
be one you can develop applications for. We'll have a separate (possibly
virtual) network for licensed developers.

It'll also be illegal to use bandwidth for unauthorized applications. The
licensed application providers will buy the required bandwidth for their
applications, and they'll negotiate with the transport providers based not
just on total bandwidth, but on the perceived value of the application;
that is, on the basis of how much money the application provider can make.
The transport people are going to want at least 20% share if not more. No
revenue? No bandwidth, unless it's a public service announcement from a
politically-favored sector. There will be no direct peer-to-peer traffic;
all traffic MUST be mediated by an approved application. And did I mention
the ITU will be in charge of the protocol specifications and you'll need
your government's permission and blessing to influence the decision-making?
But with everything doable with a combination of HTTP, SIP, and RTCWeb, we
won't really be doing much in the way of protocol development. Instead,
we'll all be application developers working within a silo structure such as
Facebook, Google App Engine ,Azure, iCloud, or Amazon.

This seems to me the likely outcome  of cross-factoring "all you can eat"
plans, AT$T's new "application provider pays" business model, government
willingness to support copyright trolls, and the need to have a
"responsible party" to support lawful intercept (and copyright/patent
enforcement) for every allowed application.

Now, back to our previously-scheduled enjoyment of the Internet's "golden
years", before being taken over by the TSA's better-funded but
less-pleasant uncle.

--
Dean

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:28:18 -0500

Hi Dean,

Unfortunately I fear Dean's predictions could actually come true. :-(

In the news today I saw that some are now concerned about Tor because it 
is being used by the "bad guys" for porn and sale of illegal goods. The 
claim is that the Tor people have turned down requests to add a back 
door to Tor. (But that may just mean they have elected not to disclose a 
back door they already have.)

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 3/8/12 1:07 AM, Dean Willis wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> wasn't enough to stop Congress. Fortunately, Congress does understand
> mass protests.
>
> unauthorized signaling. After all, pretty soon the computer you "use"
> won't be one you can develop applications for. We'll have a separate
> (possibly virtual) network for licensed developers.
>
> It'll also be illegal to use bandwidth for unauthorized applications.
> The licensed application providers will buy the required bandwidth for
> their applications, and they'll negotiate with the transport providers
> based not just on total bandwidth, but on the perceived value of the
> application; that is, on the basis of how much money the application
> provider can make. The transport people are going to want at least 20%
> share if not more. No revenue? No bandwidth, unless it's a public
> service announcement from a politically-favored sector. There will be no
> direct peer-to-peer traffic; all traffic MUST be mediated by an approved
> application. And did I mention the ITU will be in charge of the protocol
> specifications and you'll need your government's permission and blessing
> to influence the decision-making? But with everything doable with a
> combination of HTTP, SIP, and RTCWeb, we won't really be doing much in
> the way of protocol development. Instead, we'll all be application
> developers working within a silo structure such as Facebook, Google App
> Engine ,Azure, iCloud, or Amazon.
>
> This seems to me the likely outcome  of cross-factoring "all you can
> eat" plans, AT$T's new "application provider pays" business model,
> government willingness to support copyright trolls, and the need to have
> a "responsible party" to support lawful intercept (and copyright/patent
> Now, back to our previously-scheduled enjoyment of the Internet's
> "golden years", before being taken over by the TSA's better-funded but
> less-pleasant uncle.
>
> --
> Dean
>