“No longer will non-porn viewing consumers be forced to subsidize porn-viewing consumers—because the average porn-viewing consumer uses a considerably more bandwidth than non-porn viewer.”

The above statement only makes sense if they are intending that traffic shaping mechanisms will be deployed against Open Ports. Yet, the proposal doesn’t explicitly state this, apparently for fear of scaring the horses.

Americans might like to consider who gets to determine what is acceptable content for Community Ports and what happens if non-acceptable content gets routed via second-class pipes that is flooded with porn. Will your news from Iraq, Palestine or Afghanistan be effectively censored because it is too graphic for community ports and has to fight for bandwidth with traffic-shaped or filtered porn?

http://broadbannedrevolution.blogspot.com/2008/01/cp80-designed-by-americans-for.html ]]> http://richardkmiller.com/138/cp80-internet-channel-initiative/comment-page-1#comment-140211 Richard K Miller / Is the Internet broken? Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:14:14 +0000 http://www.richardkmiller.com/blog/archives/2006/03/cp80-internet-channel-initiative#comment-140211 [...] H2M and CP80 proposals imply that something is broken about the current Internet. If so, it shouldn’t be [...] [...] H2M and CP80 proposals imply that something is broken about the current Internet. If so, it shouldn’t be [...] ]]> http://richardkmiller.com/138/cp80-internet-channel-initiative/comment-page-1#comment-28217 Richard K Miller dot coooooooooom / Traffic Control: CP80 would protect children and families from porn Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:55:41 +0000 http://www.richardkmiller.com/blog/archives/2006/03/cp80-internet-channel-initiative#comment-28217 [...] highlights Ralph Yarro’s technology initiative to fight pornography called CP80. (I’ve written about CP80 previously.) The quick explanation is that if CP80 were legislated by government, pornography would be split [...] [...] highlights Ralph Yarro’s technology initiative to fight pornography called CP80. (I’ve written about CP80 previously.) The quick explanation is that if CP80 were legislated by government, pornography would be split [...] ]]> http://richardkmiller.com/138/cp80-internet-channel-initiative/comment-page-1#comment-1038 Richard K. Miller Thu, 06 Apr 2006 06:41:25 +0000 http://www.richardkmiller.com/blog/archives/2006/03/cp80-internet-channel-initiative#comment-1038 Jon Trauntvein: Thanks for your comments. 1. I purposely simplified the concept of TCP ports to make the post more readble. I think it's reasonable to compare TCP ports to channels, i.e. port 80 is the web "channel", port 5190 is the AOL chat "channel", etc. True, these ports are conventions more than hard-set requirements, but the word "channel" is more intuitive for most people than "port". I agree that ISPs aren't exactly like cable companies. But requiring porn to be transmitted over a specific port and requiring ISPs to filter porn at the request of their customers would make ISPs much more like cable companies. 2. The "ephemeral" ports used by client devices don't substract from the ports available to servers. CP80 would require porn not to be served from port 80, but client devices could still connect from any port. There is no shortage of ports. This doesn't matter anyway since CP80 would only require 1 additional port for pornography. 3. I don't think it would be cost effective to have regulators. Rather, I envision that if a family asked its ISP to filter the porn port and subsequently found a porn site on the "clean port", the site would be reported and subject (assuming it is hosted in the U.S.) to a heavy fine. 4. For sites hosted offshore, CP80 suggests a white list of compliant IP blocks: http://www.cp80.org/solutions/ip-block.html . Parents could choose to allow or disallow offshore sites. 5. I don't believe CP80 is about having ISPs filter content. CP80 is the easiest porn filtering solution for an ISP to implement - simply block the porn port for customers that request it. 6. Your attitude of responsibility is commendable. I don't believe CP80 would lessen the need for good parenting, but it could lighten the load for good parents. Why not use your resources and strength to support a cause that will help other parents and children? CP80 isn't perfect, but it's a notch above the ".xxx" domain idea, and the difficulty of implementing something shouldn't be an excuse for doing nothing. Jon Trauntvein: Thanks for your comments.

1. I purposely simplified the concept of TCP ports to make the post more readble. I think it’s reasonable to compare TCP ports to channels, i.e. port 80 is the web “channel”, port 5190 is the AOL chat “channel”, etc. True, these ports are conventions more than hard-set requirements, but the word “channel” is more intuitive for most people than “port”.

I agree that ISPs aren’t exactly like cable companies. But requiring porn to be transmitted over a specific port and requiring ISPs to filter porn at the request of their customers would make ISPs much more like cable companies.

2. The “ephemeral” ports used by client devices don’t substract from the ports available to servers. CP80 would require porn not to be served from port 80, but client devices could still connect from any port. There is no shortage of ports. This doesn’t matter anyway since CP80 would only require 1 additional port for pornography.

3. I don’t think it would be cost effective to have regulators. Rather, I envision that if a family asked its ISP to filter the porn port and subsequently found a porn site on the “clean port”, the site would be reported and subject (assuming it is hosted in the U.S.) to a heavy fine.

4. For sites hosted offshore, CP80 suggests a white list of compliant IP blocks: http://www.cp80.org/solutions/ip-block.html . Parents could choose to allow or disallow offshore sites.

5. I don’t believe CP80 is about having ISPs filter content. CP80 is the easiest porn filtering solution for an ISP to implement – simply block the porn port for customers that request it.

6. Your attitude of responsibility is commendable. I don’t believe CP80 would lessen the need for good parenting, but it could lighten the load for good parents. Why not use your resources and strength to support a cause that will help other parents and children?

CP80 isn’t perfect, but it’s a notch above the “.xxx” domain idea, and the difficulty of implementing something shouldn’t be an excuse for doing nothing.

I fear that this solution strikes me as being overly simplistic and seems to be based upon several misunderstandings.

1. The appropriate term for a TCP service is that it is offered on a TCP Port. Port 80 happens to be the “well known” port on which HTTP is offered. Every computer that is connected to the internet as a server can offer services on whatever port is wanted by the computer administrator. To call this a channel and to compare this to cable service is a grave mistake because it implies that the ISP is in complete control over what is accessed through the internet. In truth, the ISP merely provides a “pipe” that connects to a global network.

2. On the comment that “many of the 65535 ports go unused”: Every time that your browser opens a TCP connection to a server, an “ephemeral” port is allocated for that connection. TCP simply doesn’t work unless there is a large pool of “unused” ports to use for temporary purposes.

3. The only way to make this proposal work is to have the federal government have regulatory control over every machine that is connected to the internet that offers HTTP service. How is this going to be enforced? How is it going to be implemented. Are there going to be federal inspectors that have to inspect every server to make sure that it offers appropriate content on port 80? Do we really want the federal government involved in this kind of activity (it seems to me that it is already too bloated).

4. Supposing that such legislation could be passed and enforced. The authors seem to ignore the fact the the internet is a world wide phenonemon and that all of the legislation that we pass in the US is not going to do one blessed thing in the rest of the world.

5 . The only other solution then, one that I’ve seen scrupulously avoided above, is that the proposed legilation will force internet service providers to enact filtering on web content. Such filtering is problematic at best. It is either far too permissive or far too restrictive. I would object strenously to such a move and doubt that any legislation that would force ISPs to filter would not pass constitutional muster.

6. This leads me to one inescapable fact: I am responsible for my own actions as well as for my family. I am responsible for my choices and accountable to my God for how I use my resources and strength. I am responsible for teaching this to my children or, at least, helping my children to learn this principle on their own. I have no intent on abdicating this responsiblity for myself or for my family.

As we were discussing CP80 in class, the idea came up that ISPs could charge a premium to give access to the “adult channel” as cable and satellite companies do with their premium channels. This could give some incentive for the ISPs to jump on-board and support this initiative.

The second the porn industry finds out about this, they will be all over it. I had a lenghty discussion about it with one of the people at the booth.