[antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes Internet Phone Regulation
- From: jim rogers <jimorogers@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:08:20 -0800 (PST)
Well, the Supreme Court isn't the ONLY thing that
stands in the way. (Besides, do you really want this
SC to wiegh in?)
Come next November, we can send a very strong message
to the very person who put both those individuals into
positions of power.
--- Robert Lee <robertslee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Supposedly today Powell applauded the Qwest 271 in
> Arizona by saying, =
> "Today
> the barrier between offering local and long distance
> service has been
> removed."
>
> So much for Harold Greene and 1984. He is using
> TA96 to undo 1984, even =
> as
> he uses his perch to kill of the remaining CLECs.
>
> The distinction between Martin and Powell is a
> distinction without a
> difference. =20
>
> The only thing that stands in the way is the Supreme
> Court.
>
>
> Robert Lee
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
> [mailto:antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of jim rogers
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:14 PM
> To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart:
> Powell Opposes =
> Internet
> Phone Regulation
>
>
> The Washington Post headline got it wrong. Powell
> has
> not said that he is opposed to regulating VoIP. In
> fact, what he did say is that the regulatory issues
> associated with VoIP are "discrete" -- whatever the
> hell that means.
>
> The point is that Powell clearly recognizes that
> VoIP
> is creating problems for legacy regulation. And VoIP
> is going to continue doing so until new regulation
> comes along.
>
> You're correct in taking Powell's utterings with a
> grain of salt. In fact, you may want to try
> absorbing
> Powell's rhetoric while you're still in the salt
> mine.
> That's a good place in which to listen to him.
>
> I don't think regulating VoIP will necessarily
> require
> government monitoring of Net traffic. (Not that it
> matters ... The gov't already does that anyway.) The
> trick will be for the policymakers to create a
> regulatory framework that is in fact technology
> neutral. But to do that, they may end up having to
> make some sweeping changes in the '96 Act -- which
> is
> exactly what the RBOCs want to see happen. And
> that's
> one of the reasons you're not hearing a lot of
> moaning
> and groaning about VoIP coming from the RBOCs.
>
> JR
>
>
> --- Robert Lee <robertslee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >=20
> > I wish I were as optimistic as you.
> >=20
> > It does not take five years and three million
> words
> > to say you are =3D
> > against
> > regulating VOIP. I am a Powell watcher. The
> chances
> > for detection by =3D
> > mere
> > mortals of what Powell intends to do falls off
> > inversely proportional to =3D
> > the
> > number of words the blatherer utters.
> >=20
> > He has no philosophical underpinnings (other than
> > his own grandeur), he =3D
> > is
> > incompetent, has lost control of the FCC, and he
> is
> > a world class
> > procrastinator who cannot do anything until
> ordered
> > twice by a federal
> > court.
> >=20
> > Powell will mollify the Bells. The Bells were not
> > there. That tells =3D
> > you
> > something. The deal has been cut.
> >=20
> > In my opinion the issue of whether to regulate or
> > not regulate VOIP is =3D
> > as
> > laughable as whether or not to tell an 800 pound
> > gorilla where to sit. =3D
> > How
> > the hell are you going to regulate it? Sure, in
> the
> > beginning you can
> > regulate it because there are nodes required to
> > route calls to the PSTN.
> > But if VOIP is everything it is cracked up to be,
> > only Granny Fricket =3D
> > will
> > be on the PSTN and who needs to call her?
> >=20
> > So in the end, if my limited knowledge is not a
> > dangerous thing, to =3D
> > regulate
> > VOIP will require the government to sniff every
> > packet on the Internet =3D
> > and
> > somehow charge back to someone based on the
> > contents.
> >=20
> > The only solution is a Universal Service Charge on
> > access. Because in =3D
> > the
> > end, at least for consumers who will use an
> > unmanaged network, access =3D
> > will
> > be the only charge anyway.
> >=20
> > By the way, I have used Vonage for six months and
> > each month I get a =3D
> > tiny
> > email bill that thanks me for my business and
> tells
> > me my credit card =3D
> > has
> > successfully been charged $38.00. When the
> > electricity goes out all =3D
> > calls
> > are automatically routed to my cell phone. The
> > issue of emergency is =3D
> > just
> > a polemical objection. We have three cell phones
> in
> > the house. Who
> > doesn't? VOIP providers could offer free debit
> card
> > cell phones with
> > charger cradles. But even that is pandering.
> >=20
> >=20
> > Robert Lee
> >=20
> >=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =3D
> > [mailto:antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Valerie Fast Horse
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:36 PM
> > To: 'Antidote (E-mail)
> > Subject: [antidote] Yet another change of heart:
> > Powell Opposes Internet
> > Phone Regulation
> >=20
> >=20
> > Here's the latest in VoIP news....
> > Powell Opposes Internet Phone Regulation
> > =3D20
> > By Christopher Stern
> > Washington Post Staff Writer
> > Tuesday, December 2, 2003; Page E05=3D20
> >=20
> > Government Interference Could Stifle Developing
> > Technology, FCC Chief
> > Warns.....
> >=20
> >
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26729-2003Dec1.html
> >=20
> >
>
*************************************************************************=
> =3D
> > ***
> > **************
> >=20
> > If you remember, less than a week ago I sent this
> > link:
> >=20
> > Having a Change of Heart, Powell Said to Now Favor
> > Regulation of VoIP
>
=== message truncated ===
________________________________________________________
The antidote list discussion covers issues related to getting beyond monopoly
in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject
field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web at
http://www.intercommunication.org
Other related posts:
