[IP] more on Sen. Ensign Introduces Communications Legislation That Rewrites the '96 Act - Maybe with good intent but danger lurks
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sonia Arrison <SArrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 29, 2005 4:05:53 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [IP] Sen. Ensign Introduces Communications Legislation
That Rewrites the '96 Act - Maybe with good intent but danger lurks
Dave,
You (and for IP if you like) might be interested in my column on
Ensign's bill:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/De5fQmHEjUJxUg/Flattening-Barriers-
to-Communications.xhtml
-Sonia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of David Farber
Sent: Fri 7/29/2005 12:13 PM
To: Ip ip
Subject: [IP] Sen. Ensign Introduces Communications Legislation That
Rewrites the '96 Act - Maybe with good intent but danger lurks
There was confidentiallity agreement attached as well as the
document. Ask Bob to send you it djf
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 28, 2005 6:58:17 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Sen. Ensign Introduces Communications Legislation That
Rewrites the '96 Act - Maybe with good intent but danger lurks
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as sarrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
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/
I got this as columnist (VonMag). My wont is to be suspicious but it
is interesting. I don?t know much about Ensign so I can only comment
on reading this out of context. I notice McCain is a cosponsor. I?m
interested in others? opinions.
Overall it doesn?t quite ?get? the Internet but seems to be
eliminating impediments to applications like VoIP. That?s good.
What makes me suspicious is the ?Regulation of Municipal Broadband
Networks? that seems to prohibit them by treating them as if they are
service networks rather than infrastructure.
While the bill may have the best intentions it makes it difficult to
switch to a utility model because such a move could easily be
construed as unfair competition. This is one reason why I?m trying so
hard to distinguish between a utility infrastructure and a service
network.
Until we shift the framing from ?services? to ?infrastructure? it
will be difficult to get the connectivity we need. At very least we
need to introduce this concept into the public debate.
Fr
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as sarrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
-------------------------------------
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/
-------------------------------------
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/