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 tien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
Content-Type: image/gif;
x-unix-mode=0666;
name="image001.gif"
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename=image001.gif
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:image001 8.gif (GIFf/prvw)
(000AFF2B)
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 tien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/