interesting-people message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [IP] more on FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing

  • From: David Farber <>
  • To: Ip <>
  • Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:05:42 -0500

------ Forwarded Message
From: Bob Frankston <>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:26:37 -0500
To: <>, 'Ip' <>
Cc: 'Dewayne Hendricks' <>, David Isenberg
<>, 'Dave Burstein' <>
Subject: RE: [IP] FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing

Am I missing something or is this indeed a battle over whether a given
copper line has to support two over-specified protocols? (No pun, as in
voice-over-data, this is over as in over-the-top).

If so, then wouldn't it make more sense to focus on naked DSL with voice
telephony being provided over IP? There are plenty of faux telephony
providers, including the carriers themselves, who will give the illusion of
line sharing for those who want it.

This is an example of where an &quot;IP-only&quot; policy makes sense rather than
fighting legacy skirmishes. I don't want to oversimplify the problem but it
seems better than continuing to fight the old battles.

It reminds me of the two back-to-back panel discussions on the triennial
review -- the first was arguing over how it affected the purchase of
switches. The second, with most of the same participants, was on VoIP
because no one was buying those switches anymore. And I thought lawyers were
taught not to argue moot cases outside of class and what is the Regulatorium
if not moot?

------ End of Forwarded Message

You are subscribed as
To manage your subscription, go to

Archives at:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help


Powered by eList eXpress LLC