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
From: Bob Frankston <Bob19firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: July 28, 2005 6:58:17 PM EDT
To: David Farber <email@example.com>
Subject: Sen. Ensign Introduces Communications Legislation That Rewrites the '96 Act - Maybe with good intent but danger lurks
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.
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as firstname.lastname@example.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Powered by eList eXpress LLC