 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | I looked at the briefing page, and I'm SHOCKED.
First, the Staff uses an "imaginary" conversation with Vonage (their own description of it!) to justify the action here. Heck, if that constitutes "evidence", I'll imagine a conversation with the Staff in which Staff says "since we really like the Qwest lobbyists and they give us hams & whiskey at Christmas, we're going to do their bidding here and shut Vonage down." It wouldn't be evidence, but I guess it passes the Staff test for validity.
Second, MCI, to its credit (and perhaps recalling its own early days) says that the "jurisdiction" issue should be handled in a fair and open hearing. Instead, the Staff said, and the Commission agreed, that they would just decide the most important issue in the case without evidence, without a full hearing, and without careful consideration.
Why did they make that decision? One can only conclude that the Staff and the Commission realized that on a complete hearing record, with a fair chance, Vonage might prevail--and that COULD NOT happen if Qwest was to be kept happy!
The Minnesota Commission used to have a reputation for fairness and forward thinking--to bad they've lost it.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
