moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD |  reply to oliphant5
Re: While this might be good news for Vonage.....
With the way the FCC and certain Congressmen think, they won't know the difference.  |
|
Sprinter99
join:2003-10-10
Grants Pass, OR
| reply to moonpuppy
not necessarily...
If you read the summary and compare it with the recent change of cable's regulatory status to "Telecom. provider" you will see that this ruling doesn't have the effect that you're implying. There is a distinct definition drawn by the FCC between "basic" and "enhanced" services (see page 9 of the decision) with basic services able to be regulated (ie ISPs) while enhanced services (VoIP, P2P, et al.) are to remain unregulated in the interest of further developing the internet. This really doesn't change anything regarding the cable co's fight to remain closed networks. |
|
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs:
|  reply to moonpuppy
Re: While this might be good news for Vonage.....
said by moonpuppy  :
If the judge is correct in the unregulation of the Internet.
*sighs* I have foresight into an American attempt at regulating the internet soon. America thinks it's the police officer and owner of the rest of the world, why not the internet too. 
--
MediaXPeer |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to moonpuppy
Cable lines are infrastructure, not internet. There is a distinct different between the infrastructure (eg cable and telco LINES) and the content (eg VoIP and email).
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| ...this could be bad news for the rest of the arguments against cable providers.
If the judge is correct in the unregulation of the Internet, then how can open access be demanded on cable lines? How can we regulate cable so that they don't screw the customer?
Both good and bad in this ruling. |
|
