 
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | Benefits? So, this benefits Clearwire, Bellsouth (ahem, AT&T) and who else?
Would this cover the EVDO and HSDPA rollouts?
--
Use the OS tool for the job. | |
|
 | 
Michieru
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Re: Benefits? EVDO/HSDPA/WiMAX are considered mobile broadband solutions so yes most likely they do apply.
--
The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves. | |
|
| 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Mission Viejo, CA
clubs:
edit:
February 5th, @08:56PM
| said by MattE  :So, this benefits Clearwire, Bellsouth (ahem, AT&T) and who else? Martin is the errand boy of the telcos. Of course dereg will benefit his masters in the industry. Deregulation always benefits Big Bu$ine$$.
--
The Toll
| |
|
| SD6
join:2005-03-26
| said by MattE :Would this cover the EVDO and HSDPA rollouts? It's hard to say. The linked article is very sketchy. I've heard deregulation of WiMax telecom services proposed before, but not HSDPA. | |
|
bassthumpa
Premium
join:2000-12-26
Austin, TX | Cost? Would this move give carriers like AT&T, VZW, Sprint, etc incentive to lower their cellular broadband rates?
--
Myspace | |
|
| BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Cost? said by bassthumpa :Would this move give carriers like AT&T, VZW, Sprint, etc incentive to lower their cellular broadband rates? | |
|
| | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: Cost? Dude... at least put up a dignified picture of the Commander in Chief!
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | no exist So the FCC officially doesnt exist anymore? | |
|
ohmygod
join:2007-02-05
Sunnyvale, CA | Wireless vs BPL Hopefully this will be another nail in the coffin of BPL... | |
|
mrbueno
join:2002-08-03
US
edit:
February 6th, @09:55AM
| It's not regulated! How do you deregulate something that isn't regulated? The FCC may control spectrum licensing, but they don't control the Internet. Yet. | |
|
| GPershing
join:2007-02-06
San Francisco, CA
| Re: It's not regulated! Let's go to the video tape:
- In 1968 the FCC initiated a proceeding known as the Computer Inquiries in which the FCC regulated telecom carriers specifically for the benefit of computer networks.... the Internet. While the Internet was not regulated, it was a specific goal of the policy.
- In 1982, the FCC exercised federal jurisdiction over computer networks over telephone networks, stating that no local access charges could be applied. By doing this, the FCC preempted states from taking action. It is an odd sort of thing where the FCC affirmatively took action and the action was "null" but thereby prevented anyone else from taking action.
- The FCC/DOJ opposed the Sprint/MCI merger on the grounds of Internet backbone consolidation.
- Recently the FCC imposed the obligation of E911 capability on VoIP providers who interconnect with the PSTN.
- Recently the FCC imposed CALEA obligations on facilities based Internet broadband providers.
- The FCC has affirmatively rules that Internet over Broadband is an information service and therefore not a telephone carrier. Again, this preempts the states and prevents the states from regulating internet providers as common carriers.
- The FCC subsidizes Internet access to schools and libraries through the ERate program.
- The FCC requires that schools and libraries that receive Erate have filters on their Internet connections.
How do you mean that the FCC does not regulate the Internet? For more info, see www.cybertelecom.org
Thanks | |
|
| | mrbueno
join:2002-08-03
US
| Re: It's not regulated! quote:
The FCC has affirmatively rules that Internet over Broadband is an information service and therefore not a telephone carrier. Again, this preempts the states and prevents the states from regulating internet providers as common carriers.
Internet providers are not common carriers and as such are not a regulated industry. The FCC is not the Internet policing authority. Not yet anyway. Just because they are handing out orders doesn't mean they are properly authorized to do so, yet. A legal challenge to this has never been filed so it's more or less up in the air until then. Once that authority is challenged I am sure they will clearly be placed in charge.
The designation of information service often exists to indicate that a service is not subject to regulation via telecommunications laws and regulations. Not subject to regulation.
Look up the Brand-X case for more info. | |
|
GPershing
join:2007-02-06
San Francisco, CA
|  What Proceeding?
| |
|
| 
jaxdomino
join:2001-12-01
Jacksonville, FL | Re: What Proceeding? Martin is CONSIDERING it, it's not a policy statement from the FCC...YET. | |
|
|
|
|
Martin To Deregulate Wireless Broadband
