[IP] more on Sen. Ensign Introduces Communications Legislation That Rewrites the '96 Act - Maybe with good intent but danger lurks

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Sonia Arrison <SArrison@pacificresearch.org>
Date: July 29, 2005 4:05:53 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: FW: [IP] Sen. Ensign Introduces Communications Legislation  
That Rewrites the '96 Act - Maybe with good intent but danger lurks


Dave,

You (and for IP if you like) might be interested in my column on  
Ensign's bill:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/De5fQmHEjUJxUg/Flattening-Barriers- 
to-Communications.xhtml

-Sonia


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip@v2.listbox.com on behalf of David Farber
Sent: Fri 7/29/2005 12:13 PM
To: Ip ip
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


Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com>
Date: July 28, 2005 6:58:17 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: Sen. Ensign Introduces Communications Legislation That
Rewrites the '96 Act - Maybe with good intent but danger lurks


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as sarrison@pacificresearch.org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
people/


-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

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.



Fr

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as sarrison@pacificresearch.org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/



-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/