Interesting People mailing list archives
more on FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:05:42 -0500
------ Forwarded Message From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:26:37 -0500 To: <dave () farber net>, 'Ip' <ip () v2 listbox com> Cc: 'Dewayne Hendricks' <dewayne () dandin com>, David Isenberg <isen () isen com>, 'Dave Burstein' <dave () dslprime com> Subject: RE: [IP] FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing Am I missing something or is this indeed a battle over whether a given copper line has to support two over-specified protocols? (No pun, as in voice-over-data, this is over as in over-the-top). If so, then wouldn't it make more sense to focus on naked DSL with voice telephony being provided over IP? There are plenty of faux telephony providers, including the carriers themselves, who will give the illusion of line sharing for those who want it. This is an example of where an "IP-only" policy makes sense rather than fighting legacy skirmishes. I don't want to oversimplify the problem but it seems better than continuing to fight the old battles. It reminds me of the two back-to-back panel discussions on the triennial review -- the first was arguing over how it affected the purchase of switches. The second, with most of the same participants, was on VoIP because no one was buying those switches anymore. And I thought lawyers were taught not to argue moot cases outside of class and what is the Regulatorium if not moot? ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing David Farber (Mar 26)