Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]

[Gordon Cook <cook () cookreport com>]

Be careful Owen - i think you may be falling into a libertarian trap  
- worrisome because I respect highly things i have seen you write in  
past.

Think about what you are saying: " Something to consider about this  
proposed "regulation"... It is actually
> in many ways proposed "deregulation"


Yes it is indeed.   It frees the duopoly to do whatever it wants.   
And Whittacre has said what he wants and what he will do quite  
plainly -- has he not?  He will charge google and yahoo and skype for  
using his networks.

Here is how this legislation is being read in London at a public  
telco blog  recently launched by DRKW the large investment bank:
http://telcotech.drkw.com/blog/archives/2005/11/will_evil_preva.html

"For all of our sakes lets hope that the telcos are not successful in  
their lobbying effort in the US. If they are successful, you can bet  
that your investment in the fixed telecoms utilities is safer but  
innovation on the internet is in jeopardy - which do you think  
creates more incremental future value in the world ultimately?"

Vint Cerf is on my economics of IP networks private mail list.  The  
DRKW blog post partially cited above came in part from a public item  
comment of Vint's that i posted day before yesterday to my private  
list.  It is fascinating that Sean Donelan whom I have known and  
respected since 1991 dug that 1997 item quote from Vint from my  
archives.  Donelan: "In 1997, Vint Cerf was advocating the necessity  
of usage based pricing when he was still with MCI.

http://www.cookreport.com/05.10.shtml

COOK Report: Recall the date.  This is PRE stupid network and again  
VINT is taking the pre-internet pre stupid network telco point of  
view. I'll post this to my list and see if Vint has anything that he  
wants to say about this 8 year old opinion.

Owen, do you want some legislation that gives the CEO of ATT/SBC the  
world largest dinosaur a blank check to do as he wishes with *HIS*  
network.  This bills language is HIGHLY deceptive.  I too despise  
government incompetence but giving Whittacre a blank check is IMHO  
much worse.  But don't take my word for it - check out DRKW's  
analyst's opinion.  Fred Goldstein also has a pretty good analysis.    
I probably will not further respond to this thread discussion.   
Please forgive me but I am swamped with many things that demand  
attention.

=============================================================
The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ  
08618 USA
609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) cook () cookreport com  
Subscription
info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and  an Internet
Economic  & Business Model  at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml
=============================================================




On Nov 11, 2005, at 1:38 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Something to consider about this proposed "regulation"... It is  
> actually
> in many ways proposed "deregulation".  This bill removes more  
> authority
> from the FCC and state and local governments than it grants.  It  
> provides
> a very minimal framework of regulation, then, except for taxation and
> a couple of other minor consumer protections, says "The government  
> shall
> butt the hell out."
>
> That's why I like it.

But Owen - what if getting evil gov't out gives Whittacre a blank check?



> Owen