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: Lee Tien <tien () eff org>
Date: July 29, 2005 3:45:20 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Sen. Ensign Introduces Communications Legislation  
That Rewrites the '96 Act - Maybe with good intent but danger lurks


For comments on the Ensign bill (critical of its treatment of  
municipal broadband) see e.g.

Harold Feld http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/326
Esme Vos http://muniwireless.com/municipal/watch/777/
National League of Cities issued a press release today vowing "strong  
opposition," but I don't have a URL for the release.

Lee

At 3:13 PM -0400 7/29/05, David Farber wrote:


> 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 tien () well sf ca us
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/
>
>
> Content-Type: image/gif;
>     x-unix-mode=0666;
>     name="image001.gif"
> Content-Disposition: inline;
>     filename=image001.gif
>
> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:image001 8.gif (GIFf/prvw)  
> (000AFF2B)
>
> 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 tien () well sf ca us
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/




-------------------------------------
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/