North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]
- From: Gordon Cook
- Date: Fri Nov 11 09:12:23 2005
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
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:
"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.
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
The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ
609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) email@example.com
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
in many ways proposed "deregulation". This bill removes more
from the FCC and state and local governments than it grants. It
a very minimal framework of regulation, then, except for taxation and
a couple of other minor consumer protections, says "The government
butt the hell out."
That's why I like it.
But Owen - what if getting evil gov't out gives Whittacre a blank check?