Re: [vox] HR 1542 passed the House
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [vox] HR 1542 passed the House
HR 1542 would force the FCC and the US courts to define VoIP and treat it
as telecommunication. this would bring VoIP inside the complex web of US
telecom regulation, with all the benefits thereof.
but here's the real issue. HR 1542 would free the RBOCS from the
obligation of to lease local lines to competing DSL services. that
could mean the end for companies like omsoft. it also grants the RBOCS
a TREMENDOUS opportunity for a monopoly. if you're impressed with DSL
service and pricing through pacbell, you'll love this bill. if you
think pac bell DSL should just go to hell, then this bill is not
something you want to pass.
btw, the house judiciary committee voted unanimously against this bill,
based on anti-trust issues alone. but they don't have much power beyond
recommending a vote of yay or nay. usually, the house votes with
whatever the recommendation is of a committee's findings. it's very
suspicious that this bill passed the house and smacks of shady dealings.
but there are other issues, like why in the world should voice packets
and data packets be distinguished? when it comes down to it,
distinguishing this tcp packet from that tcp packet is just sheer
nonsense. it should also (imho) be illegal. what if i were deaf or
mute, so the only way i could communicate is over TTY?
the bill would give a monopoloy to any RBOC that chooses to take it, and
judging by the shady and illegal practises that pacbell has been charged
with, they'd probably take it.
for information on this bill, both pro and con:
also, i have to apologize for my previous comments. although more
republicans voted for the bill than democrats, this bill is definitely
bi-partisan. in fact, its co-sponsor is a democrat.
begin Joel Baumert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Why is this bill bad? I glanced through the rest of the bill and
> I didn't see anything that jumped out at me. Maybe there is
> something subtle change that makes it impossible for the ISPs
> to compete???
> It states:
> `(b) OBLIGATIONS OF INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS- Each incumbent
> local exchange carrier has the duty to provide--
> `(1) Internet users with the ability to subscribe to and have access
> to any Internet service provider that interconnects with such
> carrier's high speed data service;
> `(2) any Internet service provider with the right to acquire the
> facilities and services necessary to interconnect with such carrier's
> high speed data service for the provision of Internet access service;
> `(3) any Internet service provider with the ability to collocate
> equipment in accordance with the provisions of section 251, to the
> extent necessary to achieve the objectives of paragraphs (1) and (2)
> of this subsection; and
> `(4) any provider of high speed data services, Internet backbone
> service, or Internet access service with special access for the
> provision of Internet access service within a period no longer than
> the period in which such incumbent local exchange carrier provides
> special access to itself or any affiliate for the provision of such
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:52:47PM -0800, Mark K. Kim wrote:
> > "H.R. 1542" passed the House by 273 to 157. It was a recorded vote, so
> > check out who voted aye and who voted no:
> > http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=45
> > The bill's now waiting for the Senate to vote on it. Keep track of its
> > status:
> > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquerytr/z?d107:HR01542:@@@X
> > FYI, once the bill goes to the Senate, it'll be renamed to "S. 1542".
> > -Mark (thinks POL1 was one of the best class he took at UCD)
> > --
> > Mark K. Kim
> > http://www.cbreak.org/
> > PGP key available upon request.
> > _______________________________________________
> > vox mailing list
> > email@example.com
> > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox
> vox mailing list
vox mailing list