Posted on 10/19/2004 8:32:15 PM PDT by lainie
now we're going around in circles :)
Crazy aint it?
Night lainie
Thanks for the ping
No. That is incorrect. There is no 50-different-VOIP-standards to fight over, and even if there was, WHO CARES. He just wants to regulate and tax it.
That footage was priceless. The Silky Pony, in its natural habitat.
'nite!
Im not upset
Perhaps irrational
But not upset.
Night ;^)
maybe you should do a little research first. Right now there are not 50 standard because it's too new. But states are already trying to regulate VOIP providers (with no presence inside their state) like traditional phone companies.
More will follow. They will regulate and tax them to death.
Read exactly what is in the story:
"Powell told a receptive audience at an industry conference that letting states regulate Voice over Internet Protocol,or VoIP, services would lead to a patchwork of conflicting rules like those which have ensnarled the traditional phone business for decades. "
That's what is starting to happen and what will continue to happen as states try to get a slice of the pie and a piece of power to control these companies. What he wants to do (and he's talking to the industry itself here, with their approval) is to keep states from regulating it by making it a federal matter. One set of rules to follow instead of 50. That's why the VOIP industry is in favor of it.
""There is no need to organize a regulatory regime around permits and prices and costs as we have done for nearly a century with common carriers," Powell added. "
I have done plenty of research. VOIP need not be "for sale." That is the whole point.
your on to the truth.
night FB
well, that works as long as you have the whuppin stick in hand to clobber the feds too.
A federal power grab onto something that is far and away over the heads of these monopoly companies, for purposes of control and taxation, and you're both applauding it?
http://news.com.com/States%2C+feds+headed+for+VoIP+clash/2100-7352_3-5217512.html
Sometimes there is a need for the federal government to step in to stop the states from screwing up the internet - just like they did with the moratorium on taxes in the 90's.
I wonder if he actually uses Breck, or the horse shampoo from australia?
There is never a need, imo, unless one state requests it regarding another states' infringing on its rights, and then, ONLY where the feds have jurisdiction. Voice-over-internet does NOT fall under that. You may control your chat and email bits, and I believe you may control your voice bits too, should you so desire. The difference is you won't be able to call an existing infrastructure phone number, big deal.
They can't stop it and it's fruitless to try.
no Im not applauding it.
unscrupoulous buisness men must be watched ..we aint all in it for humanity..the gov has to have over sight. but they are human too and and aint all in it for humanity..
Keep scrutinizing and be fair.
we own this system
Thats all i'm trying to say
The IETF will work out the standards, not the states. This is bigger than any one governmental entity. It's like saying that there will be state standards for JPG files transferred over the net. That's ludicrous.
I see Yahoo Messenger, AOL Instant Messenger, ICQ, Earthlink's messenger, IRC, etc. etc. all existing without federal intervention. When one becomes the Killer App and makes gobs of money somehow, maybe everyone will gravitate there. Until then, let the chips fall baby! VOIP within the Internet's no different. Bits is bits.
"There is never a need, imo, unless one state requests it regarding another states' infringing on its rights, and then, ONLY where the feds have jurisdiction. Voice-over-internet does NOT fall under that. You may control your chat and email bits, and I believe you may control your voice bits too, should you so desire. The difference is you won't be able to call an existing infrastructure phone number, big deal. "
That's a very big deal. You can't call to a cell number, or your aunt's land line number in boise unless she gets online? That's a pretty big concession there.
And states are already trying to regulate it. On companies not even operating inside their states. To them it doesn't matter what phone line you call. What matters to them is that THEY call it 'long distance' and it's good enough for them to get a piece of the pie.
That IS the issue, and is why the FCC has a constitutionally correct 'in' with the ICC to stop states from killing the goose.
That's what he wants to do, and the people that he was speaking to, who operate voip companies, want him to do in order to keep the states froms screwing it up.
read the link to news.com provided above. It's not about 'standards'. It's about regulation. That's what he wants to prevent - 50 different sets of regulations enacted all over the country.
Go for it. http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~jain/refs/ref_voip.htm
There are VoIP networks out there that the government has never heard of, and will never get its arms around.
What FCC wants to do is get the telco competitors (cable companies) under control in order to avoid bloodshed among the telcos. If a major telco like Verizon or Bell South goes under due to price competition, the damage to the national telecomm infrastructure will be catastrophic.
FCC won't let that happen, of course, and regulation is far better than a bailout.
Not if she, too, has a VOIP number.
States can "try to regulate" the taste of lima beans, if they want. They can't possibly regulate companies not operating within their borders, that's silly. That's like the rest of the world crying and whining about the Internet starting (and much of its backbone being) in the USA. Boo freakin' hoo.
The only way a state would get that kind of 'piece of the pie' is with the federal government's help, no? With the very same kind of operation you're advocating here tonight.
the people that he was speaking to, who operate voip companies, want him to do in order to keep the states froms screwing it up.
Of course that's what a 'company selling VOIP' would want him to do. The states are not going to screw up anything. This is a RUSE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.