 
Supafly
Premium
join:2000-07-15
Elk Grove, CA
| It's the lesser of two evils I'd rather have a single group handle it then 50 different ones.
Of course I'd rather not have it regulated at all, but whatever, the government will do whatever it wants to as long as it can line it's pockets well enough. | |
|  | 
Seandhi
Seeing From a New Level
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Humble, TX
| Re: It's the lesser of two evils Federal intervention is BAD. Our founding fathers did not want to federal government to have any power other than that granted to it by the states. Today it is bass ackwards, in that the states are always looking to the federal government for permission.
Competition is good. When the states have control over their own, we win. Whenever you grant power to One federal government, you create a monopoly in which we lose.
--
Do you really think that your representatives are representing you? Vote for the American People, vote Libertarian.»www.lp.org | |
| | | 
Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Packet8
| Re: It's the lesser of two evils Here I disagree. States don't compete against each other, so there is no such thing as market for regulation.
Since VoIP streches beyond single state, it becomes an interstate business. Therefore it's under federal supervision.
Regulation of 911 is a good idea. But taxation and anti-competetive regulation will destroy this good alternative to POTS
--
We are the Borg! Resistance Is Futile! You Will Be Assimilated! | |
| | | |
Seandhi
Seeing From a New Level
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Humble, TX
| Re: It's the lesser of two evils States do compete with each other. Why do you think your state, city, and neighborhoods (school districts, MUD's) all have chambers of commerce?
States compete to have lowest taxes, best job markets, user friendliest laws (Nevada). The more people, the more money. However, we are seeing that the feds are flaunting their power (Nevada again) to stop what the states have rights to do.
This competition is slowing fading. It should be up to VoIP providers to move to states where there is friendly regulation. If the states want to play tough, then providers don't provide for that state. The Feds should only stick there nose in interstate disputes.
--
Do you really think that your representatives are representing you? Vote for the American People, vote Libertarian.»www.lp.org | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| Well You have a point.
But then some states can pressure VoIP to favor POTS in form of taxation and unfriendly laws.
After some thinking, I believe that Feds should have only small control of basic standards and services of VoIP and states should have remaining power.
--
We are the Borg! Resistance Is Futile! You Will Be Assimilated! | |
| | | | | |
Seandhi
Seeing From a New Level
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Humble, TX
| Re: It's the lesser of two evils said by Tomek  :
But then some states can pressure VoIP to favor POTS in form of taxation and unfriendly laws.
In that situation, hopefully the citizens of that state would realize that they are obviously in bed with the POTS providers. They would then summarily vote out their representatives in the next election.
Some would argue that people would just remain ignorant (as most do today), but most people today are so caught up in federal politics that they completely miss out on what is going on locally. If they didn't worry about the Feds, and how many months we have to work to pay the IRS, they might have a little more time to spend worrying about local issues.
--
Do you really think that your representatives are representing you? Vote for the American People, vote Libertarian.»www.lp.org | |
| | | | | | | 
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: It's the lesser of two evils quote:
In that situation, hopefully the citizens of that state would realize that they are obviously in bed with the POTS providers. They would then summarily vote out their representatives in the next election.
In one instance you seem to be interested in letting the states decide (per the people's choice) the stance for VoIP instead of the federal government.
All of a sudden, your position changes to state that the states should decide; however, if they choose to regulate VoIP the same as POTS, then the people have chosen WRONG and they should vote their state leaders out of office for "getting in bed with POTS."
Gee... sounds a bit like saying, "I think people should vote and let the voice of the people speak! If they vote in a way that I don't agree with, though, they have been duped by the competition and should open their eyes to the fact that they voted WRONG!"
Boogie | |
| | | | | | | |
Seandhi
Seeing From a New Level
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Humble, TX
| Re: It's the lesser of two evils Isn't that what voting is all about? If they vote in a way that I don't agree with, then 'YES' I will vote my representatives out. I don't see how I made a contradictory statement.
Besides, if you read the post that I was responding to, you would see what I was talking about. He/she was worring that the state would be unfair with the VoIP providers. I replied according to what I think should/would happen. | |
| | | | | | | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: It's the lesser of two evils said by Seandhi :
Isn't that what voting is all about? If they vote in a way that I don't agree with, then 'YES' I will vote my representatives out. I don't see how I made a contradictory statement.
Besides, if you read the post that I was responding to, you would see what I was talking about. He/she was worring that the state would be unfair with the VoIP providers. I replied according to what I think should/would happen.
That is exactly what voting is about. However, it stops becoming a voicing of your opinion when you (and this is not an accusation) begin a smear campaign to publicly demand that the ONLY reason that your voice and vote wasn't the winning choice is because of corruption and a "fixing" of the vote.
It is ENTIRELY possible that other people don't agree with you. It isn't "obviously" a fixed election or decision made "against what everyone REALLY wanted for the benefit of a tiny minority."
Boogie | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Seandhi
Seeing From a New Level
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Humble, TX
| Re: It's the lesser of two evils said by Tomek :
But then some states can pressure VoIP to favor POTS in form of taxation and unfriendly laws.
This quote, to me, meant that the states may be in bed with the ILEC's. I may have looked at the quote the wrong way. But if there were are large public outcry against a law that seemed to suit ILEC's agenda, then the voters should and would vote their representatives out.
Obviously, smear campaigns are run all too often in this country, and it would not be a good idea to have more. I only call for the power to slip out of the FCC's hands (from hands in which we have no vote), to the states' hands (where the power should be, and where we have the right to vote).
--
Do you really think that your representatives are representing you? Vote for the American People, vote Libertarian.»www.lp.org | |
| | | | | wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| said by Seandhi :
States do compete with each other. Why do you think your state, city, and neighborhoods (school districts, MUD's) all have chambers of commerce?
According to a recent Washington Post article, it's really not even state-to-state competition anymore -- certain cities are stealing the talent and brainpower from other cities nationwide. It's a pretty bleak article, actually:
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar···ov8.html
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
| | | DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| said by Seandhi :
Federal intervention is BAD. Our founding fathers did not want to federal government to have any power other than that granted to it by the states. Today it is bass ackwards, in that the states are always looking to the federal government for permission.
Competition is good. When the states have control over their own, we win. Whenever you grant power to One federal government, you create a monopoly in which we lose.
Errrr.
Your assumptions about the Founding Fathers is not entirely correct.
I refer to Article VI, 2nd paragraph, also known as the Supremacy Clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In essence, as has been interpreted by the courts and legislators, this clause asserts that national laws take precedence over state and local laws when they conflict.
When included with the Necessary and Proper Clause, it has been shown by legions of political scientists that the Founding Fathers wished for the federal government to intervene with the states as the federal government deemed necessary, establishing the idea of a strong federal government. | |
| | | | navidh
join:2003-11-08
Okeechobee, FL | Re: It's the lesser of two evils Really? Then why put the 9th and 10th Amendments in the U.S. Constitution? Also, what's your take on Federalist 10 and 51? | |
| | | | | DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| Re: It's the lesser of two evils said by navidh :
Really? Then why put the 9th and 10th Amendments in the U.S. Constitution? Also, what's your take on Federalist 10 and 51?
The 10th amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."
This does not denigrate the idea of a strong federal government; it merely points out what powers and rights go where and who has control of them.
Since regulation of telecomminications is consdered to be one of the implied powers of Congress [as per court rulings], it can be said the 9th and 10th do not apply in this instance.
My take on Federalist Papers #10 & #51 is that they were extremely useful arguments by the Federalist for the proposal of a strong federal government - which is what they wanted.
#10 is mostly concerned with the idea that the USC is designed to "break and control the violence of faction". I consider this to be an excellent idea and one that has sadly been thrown aside since the rise of power of the political party machinery in post-Civil War politics.
#51 is a very nice argument that checks and balances between the three branches of the federal government are necessary to control tyranny. Of course, I certainly agree with that. | |
| 
Agent 86
| It's ALWAYS time to be suspicious I guess it takes one (heavy-handed regulator) to know one. | |
| 
Wall9
Tell Me, Did You See It Too?
Premium
join:2002-06-25
Dupo, IL | That's Crap Sigh~ | |
| | 
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: That's Crap Browser fart...dup post...ignore. | |
| |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Sure, if you're a politican looking for telco money or another way of stealing more taxes.
What Hundt thinks is irrelevant. | |
| | jljohn0605
join:2002-12-30
Arabi, LA | I agree with Hundt, we should be suspicious just like we were with him and Clinton!!!! Look at all the crap he caused!! | |
| | |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: That's Crap That doesn't mean we should automatically disagree with the FCC's position that states shouldn't willy-nilly start taxing the crap out of VoIP (which is all their regulation attempts are about).
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG | |
| | navidh
join:2003-11-08
Okeechobee, FL | What a thoughtful response.
--
Gratefully,Navid | |
| 
cyberthugin
join:2002-03-12
Kew Gardens, NY |  Ya Okay
| |
| |
Seandhi
Seeing From a New Level
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Humble, TX | Re: Ya Okay They are more worried about getting the money from it. | |
| stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
| It Might Not Be as Bad as It Sounds Jeff Pulver (founder of FWD and a major player in the founding of Vonage) was present at this FCC's chair's speech. Here is his take on the same:
"Yesterday I had the pleasure to be part of a panel discussion which was hosted by Warren Communications and included both Dr. Robert Pepper of the FCC and John Rego, CFO, Vonage.
The hour and a half roundtable discussion touched on a number of direct questions regarding the future regulation of VoIP and despite Reed Hundt's comments on Tuesday, it is my belief that while the FCC is going forward with their VoIP NPRM, this does not guarantee that the FCC in 2004 or 2005 will actually put in place new regulations in the VoIP sector. In fact, what may happen is the continuation of nothing much other than direct notice to the States not to regulate IP Communications.
While there are a number of issues which need to get addressed and which will get addressed by the IP Communications industry over time, I don't see any direct indications that the FCC is about to start regulating VoIP anytime soon.
Ideally I would like to see the advent of IP Communications become the reason for the introduction of de-regulation of the Communications sector in the US."
(lifted from www.pulver.com)
From his take, it might not be as done a deal as the other writer's article suggested. | |
| | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: It Might Not Be as Bad as It Sounds It wouldn't be the first of Pulver's predictions that was wrong....
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13 | Re: It Might Not Be as Bad as It Sounds True, but Jeff was sitting right next to the guy. I'm not quoting him as a profit. I'm quoting him as a witness. | |
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: How do they plan on regulating FREE VoIP? Since Bellheads are monopolists at heart, they are capable of thinking only inside the box.
For them, there's the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and nothing else.
They may regulate all VoIP that interconnects with the PSTN, but Sarick is right--they can never regulate SIP, all they can do is drive the registration servers offshore, and drive business totally (instead of partially) off of the PSTN.
Wanting all of the pie, they will instead get nothing in the end--whereas they could survive, if they only shared. Not much chance of that, methinks....
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | |
southern insider
@pacbell.n
| Re: How do they plan on regulating FREE VoIP? calvoiper quote:
Since Bellheads are monopolists at heart, they are capable of thinking only inside the box.
For them, there's the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and nothing else.
This statement and many similar statements by other anti-bell plants are excellent examples of typical thinking of someone outside the game. Way to show your unbiased thinking. I can’t argue that everyone has a right to an opinion. We do live in America.
quote:
They may regulate all VoIP that interconnects with the PSTN, but Sarick is right--they can never regulate SIP, all they can do is drive the registration servers offshore, and drive business totally (instead of partially) off of the PSTN.
Your right. You can’t today regulate SIP compliant phones, but an ISP can easily block UDP ports and/or take this traffic off their network completely. You’ve got to remember who owns the customer. Usually never the application provider – it’s the access provider. The likelihood of taking things off shore is shaky. Let’s ask those guys who started the off-shore betting sites if they would like to come home to the USA (just to be arrested)?
quote:
Wanting all of the pie, they will instead get nothing in the end--whereas they could survive, if they only shared. Not much chance of that, methinks....
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
I don’t think any of the CableCo or bell’s are worried about the BPC’s (broadband phone companies). What are they sharing? The incumbents know that voice will be free soon enough. Then what do the BPC's really have? Personally, I believe this legal rhetoric is a red herring of sort. The Bell’s and CableCo’s would love nothing more than the local PUC’s and FCC to unregulated broadband voice. If this happens, it will be the death knell of the remaining BPC’s
Southern Insider
"Go Hokies!" | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: How do they plan on regulating FREE VoIP? The interesting point in the above post is the implied threat for access providers (ISPs) to block traffic and thereby continue to monopolize their customers.
Typical, Bellhead, "I OWN the customer" thinking, which will sink them.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: How do they plan on regulating FREE VoIP? I forgot to mention three other points--
First, unlike some of the offshore betting guys, the offshore SIP guys ARE home--they aren't US citizens, and may well not care or worry about what the US thinks of their business. Unlike betting, there won't be huge sums of cash to track out of the US, and it won't be nearly as high-profile a target. Different game entirely.
Second, the approach you suggest makes as much sense as the attempts to keep strong encryption a US-only product. It ran overseas, and all we did was lose the business.
Finally, I must repeat my favorite mantra--unregistered posters always seem to be Bellhead shills. Why is it that so few of you Bell supporters seem to have enough courage of your convictions to even register? Or is it that you are all, in the end, the same 3 people?
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | 
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
 ·Comcast
| ...by regulating your internet access. All these fees in your phone bill that the telco passes down to you could easily be tacked onto your ISP bill.
Let's face it, regulation here amounts to simply taxing you more. The government does little to nothing to improve VoIP or provide broadband access to everyone. Why then should it collect more of your hard earned money? | |
| hroo772
Darkness Fears Me
Premium
join:2002-04-05
Mclean, VA
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Bells need pressure Seeing that it used to be a whole company (BELLS) that were the monopoly of the USA in the 80's had to be broken up. I think that as long as the bells aren't getting my money and that the government isn't charging up th a$$ to have VOIP regulated then the FCC would have done its job. Also since AT&T started trials of using VOIP it gives the point that somebody in the business world thinks that it is a good idea. I hope the government doesn't slap any unnecessary laws onto it(DCMA).
--
| |
| 
Sisqo
World Champs. Babe Who?
Premium
join:2002-08-14
Methuen, MA
| It should be that way! I agree that the FCC are the ones that should be doing the regulating, but if they didn't take so long in doing so then states would not be taking this initiative.
Me myself I see no reason why VoIP providers should not be taxed & regulated the same as the bells! Now I know most of you are going to disagree with me, but fair is fair, & you have to admit that is not fair that Voip can provide telecommunications services without any regulation.
That is the bottom line & that's what this fight is about.
--
No it's not a payphone, it's a portable phone! | |
| ayal5
join:2001-04-05
Brooklyn, NY | Leave my Vonage alone I love my Vonage phone it works great and most importantly the bill isn't loaded with bs fees! Please leave it alone! | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | |
|
|
Powell to States:
·
How do they plan on regulating FREE VoIP?