At 5:23 PM -0400 10/8/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote: >On Oct 8, 2005, at 12:25 AM, John Curran wrote: >> >>That's a fine set of beliefs (and I might even agree with some of them). >>However, they're completely irrelevant to the existing school of thought >>which is guiding policy and legislation in this area, which is probably best >>represented by last month's House Telecom committee draft: >> >><http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/09152005_staff_disc.pdf> [1] >> >>There you go: mandatory ISP registration, interconnection, consumer >>protection, and more. Maybe these folks were too busy with other stuff to >>notice the Internet partition happen earlier in the week? >>Oh, wait, I remember now: these folks are only matter when legislating. > >You can't be serious. You're quoting a draft for a house bill as proof that >this is rational thought or justified?
Wow... You're characterizing me as trying to prove this is rational and justified thought? That's almost as cool as your earlier suggestion that I'm advocating for regulation. I'm not. I know that can be hard to tell unless you read my messages. What I have said that there is *significant* attention to the potential consumer impact of our "non-essential" IP services, and that's not surprising given the historic public policy in this area. I pointed to the bill under draft merely as documentation of this attention and to note that unless there is a radical shift in policy for telecom consumer protections, we are going to see some form of regulation as more voice moves to the Internet. /John
