Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (511755)	12/17/2003 2:21:57 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 769670

Technology and choice By Dick Notebaert On Dec. 1, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) convened a public forum to discuss one of the most significant technologies to emerge in the telecommunications industry in years — Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). This new communications technology delivers voice calls over the Internet — a capability that will become more commonplace thanks to a number of recent developments. Although the FCC is only beginning to examine this issue, Chairman Michael Powell's comments at the VoIP forum demonstrate the commission's inclination to allow VoIP to develop free of regulatory shackles. Mr. Powell said that VoIP is an example of "the kind of real change that is sweeping the telecommunications market." However, the FCC chairman also recognizes that this type of "change produces anxiety for incumbents, for regulators, for politicians and for our citizens, who are confused by the dizzying array of new digital technologies by the new services." Qwest, however, looks at VoIP with excitement rather than anxiety because we believe that this open-minded approach is not only good for our industry but, more importantly, good for customers. The technology's potential cost savings alone — from 20 percent to 30 percent — makes it a logical choice for customers. And we strongly believe that in today's changing telecommunications marketplace, communications providers must view the business through the eyes of customers and deliver services that they need and want. That's the only way to remain competitive; the "build it and they will come" approach is no longer a viable option, because customers, not providers, now drive the product-development cycle. VoIP serves as further evidence that telecommunications competition is growing because of technological innovations, not regulatory oversight. Imagine if, in its infancy, the Internet had been over-regulated or unfairly and unnecessarily taxed? "The Information Superhighway" would have become one long toll road with very limited access. Instead, every day millions use the Internet to share ideas and information. Who among us would want it any other way? Although some telecommunications providers fear VoIP, Qwest embraces it. We believe in the transforming power of VoIP. Last week, we rolled out a VoIP offering to consumers in Minnesota, and we expect to broaden this offering to more customers in 2004. In October, when a U.S. District Court judge from Minnesota, Michael J. Davis, concluded that a VoIP provider "is an information service provider . . . [and] that information services such as those . . . must not be regulated by state law enforced by the MPUC [Minnesota Public Utilities Commission]," he opened the door to a broader, more aggressive deployment of VoIP. A technology that had been confined to a relative handful of large businesses and tech-savvy users now has the potential to reach further into the mass market. So, why are certain constituencies opposed to the broad deployment of VoIP? Because they are afraid of what this might do to existing communication service offerings. They see a steady, reliable revenue stream, already threatened by wireless number portability, now under attack on a new front — VoIP. Single-minded business interests must be cleared to allow providers to do what's best for consumers. Consumers deserve better than that. If VoIP is allowed to grow on its own, then the sky is the limit. The question is how — and how quickly — we can get there. The explosive growth of the Internet over the last decade could be an appropriate benchmark. In addition, all of the necessary components are in place for consumers to discover the benefits of VoIP: broadband penetration in this segment is growing substantially, while increased competition and offerings have led to greater choice and lower costs. Simply put, VoIP services are not a technology of the distant future — they are today's reality. It all comes down to choice, and consumers should be allowed to make their own choices. VoIP adoption and growth are good for business but, most importantly, they're good for customers. VoIP proves that technology is advancing at such a pace that regulators — no matter how well intentioned — cannot keep pace. Dick Notebaert is chairman and CEO of Qwest Communications International Inc., outgoing chairman of the FCC's Network Reliability and Interoperability Council and a member of President Bush's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee.

To: calgal who wrote (511755)	12/17/2003 2:22:22 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Constitutional sleuthing By Walter Williams I would like to enlist the services of my fellow Americans with a bit of detective work. Let's start off with hard evidence. The Federalist Papers were a set of documents written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to persuade the 13 states to ratify the Constitution. In one of those papers, Federalist Paper 45, James Madison wrote: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." If we turned James Madison's statement on its head, namely that the powers of the federal government are numerous and indefinite and those of the states are few and defined, we would describe today's America. Was Madison just plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before making our judgment, let's examine statements of other possibly misinformed Americans. In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims saying it was neither the purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve such spending "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." President Grover Cleveland was the king of the veto. He vetoed literally hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His often given reason was, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." Today's White House proposes and Congress taxes and spends for anything they can muster a majority vote on. My investigative query is: Were the Founders and previous congressmen and presidents, who could not find constitutional authority for today's bread and circuses, just plain stupid and ignorant? I don't believe in long-run ignorance or stupidity, so I reread the Constitution, looking to see whether an amendment had been passed authorizing Congress to spend money on bailouts for airlines, prescription drugs, education, Social Security and thousands of similar items in today's federal budget. I found no such amendment. Being thorough, I reread the Constitution and found what Congress might interpret as a blank check authorization — the "general welfare clause." Then I investigated further to see what the Framers meant by the "general welfare clause." In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." The Constitution's father, James Madison said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." My detective work concludes with several competing explanations. The first is that the great men who laid the framework for our nation were not only constitutionally ignorant but callous and uncaring, as well. The second is it's today's politicians who are constitutionally ignorant. Lastly, it's today's Americans who have contempt for the Constitution, and any congressman or president upholding the Constitution's letter and spirit would be tarred and feathered. Walter Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist.