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.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (7519)	7/6/2004 11:26:35 PM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Respond to of 46821

Hi Frank, >>They posit that "Voice is not a “type of network” but a higher-level application or traffic type flowing over networks defined at lower levels. Accordingly, all voice services should be considered to be an “information service.<< The TAC papers and Spectrum Policy Task Force were prelog. By Powell's December 2003 trip, all the current positions were visible : rpvss.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/calit2/Powell.rm <- RealOne A Conversation with Michael Powell The San Diego Telecom Council and the UCSD International Relations & Pacific Studies (IR/PS) co-sponsored "A Conversation with FCC Chairman Michael Powell" on December 9, 2003 at UCSD. Powell shared the stage with Peter Cowhey, Dean and Qualcomm Professor, The Graduate School of IR/PS; and Larry Smarr, Director of Cal-(IT)2 and CENIC Board Member. Cowley began the "conversation" on the subject of spectrum policy, saying that "spectrum is like Manhattan real estate." Powell said that the FCC is "listening to technology" for communications. Policy should be based on dynamics of technological evolution, e.g., power and miniaturization. We need to empower multiple paths to the home. Wireless is the most dramatic with unlicensed space a hot bed of innovation. The system of deciding who gets spectrum and what it's specifically used for is broken. Most of the spectrum is not used most of the time; "it's not about scarcity, it's about access." The Powell 2004 CTIA keynote was a replay of this talk, and having watched it a few times, I believe he is as sincere as it gets in DC in a Presidential election year. petere

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (7519)	7/8/2004 5:30:47 PM
From: CF Rebel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

They're here to help us... <<New Bill Would Place VoIP Under FCC Regulation Erika Morphy, www.newsfactor.com July 8, 2004 Two members of the U.S. House of Representatives have introduced legislation that would make VoIP an interstate service. Sponsored by Cliff Stearns (R-Florida), who chairs the Subcommittee on Commerce, and Rick Boucher (D-Virginia), who chairs the House Internet Caucus, the "Advanced Internet Communications Services Act" would place authority for VoIP regulation with the FCC (news - web sites) rather than with the states, thus avoiding the legal question of whether it is an information or a telecom service. Moving into Mainstream On Wednesday, industry executives testified before Congress, urging the legislative body to curtail the rights of states to levy taxes on their services. Allowing states to regulate VoIP would result in a "patchwork of premature, burdensome state legislation and regulations, crippling the domestic VoIP industry," Jeffrey Citron, chairman and CEO of Vonage, said in testimony before a House Energy and Commerce Committee panel. The situation is becoming more dire as VoIP moves into the mainstream, Ron Vidal, group vice president for emerging opportunities at Level 3 Communications, told Congress. "It wasn't long ago that VoIP occupied the fringes of the telecom world -- as a niche application of interest only to hard-core technologists," he said. "Recently, however, VoIP has been able to replicate the quality of the public switched telephone network at far lower cost, while delivering new features and functionality not possible over older, legacy network systems." Push Back To be sure, the lobbying from the other side is just as intense. Incumbent carriers, subject to state regulations, "are making a lot of noise about this, which is putting pressure on regulators and politicians," Frost & Sullivan senior analyst Jon Arnold told NewsFactor. "They believe VoIP should be subject to the same rules as circuit-based technology." The phone companies stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars if nothing is done, says Yankee Group analyst Zeus Kerravala. "Carriers are pushing regulation, because VoIP changes the game in terms of how voice services are delivered," he told NewsFactor. The Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) -- not to mention the federal courts -- also has wrestled with this issue, rarely reaching consensus. The new bill, if passed, would extend federal jurisdiction to all IP services, including cable, thus bypassing states' regulatory bodies.>>