North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]

  • From: Gordon Cook
  • Date: Fri Nov 11 09:12:23 2005

Be careful Owen - i think you may be falling into a libertarian trap - worrisome because I respect highly things i have seen you write in past.

Think about what you are saying: " Something to consider about this proposed "regulation"... It is actually
in many ways proposed "deregulation"

Yes it is indeed. It frees the duopoly to do whatever it wants. And Whittacre has said what he wants and what he will do quite plainly -- has he not? He will charge google and yahoo and skype for using his networks.

Here is how this legislation is being read in London at a public telco blog recently launched by DRKW the large investment bank:

"For all of our sakes lets hope that the telcos are not successful in their lobbying effort in the US. If they are successful, you can bet that your investment in the fixed telecoms utilities is safer but innovation on the internet is in jeopardy - which do you think creates more incremental future value in the world ultimately?"

Vint Cerf is on my economics of IP networks private mail list. The DRKW blog post partially cited above came in part from a public item comment of Vint's that i posted day before yesterday to my private list. It is fascinating that Sean Donelan whom I have known and respected since 1991 dug that 1997 item quote from Vint from my archives. Donelan: "In 1997, Vint Cerf was advocating the necessity of usage based pricing when he was still with MCI.

COOK Report: Recall the date. This is PRE stupid network and again VINT is taking the pre-internet pre stupid network telco point of view. I'll post this to my list and see if Vint has anything that he wants to say about this 8 year old opinion.

Owen, do you want some legislation that gives the CEO of ATT/SBC the world largest dinosaur a blank check to do as he wishes with *HIS* network. This bills language is HIGHLY deceptive. I too despise government incompetence but giving Whittacre a blank check is IMHO much worse. But don't take my word for it - check out DRKW's analyst's opinion. Fred Goldstein also has a pretty good analysis. I probably will not further respond to this thread discussion. Please forgive me but I am swamped with many things that demand attention.

The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [email protected] Subscription
info: IMS and an Internet
Economic & Business Model at:

On Nov 11, 2005, at 1:38 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

Something to consider about this proposed "regulation"... It is actually
in many ways proposed "deregulation". This bill removes more authority
from the FCC and state and local governments than it grants. It provides
a very minimal framework of regulation, then, except for taxation and
a couple of other minor consumer protections, says "The government shall
butt the hell out."

That's why I like it.
But Owen - what if getting evil gov't out gives Whittacre a blank check?