Thursday, May 04, 2006

The Senate's Telecom Bill

The Senate has come out with its own version of a telecom bill. It is being refered to as Steven's Bill. Its 135 pages, if you want to know wants in it, I'd skip to this analysis.

My 2 cents...
1.) Like the house bill it also has no build out requirements. I have heard talk of a build out amendment and I have asked for more info.
2.) The senate bill restricts localities to creating networks only if they partner with a private provider. Any hoops a locality must jump through slows the advancement of broadband and is a possible deterrent.
3.) Net neutrality is only going to be "studied" by the FCC.
4.) The bill creates a separate broadband fund of $500 million a year to provide broadband to unserved areas. This is great. The House bill had nothing like this. The language mostly says the FCC will set the rules for distributing the funds.


At 4:55 PM, Blogger Gary said...

I have a meeting scheduled with the Taos Town Manager and the Taos County manager next week. Do you know any websites/blogs that might give me insight re: what to expect...

Gary Ferguson

At 8:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Under Title IX, for-pay access to otherwise public sites could be allowed as long as it is possible to argue competitive forces keep prices in check. An ISP could charge its customers for access to certain sites even if the site itself is free. As an exmple, Road Runner could block access to AOL links . Netzero could block access to Netscape and any of them could block access to Google except for customers willing and able to pay a fee.

There will be unblocked competition that may restrain such activities; but it could be more subtle too. Flexible bandwidth which may or may not be exposed to the end customers.
Access might not be denied but may be irritatingly or unusably slow without paying for expanded bandwith to those sites. Alternatively, internet sites could help ISP's bandwith costs so long as those ISP's only used the extra bandwidth for users coming to their sites.

An FCC review is necessary. In that respect Title IX is a good addition to the bill but the title lacks teeth. What is the disincentive for an ISP to refrain from choosing to follow these practices?

At 4:43 PM, Blogger Drivin' in my car said...

Maybe, maybe not; but, when it comes to cars, this is the consensus!

At 7:35 PM, Blogger Jeff_Mills said...

I completely disagree with everything that everybody has said here. You're all way off. We need to investigate ways of utilizing the AC lines that already network all of our homes. With better code,like maybe some strange 4th order analog signal and better processing, 60 Hz is all you need.

Vote for me, Rasheed Wallace.

At 5:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paycheck Cash Advance
Cash Advances Online
Online Cash Advances
Payday Online
Best Payday
Faxless Cash Advance
No Fax Cash Advance
Instant Payday
Online Payday Loan
Payday Loan Online
Payday Online
Best Payday
Same Day Payday
Easy Payday
Pay Day Loan
Quick Payday
Fast Payday
Faxless Payday
Cash Advance Loan
Best Payday
Best Payday

At 11:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Post a Comment

<< Home