From: tbyfield@panix.com (t byfield)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: ef4c5da96349060cce1aabc3ce4006a5fac427f9eeb42207d7290dd53232ceab
Message ID: <v02120d03ad677c92f452@DialupEudora>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-03-09 21:23:08 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 05:23:08 +0800
From: tbyfield@panix.com (t byfield)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 05:23:08 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: FCC & Internet phones
Message-ID: <v02120d03ad677c92f452@DialupEudora>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 12:47 PM 3/9/96, Mutant Rob wrote:
>Yes... but the Internet is not like HAM radio. The FCC has no
>jurisdiction outside the US, and it would cause various problems
>for them to try to regulate the use of IPhone or how ISPs operate.
Question of how practical enforcement would be haven't been big in a lot of the legislation we've seen coming out of various capitals, so I doubt the situation for bureaucratic rule-mongering would be much different. The WP article said that has ACTA has "asked the [FCC] to stop this kind of communications and study how to regulate it," probably--and not surprisingly --in that order.
It looks like another case of trying to saddle ISPs with impossible enforcement burdens, though in this case one that a lot of ISPs might not mind so much, given the bandwidth that netphone usage eats up (cf. xs4all, I hear, has forbidden users to run CU-SeeMe).
Q: Is it practically possible to find netphone traffic on a generic network at any level above the source and target addresses?
Ted
Return to March 1996
Return to “tbyfield@panix.com (t byfield)”
1996-03-09 (Sun, 10 Mar 1996 05:23:08 +0800) - Re: FCC & Internet phones - tbyfield@panix.com (t byfield)