Re: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance

From: Jay R. Ashworth (no email)
Date: Sun Apr 03 2005 - 15:07:13 EDT

  • Next message: Randy Bush: "Re: botted hosts"

    On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 01:58:07PM -0800, David Barak wrote:
    > --- "Jay R. Ashworth" <> wrote:
    > > Actually, and I think the distinction is pertinent to this
    > > discussion, if the car has no seatbelts, you can drive it just fine
    > > -- as long as it came that way. You can't *sell* a car without
    > > seatbelts, anymore.
    >
    > That may be the rule in Florida, but in DC, MD, and UT (the states in
    > which I've lived in the past 2 decades), you can be be ticketed if you
    > are driving a car and not wearing a seatbelt.

    I'd have to check, but I believe the exemption for cars not originally
    equipped in in the Federal Uniform Model Traffic Statues, which I think
    the majority of states have adopted, at least in substantial part,
    though IANAL.

    Nope: Maryland makes the exception:

    http://mlis.state.md.us/cgi-win/web_statutes.exe?gtr&22-412.3

    If it wasn't manufactured with belts, you're not required to install
    them, but if they're there, you do have to wear them. I rather suspect
    the other jursidictions are similar.

    > To make this a little bit more relevant to our VoIP/911 discussion,
    > would we allow a startup car company to sell something which looked
    > like a seatbelt, but was not crash rated above 5 mph? No, of course we
    > wouldn't. Would that be anticompetitive? No, it just means that to be
    > a startup car company, you have to meet the same safety standards as
    > the existing car companies.

    Indeed.

    > If we want to take the analogy away from something which is a direct
    > safety issue, the exact same argument applies to emissions standards.
    > They're "standard" for a reason: they apply to everyone, and every car
    > maker must comply. (SUVs are classified as trucks, and comply with the
    > truck rules).

    Actually, I believe most SUV's are *not* classified as light trucks,
    with the exceptions of the Excursion and Hummer.

    > Why would these arguments not apply to VoIP?

    At this point, of course, I've lost track of what the argument is, in
    the delightful littls side trips. :-)

    <pinch>

    Cheers,
    -- jra

    -- 
    Jay R. Ashworth                                                
    Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
    Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
    St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274
          If you can read this... thank a system administrator.  Or two.  --me
    

  • Next message: Randy Bush: "Re: botted hosts"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD