<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>The Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in Markey&amp;#8217;s Bark Worse Than His Bite</title><link>http://tlf.disqus.com/</link><description>The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:53:53 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Markey&amp;#8217;s Bark Worse Than His Bite</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/02/15/markeys-bark-worse-than-his-bite/#comment-1453381</link><description>&lt;p&gt;"These policies would become part of the Communications Act, but as all lawyers know, Congressional declarations aren’t enforceable"&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;What???  What about that favorite line from the Communications Decency Act, 47 USC 230 "It is the policy of the United States— (2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation"&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;47 USC 230 is entitled "Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material" but FCC Ch Powell morphed this into something somehow somewhere relevant to VoIP.  This has become the lead line in almost half of any filings or court deliberations dealing with VoIP.  Not sure what the work, "enforceable" means - it sure became policy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;B&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.cybertelecom.org/" rel="nofollow"&gt;Cybertelecom&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Robert Cannon</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:53:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Markey&amp;#8217;s Bark Worse Than His Bite</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/02/15/markeys-bark-worse-than-his-bite/#comment-1453380</link><description>I'm not a lawyer, so I don't necessarily understand what the bill does or doesn't do, but with that caveat I'd like to say that any attempt to amend Title I of the Communications Act scares me. The language that this bill adds to Title I in the present form isn't all that bad, but it could easily be amended along the way, and may emerge from conference with some real teeth.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;A lot of damage can be done by sleeper bills like this one.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">BubbaDude</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:39:52 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>