Skype asks FCC to open up cellular networks

Ars Technica by Nate Anderson | Feb. 21, 2007 (News Report)

Skype yesterday petitioned the FCC to lay the smack down on wireless phone carriers who "limit subscribers' right to run software communications applications of their choosing" (read: Skype software). Skype wants the agency to more stringently apply the famous 1968 Carterfone decision that allowed consumers to hook any device up to the phone network, so long as it did not harm the network. In Skype's eyes, that means allowing any software or applications ... Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: Business, Sci/Tech, Extra
Topics: Technology
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - Feb 22, 2007 - 9:18 AM PST
Reviewed by: Kaizar Campwala (review), Paul-André Raymond (review)
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Paul-André Raymond
4.2
 by Paul-André Raymond - Oct. 1, 2008

Overall a good story on the evolution of Telecommunication regulation but not completely balanced and accurate. Eventhough I have not yet read the FCC petition, I felt there are some points where the author could have reported more accurately. For instance, he would need to be more specific about whether Skype is talking about SW or HW. The Carterphone decision is clearly HW and all the wireline example given are HW based. But Skype's case is SW base. If the argurment is HW based, then the author should mention that in a GSM environment today, nothing stops a user from using a non T-mobile or non Cingular certified phone (as long as it is GSM compliant). If the Argurment is SW based, then the author should mention that the fine ... More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
3.5
 by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008
Kaizar posted this story.
See Full Review » (1 answer)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.1

not enough reviews
from 2 reviews (20% confidence)
Quality
4.3
Facts
4.0
Information
5.0
Sourcing
5.0
Style
4.0
Accuracy
5.0
Balance
2.0
Context
4.0
Popularity
3.6
Recommendation
4.5
Credibility
3.0
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
1.4
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!