Yes Pat, but it didn't do it on the basis of the 1st Amendment. As I understand it, the fine was to preserve "Net Freedom" (Powell's term) and although I like it, I still don't understand the legal basis for this action. It seems to me the Telco's ought to be concerned about this because if there is now a "must carry" rule for VoIP traffic, what happens when they start to offer TV/video? Will they be forced to allow competing networks to service their customers? (I don't mean specific channels because the analogy breaks down there). In other words, can I have an SBC broadband connection and bypass SBC's future TV offering to get my TV service (over that same broadband connection) from "PatTV"? If that's the case doesn't SBC lose some of its incentive to push broadband? (I presume the profit margin for the TV service will be much higher than for the access service, so that's where they'll expect to make their money, right?)
Regards,
Dean