[tw]

IEEE stated that many Gulf States and Comcast bought a software package to subvert Skype packets. Also stated technically what that sofware does. Gulf states, in particular wanted this software because international phone calls were a major revenue source. Skype calls (and those from American call centers) were severely reducing tax revenues.

Comcast denied buying that software.

U.S. broadband-cable companies are considered information services, which by law gives them the right to block VoIP calls. Comcast Corp., in Philadelphia, the country's largest cable company, is already a Narus customer;

UT's argument was

YES, tw, my argument is that they probably weren't doing it because nobody has any indication that they were.

Then the FCC accused Comcast of subverting Skype packets. They bought the software to do it. Then did it. Somehow that was debunked?

UT knows that is wrong by ignoring what both the IEEE and FCC said. George Jr also admitted Saddam did not have those WMDs. UT insisted they must exist even after George Jr admitted they did not. It goes to how UT's mind works.

Is subverting VoIP traffic legal? That is part of the contraversy, still unresolved, if VoIP is an “information service” or a “telecommunications service” (data transporter). A major decision in 2010 put a kink into that resolution.

UT: if you know Comcast did not subvert Skype packets, then explain why both he IEEE and FCC said they bought the software and were doing it. Somehow working in call center means you know more than the FCC and IEEE? Understand what is an information service vs. a telecommuniation service?

BTW I am still awaiting these citations.