MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614545387

Different Routes to the Same Competitive Destination: VOIP Regulation in the United States and Canada

2008· article· en· W2614545387 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen Rodini

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoice over IPBusinessTelecommunicationsAdvertisingComputer scienceThe InternetWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet Telephony, also known as Voice over the Internet Protocol ("VoIP") has changed the way people communicate with one another.Not only is it cheap, but it also offers many features previously unavailable with telephones.This innovation, however, comes at a price for regulators, as the nature of the technology creates unique (and previously unheard of) regulatory obstacles.As such, VolP presents an interesting scenario for both the U.S. and Canadian governments.In response, both have attempted to address the issue via their own methods.However, for the technology to be truly viable, these governments need to pay close attention to the consumer uptake of VoIP, as well as the potential for anti-competitive harm by providers.In doing so, they must apply the appropriate regulation where necessary and leave certain portions of the market unregulated.If properly executed, regulators stand to have a great chance of ensuring VoIP' s viability for the near future. I. What is VoIP anyway?VoIP allows users to make phone calls over an Internet broadband connection. 1 This use of Internet technology is a dramatic shift from "traditional" telephony (which is based over phone lines).By using the Internet, VoP allows users to access many more features than with 2 traditional telephony.For instance, industry analysts invite us to "imagine a phone call with your mother, she instantly messages you her meatloaf recipe, t Stephen Rodini is a recent graduate of Case Western Reserve University School of Law.He cultivated an interest in US and Canadian telecommunications law and policy through a position with MCI Corp's International Regulatory Affairs Department upon graduation from College.During law school he interned with the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division.Case Western Reserve University School of Law Student Note.Voice-Over-Internet Protocol, Consumer & Governmental Aff.Bureau, httP://www.fcc.gov/voip (last visited Mar. 20, 2008).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0200.007
Scholarly communication0.0130.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicSharing Economy and PlatformsFrench-language works237,207