| Navigation Links:
:: Home :: Feedback ::
:: Disclaimer :: Sitemap ::
- Muni BB
- - MuniBB Notes
- District of Columbia
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- West Virginia
Pennsylvania Statute Title 18 § 3933 . Unlawful use of computer.
(a) Offense defined.-- A person commits the offense of unlawful use of a computer if he, whether in person, electronically or through the intentional distribution of a computer virus:
intentionally or knowingly engages in a scheme or artifice, including, but not limited to, a denial of service attack, upon any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer program, computer server or data base or any part thereof that is designed to block, impede or deny the access of information or initiation or completion of any sale or transaction by users of that computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer program, computer server or data base or any part thereof.
- accesses , exceeds authorization to access, alters, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network , computer software, computer program or data base or any part thereof, with the intent : to interrupt the normal functioning of an organization or to devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive or control property or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises;
- intentionally and without authorization accesses , alters, interferes with the operation of, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network , computer software, computer program or computer data base or any part thereof;
- intentionally or knowingly and without authorization gives or publishes a password, identifying code, personal identification number or other confidential information about a computer, computer system, computer network or data base.
Change is in the Airwaves: A Documentary about the Philadelphia Wireless Initiative from George Rausch on Vimeo.
Under the terms of the proposal, no City or taxpayer dollars will be used to fund the project. EarthLink will finance, build and manage the wireless network, and provide Wireless Philadelphia with revenue sharing fees to help support the Wireless Philadelphia Non-Profit Corporation."
The federal jurisdictional and regulatory framework remains uncertain as the FCC has just issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for IP-enabled services, including VoIP. On March 11, 2004, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to determine the appropriate regulatory treatment of IP-enabled services. Specifically, the NPRM asks which regulatory requirements - such as those relating to E911, disability accessiblity, access charges, and universal service- should be extended to different types of IP-enabled services. In addition, the FCC's NPRM asks broad questions covering a wide range of services and applications to differentiate between IP-enabled services and traditional telephony services and to distinguish among different classes of IP-enabled services. In doing so, the FCC asks further questions on the legal and regulatory framework for each type of IP-enabled service and relevant jurisdictional considerations for each category. Moreover, there are several pending cases before the FCC related to VoIP. Thus, it would be premature for this Commission to take action until such time as the FCC has provided guidance on this issue.
Furthermore, in order to render an informed decision about how to proceed with the various issues surrounding VoIP technology, we need to better understand the technology and its various applications. In addition, under the “Nascent Service Doctrine,” regulators should exercise restraint when faced with new technologies and services. If regulation is too oppressive while a technology is still developing, it could result in a dampening of the introduction or growth of that technology. Although there are instances where regulatory intervention is proper (such as market failure or consumer abuse), regulatory restraint is more prudent until such time as the technology is understood and viable. This Commission should not leap into a regulatory scheme until the full impact on this technology is understood.
Having reviewed the Comments and Reply Comments it appears as if the Commission might have grounds under which it could assert jurisdiction and regulation. Indeed, as this technology is better understood and as the FCC clarifies its jurisdictional and regulatory approach, it might be appropriate for this Commission to define a regulatory role. However, at this time, such determinations are premature.
Because the dialogue on VoIP is just beginning, the most prudent course of action for this Commission is to refrain from reaching any conclusion regarding jurisdictional and policy issues at this time. The Commission directs Staff to continue to monitor this issue at the state and federal levels and to make ongoing recommendations to the Commission.
Motion of C Glen Thomas Closing Investigation April 15, 2004
- We note that in approving these privately negotiated agreements, including any provisions limiting unbundled access to Verizon PA's network, we express no opinion regarding the enforceability of our independent state authority preserved by 47 USC. § 251(d) (3) and any other applicable law. Furthermore, we note that our approval of these private agreements should not be construed to be the Commission's opinion regarding the appropriateness of the agreement's classification of VoIP or other matters concerning VoIP, including but not limited to, intercarrier compensation.
We shall minimize the potential for discrimination against other carriers not a party to Amendment No. 1 by providing here that our conditional approval of Amendment No. 1 shall not serve as precedent for agreements to be negotiated or arbitrated by other parties. This is consistent with our policy of encouraging settlements. (52 Pa. Code § 5.231; see also, 52 Pa. Code § 69.401, et seq., relating to settlement guidelines, and our Statement of Policy relating to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Process, 52 Pa. Code § 69.391, et seq.). On the basis of the foregoing, we find that Amendment No. 1 does not discriminate against any telecommunications carrier not a party to the negotiations.
TA 96 requires that the terms of Amendment No. 1 be made available for other parties to review (§252(h)). However, this availability is only for purposes of full disclosure of the terms and arrangements contained therein. The accessibility of Amendment No. 1 to the prior Agreement and the terms to other parties connotes no intent that our approval will affect the status of negotiations between other parties. In this context, we will not require the Parties to embody the terms of Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement in a filed tariff, but we will require that the Parties file Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with this Commission. Amendment No. 1 shall be retained in the public file for inspection and copying consistent with the procedures relating to public access to documents.