A victory only for the broadband industry and their lobbyists. [?][?] On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@comcast.net>wrote:
> > > Man, this is really bad for us. I'm amazed that Comcast is allowed to block > certain types of traffic without telling subscribers. But then, this is the > same damn outfit that cut off service to subscribers who were using "too > much" bandwidth on downloads, but refused to give a number as to what > exactly the download limit in GB's was. > The FCC has been a weak, shortsighted body for years. Here they are > actually working on something good: bringing our communications > infrastructure up to the 20th century, and putting our Internet capabilities > into maybe the top 20 or so industrialized countries. And now this blow? > I am very disappointed... > > *********************************************************** > > http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/04/fcc_loses_comcasts_court_chall.html > > FCC loses Comcast's court challenge, a major setback for agency on > Internet policies > > *Comcast *on Tuesday won its federal lawsuit against the Federal > Communications Commission in a ruling that undermines the agency's ability > to regulate Internet service providers just as it unrolls a sweeping > broadband agenda. > > The decision also sparks pressing questions on how the agency will respond, > with public interest groups advocating that the FCC attempt to move those > services into a regulatory regime clearly under the agency's control. > > The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a 3-0 decision, > ruled that the FCC lacked the authority to require Comcast, the nation's > biggest broadband services provider, to treat all Internet traffic equally > on its network. > > That decision -- based on a 2008 ruling under former FCC chairman *Kevin > Martin* -- addresses Comcast's argument that the agency didn't follow > proper procedures and that it "failed to justify exercising jurisdiction" > when it ruled Comcast violated broadband principles by blocking or slowing a > peer-sharing Web site, Bit Torrent. > > But it also unleashed a broader debate over the agency's ability to > regulate broadband service providers such as *AT&T*, Comcast, and *Verizon > Communication*s. > > The judges focused on whether the FCC has legal authority over broadband > services, which are categorized separately from phone, cable television and > wireless services. The agency currently has only "ancillary authority" over > broadband services, a decision made by past agency leaders in an attempt to > keep the fast-moving Internet services market at an arm's distance from the > agency. > > A key part of the opinion: > > The Commission may exercise this "ancillary" authority only if it > demonstrates that its action . . . is "reasonably ancillary to the ... > effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities." The > Commission has failed to make that showing. > > The court's decision comes just days before the agency accepts final > comments on a separate open Internet regulatory effort this Thursday. And > the agency will be faced with a steep legal challenge going forward as it > attempts to convert itself from a broadcast- and phone-era agency into one > that draws new rules for the Internet era. > > *Andrew Schwartzman*, policy director for Media Access Project, said the > ruling "represents a severe restriction on the FCC's powers." > > Public interest groups have urged the agency to reclassify broadband > services so that they are more concretely under the agency's authority. The > FCC has been reluctant to say if it would do so, and a spokesperson didn't > immediately respond to a request for comment. > > Analysts said the agency may not be able to proceed on its net neutrality > policy -- a rule that Internet service providers have fought against. And > there is doubt the agency could reform an $8 billion federal phone subsidy > to include money to bring broadband services to rural areas. > > *Bruce Mehlman*, former assistant secretary of commerce for technology > policy, however, said the decision may help speed the development of faster > and more robust networks. > > "It may drive greater investment in broadband networks by removing > regulatory uncertainty and perceived disincentives to invest in > infrastructure," Mehlman said. > > >
<<323.gif>>
<<320.gif>>
