Comcrap...Curses!
--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Martin Baxter <martinbaxt...@...> wrote:
>
> A victory only for the broadband industry and their lobbyists. [?][?]
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@...>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.
> >
> >
> >
>
