Speak your curses louder, pal... some damfool neighbor of mine is getting
the hook-up from them as I type. [?]
And how does the day find you, sir?
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Badie wrote:
>
>
> Comcrap...Curses!
>
>
> --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com , Martin
> Baxter wrote:
> >
> > A victory only for the broadband industry and their lobbyists. [?][?]
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Keith Johnson 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 p
