| No Law = No Fine That's because they didn't violate a law or regulation, just some vague "policy statement" that has no teeth. |
|
|
|
| said by IPingUPing:That's because they didn't violate a law or regulation, just some vague "policy statement" that has no teeth. I agree. If Martin had pushed the FCC to do something more than this hand slap, he would have lost in court for sure. He is still hoping Comcast won't sue despite this weak censure.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to IPingUPing
besides a big fine would just be passed to the customer. not that the FCC cares about the customers any more then the providers do.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
| reply to IPingUPing
The FCC can't do an "end run" around its own rules This is correct. The FCC said that it's policy statement was not binding and did not constitute rulemaking (it did not go through a period of public comment where the public had a chance to point out potentially serious problems, such as the very dangerous “any application” clause).
To penalize Comcast would retroactively turn this nonbinding statement into a set of rules enacted without due process — an end run around the proper rulemaking procedure — and then enforce them ex post facto. Not only would this be unconstitutional, but it would be an end run around the FCC's own regulations and procedures for rulemaking. It would also be arbitrary and capricious, and thus violate laws regarding administrative procedure. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: No Law = No Fine Yes, it sounds to me that the Commission is saying their transgression wasn't that they were doing something illegal; rather, it was a "truth in advertising" issue. If they had disclosed that their Internet Access service included manipulation of certain types of traffic, they would have been in the clear. With the marekt-driven philosophy of the FCC, consumers then would use informed decision-making as to whether they should take their business elsewhere. |
|
