 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Comcast best watch their step Dems need a boogeyman in this years' mid terms and given endless price increases cable operators like Comcast would make for ripe targets for Congressional do-nothings. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | It's widely expected that the FCC will now try to reclassify broadband services as Title 2 common carriage, giving them broader authority. That's going to mean additional legal and political battles not only with Comcast, but with carriers like AT&T and Verizon. And that will ALSO meet with failure. The FCC has run away from that exact strategy for years and they also don't have the authority to make that decision anyway. They would lose in court. The Congress has to rewrite the FCC's powers with a new act.
--
NCAA® March Madness on Demand® |
|
| And that will ALSO meet with failure. Not necessarily at all. Many policy wonks (not paid to argue otherwise) believe the FCC has a much better case to establish title 2 authority... |
|
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
1 edit | reply to Romney2012
Your own post is counter to your argument. In an election year Congress could very well use Comcast as a distraction by writing new legislation to regulate ISPs. That's my point. Comcast is a good "boogeyman" for politicians trying to appear like they're doing the peoples' work. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by Z80A:Your own post is counter to your argument. In an election year Congress could very well use Comcast as a distraction by writing new legislation to regulate ISPs. That's my point. Comcast is a good "boogeyman" for politicians trying to appear like they're doing the peoples' work. If you went to the link included in the post, you would see that the NEW legislation I suggest would severely limit the FCC's authority. But it would recognize the fact that the palying field is now chgd with Voice, data, video, etc all merging.
FCC should be given SPECIFIC, LIMITED rule making authority in the communications arena. And those powers should be limited to the technical aspects of managing spectrum and coordination of standards so that all providers can inter-communicate successfully.
--
NCAA® March Madness on Demand® |
|
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Congress has no interest in limited anything, other than the peoples' capacity to keep what they earn. "What should happen" completely escapes this Government. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:And that will ALSO meet with failure. Not necessarily at all. Many policy wonks (not paid to argue otherwise) believe the FCC has a much better case to establish title 2 authority... For reclassify: »www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/pk-n···0126.pdf
Against reclassify: »blog.pff.org/archives/2010/02/ru···n_r.html
--
NCAA® March Madness on Demand® |
|
2 edits | reply to Romney2012
All I can say is thank god you aren't in a position to do anything about it. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by digitalfreak:All I can say is thank god you aren't in a position to do anything about it. Neither is the FCC, apparently.. as it shouldn't be in the first place.
Have you listened to, or thought much about what and who the FCC is and who they THINK they are? The FCC needs to get back to what it was originally intended.. they also need to stop acting like they're some kinda of governing body with powers like that of Congress themselves. The FCC also needs to stop treading on the constitutional fine line they tread on and often cross.
Personally, I'm happy that the FCC was ruled against on this case... is that to say that I'm happy with what Comcast did? No... but I'm not going to throw aside anything important (the FCC's belief that they have powers that they don't actually have in the first place) over a case of Internet use. (which is owned by a non-public company in the first place)
If there is going to be any kind of control over Internet traffic, how it's sold, how it's used, etc. then those rules need to come from the proper place in government. I don't care if it's states that set the rules, the federal government or what-not, I just don't think that the over-reaching FCC is the place for this.
I think this case will ultimately open up more than just the FCC 'trying' to re-classify internet services as Karl posted.. I think this case will ultimately wind up getting the FCC "re-classified" as well as to what their job function, and most important, their powers, really are.
Think about it.. the FCC.. how many, or how few people, sit on that board? .. and of those people, how many people are they "representing" again? A very small group of people ultimately decide and shape the landscape of communications in this country of a few hundred million - and when last I checked, I had elected a representative in my state to handle these matters FOR me... |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | said by fiberguy:said by digitalfreak:All I can say is thank god you aren't in a position to do anything about it. The FCC needs to get back to what it was originally intended.. they also need to stop acting like they're some kinda of governing body with powers like that of Congress themselves. I blame the congresscritters for the fact that they create these agencies with quasi-law making authority. The FCC, EPA, etc were given powers they should never have had in the 1st place. It was just that the congresscritters were both too lazy and too cowardly to pass unpopular laws and instead created agencies with a mandate to do what the congress was too afraid to do. All these agencies need to be reined in. The courts should rein them in, but too often the SC spends too much of its time being legislators as well.
--
NCAA® March Madness on Demand® |
|
| reply to Romney2012
well, the FCC was able to classify cable as "information service" (title 1?) and was upheld by the supreme court. Why can't they change their mind and classify as telecom service now? |
|
|
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by nasadude:well, the FCC was able to classify cable as "information service" (title 1?) and was upheld by the supreme court. Why can't they change their mind and classify as telecom service now? Reversing a precedent is often much tougher to do than in establishing it in the 1st place. Courts are very reluctant to upset previously established legal positions. It happens, but reversals are often a long time coming. And the FCC just set the precedent of making ISPs an "Information Service" instead of a "Communications Service" 5 yrs ago. They would be reluctant to uphold a reversal this soon after the original decision.
--
NCAA® March Madness on Demand® |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to nasadude
said by nasadude:well, the FCC was able to classify cable as "information service" (title 1?) and was upheld by the supreme court. Why can't they change their mind and classify as telecom service now? They can. In fact, it may be all that they legally can do.
The choices seem to be:
1. Hope service providers won't run roughshod over consumer freedoms; or
2. Reclassify broadband under common carrier regulation; or
3. Wait for Congress to do something.
So, taking those in order:
1. Hope is not a strategy. Right now, there is nothing preventing Comcast from ending its clear disclosures and blocking file transfers. There is nothing preventing Verizon from changing the way that Skype works on its network. There's nothing preventing AT&T from blocking any YouTube video it doesn't want to allow users to access. There's nothing stopping Windstream from redirecting Google searches to its own search engines. At any point, your ISP can deny you the right to attach a router. All of those consumer protections are toast.
2. The FCC would have to stand up to carriers who have promised to bring World-War-3 if it dare invoke Title II.
3. Congress is busy getting re-elected and won't be taking on any serious legislation for 9 more months.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords |
|
| reply to Romney2012
the precedent is that the FCC clearly has the power to classify entities as title 1 or title 2. If they have that power in law, all they have to do is exercise it.
ILECs could argue they are one, not the other, but that's another argument. |
|
 huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to Romney2012
I disagree. If we had to come to filibuster-proof legislative consensus to pass any sort of regulation, we'd probably have no environmental, labor, transportation, or communications regulation at all worth speaking of. Just look at how easily big corporations manipulate the system even now, with nominally apolitical agencies in place.
Only someone opposed to regulation in principle or ideologically would suggest that we'd be better off under such a regime. I shudder to think how polluted our environment would be and how much worse the corporate/consumer power balance would be were things the way you suggest. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by huntml:I disagree. If we had to come to filibuster-proof legislative consensus to pass any sort of regulation, we'd probably have no environmental, labor, transportation, or communications regulation at all worth speaking of. From your mouth to the Supreme Court's ear. |
|
 jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | reply to funchords
said by funchords:The choices seem to be: 1. Hope service providers won't run roughshod over consumer freedoms; or 2. Reclassify broadband under common carrier regulation; or 3. Wait for Congress to do something. So, taking those in order: 1. Hope is not a strategy. Right now, there is nothing preventing Comcast from ending its clear disclosures and blocking file transfers. There is nothing preventing Verizon from changing the way that Skype works on its network. There's nothing preventing AT&T from blocking any YouTube video it doesn't want to allow users to access. There's nothing stopping Windstream from redirecting Google searches to its own search engines. At any point, your ISP can deny you the right to attach a router. All of those consumer protections are toast. Re: "Right now, there is nothing preventing Comcast from ending its clear disclosures and blocking file transfers."
I'm not quite the pessimist Robb is on this one. What's not preventing it is that it'd be a huge business and PR problem for any company doing that sort of thing. This legal case aside, a pretty big market lesson was delivered a few years ago. There was a resulting shift that was very positive (having lived it myself day to day).
Transparency wins the day - it's the better technical and business choice IMHO. And when you see a company make a technical error (such as the one you cited from a few days ago) that seemed to take all of a few hours to resolve itself, so it seems there's a pretty effective feedback loop that has developed on those sorts of issues.
Jason
--
JL
Comcast |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| What's not preventing it is that it'd be a huge business and PR problem for any company doing that sort of thing. This legal case aside, a pretty big market lesson was delivered a few years ago. There was a resulting shift that was very positive (having lived it myself day to day). Comcast's shift toward more openness and more community engagement has been a great thing to watch. I imagine the FCC will find a way to extend their authority, though if they can't, hopefully these kinds of efforts aren't trimmed during budget cuts... |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | reply to Romney2012
ISPs threatening FCC if use "nuclear option" of reclassification The ISP's have already started their PR campaign to make sure the FCC isn't stupid enough to reclassify broadband providers as "common carriers".
»blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdail···y-fight/
Moffett thinks the FCC has three choices on how to proceed:
* Ask Congress to pass legislation giving the FCC the needed authority.
* Ask Congress to pass Net Neutrality legislation.
* Reclassify broadband services to bring them under FCC jurisdiction.
The latter option is what Moffett describes as the “nuclear option,” and would involve the reclassification of broadband service to be what’s known as a Title II service, or a common carrier. Broadband is now designated as a Title 1 service, which carriers fewer regulatory restrictions.
He says designating broadband as a Title II service “would broadly throw into question capital investment plans for all broadband carriers, potentially for years, while the issue was adjudicated.:”
Moffett says telecom and cable operators have privately indicated that a Title II designation for broadband would head to a “radical downsizing of their broadband investment plans” due to the enormous regulatory uncertainty it would introduce.
In short, he says that a Title II designation for broadband services “would call into question virtually every assumption about the terminal value of networks, as they would be subject to enormous and unpredictable regulatory risk going forward.
Moffett notes that applying a Title II service to broadband “would have sweeping implications, far, far beyond net neutrality,” and would bring with it “a raft of regulatory obligations from the days of monopoly telecommunications regulation, potentially including price regulation.” The only reasonable options are the 1st 2, and they need Congressional action, where the broadband providers can use politics to influence the final product.
If the FCC chooses to reclassify, the broadband providers will sabotage the FCC's broadband plan by refusing to invest any money while the fight wends its way thru the courts. |
|
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
2 edits | reply to huntml
Re: Comcast best watch their step It's not hard to build filibuster proof consensus when you have compromise. Bipartisan opposition is alive & well. When it happens it speaks to problems in the legislation, not gridlock in general.
Come up with a common sense regulatory bill and it would easily pass. Take the my way or the highway I'll do what I want damn the will of people people approach and you will have to resort to extortion, bribery and parliamentary tricks to ram through a disastrous bill. |
|
