  ptrowskiGot Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT
kudos:5 |
ptrowski
Premium Member
2011-Jan-12 12:14 pm
7 years?Why only bound for 7 years? | |
|
 |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY |
RARPSL
Member
2011-Jan-12 12:23 pm
Re: 7 years?said by ptrowski:Why only bound for 7 years?
It keeps them from using their dominant position for a period of time while allowing them to respond at the end of the ban period to any changes that have occurred with competitors whose actions are not restricted by this ban. | |
|
| | ptrowskiGot Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT
kudos:5 |
ptrowski
Premium Member
2011-Jan-12 12:35 pm
Re: 7 years?Thanks, that makes sense! | |
|
| | | |
to RARPSL
the 7 years doesn't make a difference. Comcast KNOWS the FCC has NO legal power to create such a demand on them. They'll wait and let this get all approved then they'll do what they want and in return when the FCC or states try to do anything; they'll slap them into court and find out the terms of the deal are illegal and Comcast will come out a head.
Karl fails to point out the FCC has NO legal power over the Internet each and every time this comes out. | |
|
| | |  Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985 |
Jim Kirk
Premium Member
2011-Jan-12 2:34 pm
Re: 7 years?/ignore | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | |
to Jim Kirk
Re: 7 years?no its not about ignoring my post. It's true. The FCC has NO legal power over the Internet. They know that and so do users on this site. But people like YOU fail to realize that and always want them to create "regulation and law" on things they can NOT. That's the whole issue and problems. The FCC has NO real power on ANYTHING except the public airwaves. That was why they were created and that is their mission and fuction. To protect the Pubic Airwaves and that is IT. NOT cable TV. Why, if it does NOt transmit on the Public Airwaves, the FCC can NOT regulate let alone stick their nose some where it does NOT belong. | |
|
| | | | |
to hottboiinnc4
Karl fails to point out the FCC has NO legal power over the Internet each and every time this comes out. Right. Like here, where I say it's not clear they even have the authority to enforce these rules. That much has been very clear since they lost the court case to Comcast. Note though the FCC claims they believe they have the right to promote and protect service competition over networks under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While that claim will be tested in the courts, merger condition requirements agreed to by Comcast do not exist on the same legal playing field as the FCC's neutrality rules. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: 7 years?(mod note: edited, complaining about moderation is against forum rules)
And it is CLEAR. The FCC's guidelines start AIRWAVE; RADO and Telephone. NOT Internet. The Courts have ruled- thus making the FCC "conditions and any rules" they decide to create for the Internet null. They are NOT enforceable. The Courts have ruled OVER and OVER again agreeing with ISPs and their parent companies. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: 7 years?Merger conditions agreed to by involved corporations absolutely are enforceable. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: 7 years?actually not. they are just as what they say "conditions" they are not enforceable. ANY company that agrees to any of them can get out of them. Especially when gone to court. And when the FCC sets those that are NOT legal and are null; are just that. NOT enforceable from the start.
Not to be mean or anything; but a few law classes wouldn't hurt. | |
|
| | | | | | |
2 edits |
Re: 7 years?Again, you're wrong. You've confused the FCC's tenuous legal footing in terms of enforcing neutrality rules or other new rules or requirements on deregulated ISPs -- with their enforcement authority over agreed-to merger conditions. Because some specific types of conditions can be challenged does not magically equate to "the FCC has no authority to do absolutely anything," and the FTC can step in where needed. I can get a few sector lawyers to join this thread and discuss this if you would like... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
VladDracula
Anon
2011-Jan-12 3:43 pm
Re: 7 years?Right. If enforceable, the FTC rather than the FCC is the regulatory body that can enforce the merger rules. The FCC was toothless in enforcing the Telecom act of 1996.
At the end of the day all of this eventually will end up in court. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: 7 years?Yes, it all will if the conditions wind up being significant. But frankly I think the FCC conditions will likely be intentionally weak, and won't cover anything Comcast isn't prepared to do voluntarily. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: 7 years?again; those conditions will have NO power. Weak? LMAO! NO POWER. even you just admited the FCC has no power to enforce condtions. LOL. Talk about double standards. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | hottboiinnc4 |
to Karl Bode
you can bring them in all you want. The fact is that regardless conditions can be footed around and the courts can deam them usless and null just like any contract. And again; the FCC only HAS legal power over the airwaves and very iffy when bringing in the telephone. YOU need to do more than rely on your "sector" lawyers. Oh and by the way; you do know what a lawyer is correct? A Lawyer is NOT someone who pratices Law, thus does not always have the knowledge. and like i said; take a few law classes.
and i did NOT say anything about no power. i said their power is limited. YOU need to stop putting words in peoples posts that were NOT said.
The fact is; they can issue conditions all they want; the fact is; they're still able to be challeged at a later date by the Comcast and the courts. Why? The FCC has NO legal power when it comes to mergers. They're job is to PROTECT airwaves from interference. NOT approve Comcast taking over NBC. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
3 edits |
Re: 7 years?said by you :i did NOT say anything about no power said by you :the FCC has NO legal power said by you :The FCC has NO legal power when it comes to mergers. Stilll wrong, and now inconsistent and wrong. And I asked a lawyer in telecom for confirmation, and he agrees: The FCC's merger authority is different from its jurisdiction. The authority derives from Section 310(d), which says the FCC will only grant a transfer of licenses when the transfer serves the public interest. If the FCC finds that there is "an issue of material fact" as to whether the merger serves the public interest, it is supposed to refer the matter to an administrative law judge for adjudication. This has happened only once in recent memory, the Echostar/DirecTV merger, and it is basically a death sentence for the merger.
However, an applicant can offer "voluntary" conditions that address the harms identified by the Commission and thus eliminate the "issue of fact" as to whether the merger is in the public interest. These conditions are incorporated into the merged entity's license. Here, it is an enforceable condition on the NBC broadcast licenses and on the CARRS licenses used by cable operators (and incorporated into any "certificates of convenience" Comcast may have as a telephone operator). Because these are now license conditions, they are enforceable separately from any FCC authority to issue a general rule.
there was a case some time back involving merger conditions when SBC bought Ameritech. Parties subsequently argued that the condition should be unenforceable because the FCC had no authority to issue a rule on the matter. The DC Cir held that it dodn't matter if the FCC had authority because the merging parties had agreed voluntarily to incorporate the conditions into their license (technically, a certificate of public convenience and necessity) and the parties were therefore bound by the separate requirement to obey the terms of their license. Hope this helps. | |
|
 pokesphIt Is Almost Fast
Premium Member
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 |
pokesph
Premium Member
2011-Jan-12 12:30 pm
Comcast's DeathStarquote:
Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station NBC Comcast corporation.
Indeed. Big MegaCorp will take over the Univers(al)e. Where is this 'force' now? | |
|
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO  ·Charter
|
Re: Comcast's DeathStarWhat a fantastic allegory! Kudos Karl.
Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design. Your friends, up there on the sanctuary moon Disney, CBS, HBO, Blockbuster and Netflix, are walking into a trap, as is your Rebel fleet ISP. It was *I* who allowed the Alliance FCC to know the location algorithm of the shield generator our throttling devices. It is quite safe from your pitiful little band. An entire legion of my best troops lawyers awaits them. Oh, I'm afraid the deflector shield monopoly will be quite operational when your friends arrive realize their content's priority on our network is BE. | |
|
 tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7
|
tshirt
Premium Member
2011-Jan-12 1:24 pm
How binding? The total package seems reasonable, and about the best that could be expected.
My only question is how they are guaranteed...i.e. what penalty would be imposed if they (CC) weasels, and what proof would be needed to impose the penalty?
7 years seemed long, but once I thought about how long AT&T delayed, before meeting some of the "conditions" they agreed to for their merger, I realized 3 years isn't enough.
Perhaps the clock shouldn't start running until ALL coditions are met. | |
|
| | |
Re: How binding?This is NOT binding. Comcast knows this and has been said over and over again. The FCC has NO LEGAL Power to ENFORCE ANYTHING on the Internet. NONE! The Courts have ruled this over and over again and the ISPs know this and have the FCC right where they want them. SCREWED | |
|
| | |
| | | |
| | tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7 ·Xfinity
|
to hottboiinnc4
Re: How binding?You miss the point... right now ComCast is willing to meet these terms verbally, the trick would be to get them to write it diwn in a binding contract as part of the merger.
Then it's not the FCC IMPOSING rules upon them, but their own agreement begin enforced (enforcement and compliance monitoring could be handled by the DOJ) | |
|
 newviewEx .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium Member
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 |
newview
Premium Member
2011-Jan-12 3:55 pm
Comcast will do what they damn well pleaseConsumers and merger conditions be damned . . . Comcast will do as they damn well please once the merger is rubber-stamped.
They'll keep doing what they damn well please until YEARS later when they are sued by the castrated FCC and NOTHING will be done. | |
|
| | |
Re: Comcast will do what they damn well pleaseyep! Why? The Courts have ruled the FCC has no legal power on what they're doing. They protect the airwaves NOT consumers in TV and who gets what. The FCC was only created because of pirate radio stations. NOT for mergers or to protect anyone; exccpt those actual legal radio stations. | |
|
| |
comcastso Comcast is limited to 250GB per month or will be limited to that? | |
|
|
|
·
