Comcast Beats FCC In Throttling Case DC Court of Appeals overturns FCC order The FCC and Comcast have been in court fighting over whether the FCC had the right to "sanction" Comcast for lying to customers about throttling P2P services back in 2008 (a debate that actually began right here at Broadband Reports before blowing up into a national discussion). Again, no FCC fine was levied, no new rules were imposed, and Comcast barely saw a wrist slap for lying to consumers and the press multiple times, in both filings and in print, about throttling all customer traffic, 24/7 using user packet forgery. Comcast ultimately shifted to a clear 250 GB monthly cap and a more intelligent and less blunt force method of targeting network congestion. Still, Comcast never much liked the precedent the FCC's actions set, so Comcast lawyers have spent the last few years trying to argue that the FCC never had the authority to dictate how Comcast manages its network.  The commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast's Internet service to any statutorily mandated responsibility. -U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit |
The FCC found themselves on uncertain legal footing because the rather flimsy network neutrality principles (pdf) created by previous FCC administrations were painfully vague (some might argue intentionally), and didn't technically support the FCC's attempt at extended authority. Today the Washington DC Court of Appeals ruled in Comcast's favor in the case (you can find the ruling here (pdf)), meaning that the courts believe the FCC lacked the Title 1 authority under the Communications Act of 1934 to tell Comcast what to do. "The commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast's Internet service to any statutorily mandated responsibility," stated a three-judge panel of the Court. Comcast may have been better served leaving things alone. As we mentioned recently, part of the reason the FCC's broadband plan was so vague is because the agency was waiting on this ruling to see precisely where they stand legally. It's widely expected that the FCC will now try to reclassify broadband services as Title 2 common carriage, giving them broader authority over broadband providers. That's going to mean additional legal and political battles not only with Comcast, but with carriers like AT&T and Verizon. While it's certainly very clear that companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon would prefer an FCC that has absolutely no power over them, that's obviously not something that's going to go over well with most consumers, consumer advocates, or the FCC. This is only the very beginning of a much broader fight. Update: We're of course asking around for comment from all parties involved. Comcast says their lawyers are still studying the ruling and they'll have a statement for us shortly. Derek Turner, Research Director for consumer advocacy firm Free Press, has this to say about the ruling: "The consequences of this decision go well beyond the matter of Comcast's application blocking. Today's decision has forced the FCC into an existential crisis, leaving the agency unable to protect consumers in the broadband marketplace and unable to implement the National Broadband Plan.
"This crisis is not a result of a weak Congressional law, but a direct consequence of the previous two Commission's misguided and overzealous attempts to completely deregulate America's communications networks. Past FCC actions created a huge loophole in the law that leaves the agency unable to protect consumer privacy or promote universal broadband access for low income and disabled consumers. FCC Chairman Genachowski must act quickly to close this loophole, for if he does not, the FCC will simply lack the authority to oversee the policies needed to reach all of the noble goals in the National Broadband Plan.
"This is not an acceptable outcome for the American public. The FCC must have the statutory authority to carry out its consumer protection and public interest mission in the 21st century broadband marketplace. This FCC did not create this existential crisis, but it now has no choice but to face these tough jurisdictional questions head on, and do what is necessary to protect consumers and promote competition." :The FCC released the following statement: "The FCC is firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans. It will rest these policies -- all of which will be designed to foster innovation and investment while protecting and empowering consumers -- on a solid legal foundation. Today's court decision invalidated the prior Commission's approach to preserving an open Internet. But the Court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end." Meanwhile, Comcast also issued a statement: "We are gratified by the Court's decision today to vacate the previous FCC's order. Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation. We have always been focused on serving our customers and delivering the quality open-Internet experience consumers want. Comcast remains committed to the FCC's existing open Internet principles, and we will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet."
|
  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. | |
|  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Comcast best watch their step 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® | |
| | | | | Re: Comcast best watch their step 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... | |
| | | | | | | | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
1 edit |  ISPs threatening FCC if use "nuclear option" of reclassification
»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. | |
| | | | | |
2 edits | Re: ISPs threatening FCC if use "nuclear option" of reclassifica Moffett is an idiot so what he says means nothing because the sky could literally be dropping on them and he will be standing there with a hardhat on telling everyone how great the cable industry is and how it has never and would never do harm.
In addition, their claims and his claims that investment will come to a grinding halt is a hollow threat. Broadband is their future, they will invest or be left behind PERIOD. Not only that but recent history shows that regulation spurred more investment not less (Telecom Act of 96). | |
|
| | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
1 edit | 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: Comcast best watch their step Congress has no interest in limited anything, other than the peoples' capacity to keep what they earn. "What should happen" completely escapes this Government. | |
| | | | |
2 edits | 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 | Re: Comcast best watch their step 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... | |
| | | | | | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
1 edit | Re: Comcast best watch their step 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® | |
| | | | | | | |  huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Comcast best watch their step 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Comcast best watch their step 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
2 edits | 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
2 edits | Re: Comcast best watch their step said by Z80A: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. This may have been true in the past, say, pre-Gingrich, but I can't think of any really difficult, substantive legislation that has passed in the last 15 years or so that has passed on a truly bipartisan basis.
quote:
Come up with a common sense regulatory bill and it would easily pass.
Maybe, if 'common sense' is defined as 'passing the muster of the major industry lobbies that are affected.' These days, the lobbyists practically right any reform bills that get to the floor, or haven't you noticed?
quote:
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.
I can hardly think of any really substantive piece of reform legislation that has passed without some arm-twisting, going back to the trust-busting days of the early part of the 20th century. IIRC Clinton even had to invoke reconciliation to pass his welfare reform bill, which was a *strong* compromise bill by any objective measure (so much so that he came close to losing the left wing of his own party), yet the Republicans still almost blocked it. Similarly with Bush's education reform bill -- I don't think it needed reconciliation to pass but it was still very close for what was very much a compromise bill, it certainly didn't pass easily. | |
|
| | | | 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? | |
| | | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Comcast best watch their step 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® | |
| | | | | | | Re: Comcast best watch their step 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. | |
|
| | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | 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 | |
| | | | |  jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: Comcast best watch their step 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
| Re: Comcast best watch their step 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... | |
| | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by jlivingood:What's not preventing it is that it'd be a huge business and PR problem for any company doing that sort of thing. True, but also true in 2006 and 2007
In official 2006 testimony to Congress, Comcast Vice President David L. Cohen said: "If Comcast were to try to 'deny, delay, or degrade' the Internet experience that our more than 9 million cable Internet customers have paid for, how can we possibly expect to keep them as customers. ... Any provider that does not meet the needs of users will suffer from a serious backlash from consumers and policymakers."
And then it started doing exactly that.
said by jlivingood: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. Glad to hear that. We literally only have your company's word to bank on.
said by jlivingood: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. Yeah, mistake? That the functionality was no mistake. Perhaps they didn't mean to roll it out, but this was no accident.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
|
| | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Looks like the FCC's General Counsel(head lawyer) sees a lot of the power to implement the broadband plan blocked by the court decision:
»blog.broadband.gov/?entryId=356610
At the same time, yesterday’s decision may affect a significant number of important Plan recommendations. Among them are recommendations aimed at accelerating broadband access and adoption in rural America; connecting low-income Americans, Native American communities, and Americans with disabilities; supporting robust use of broadband by small businesses to drive productivity, growth and ongoing innovation; lowering barriers that hinder broadband deployment; strengthening public safety communications; cybersecurity; consumer protection, including transparency and disclosure; and consumer privacy. The Commission must have a sound legal basis for implementing each of these recommendations. | |
|
1 edit | FCC should have won I'm normally not the kind of person who thinks we should give The Government more power, but this is one time The FCC was trying to do some good.
Someone needs to keep big business honest! | |
| | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: FCC should have won said by OldschoolDSL:I'm normally not the kind of person who thinks we should give The Government more power, but this is one time The FCC was trying to do some good. Someone needs to keep big business honest! The FCC's authority to make rules needs re-writing in the Congress. The court was right in slapping them down for exceeding their authority.
The Congress should rewrite the Telecomm Act to reflect the reality that Voice, Data, Video, Wired & Wireless are not separate corporate entities any longer and that the 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® | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: FCC should have won ... So in other words, you're saying you'd like to see the FCC follow the guidelines in which they were set in the first place, right?
I don't think it could have been said any better. | |
| | |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | I agree the legislative branch has created these agencies and has given them all kinds of power so they can hide from their responsiablities in these areas. The congress needs to sh*t or get off of the pot in issues such as this.
Right now they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. The bums of both parties in the house and senate are too worried about loosing Moola for re-elections.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: FCC should have won YUP!
And if the federal congress is too busy to handle SOOOOO much of what they're taking on, at the same time, then maybe they should spend LESS time trying to take powers away from the states that they have no right to take in the first place either. Yet again, another tactic that I believe they do all in favor of winning more votes and support on a national scale.
Yes, I'm with you as well when we see them creating these agencies to make rules and regulation in order to offset the burden from their likely unpopular decisions so as not to affect their chance to continue their 'career' in politics.
Seriously - isn't it time to set term limits on ALL elected officials??  | |
| | | | | | | Re: FCC should have won said by fiberguy:Seriously - isn't it time to set term limits on ALL elected officials?? Of all your post, you finally say something that actually makes sense and would be for the benefit of the people and not some stock jockey. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by OldschoolDSL:I'm normally not the kind of person who thinks we should give The Government more power, but this is one time The FCC was trying to do some good. Someone needs to keep big business honest! It sounds like you ARE one who thinks the government needs more power, as long as they are doing what YOU want.
Mind you, I'm in favor of network neutrality, I just think that such a sweeping mandate should come from our ELECTED representatives (i.e: Congress), not unelected bureaucrats working for the FCC. | |
| | |  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: FCC should have won said by Crookshanks  It sounds like you ARE one who thinks the government needs more power, as long as they are doing what YOU want.
[/BQUOTE :No, you just seem sensitive about what he said I understand what he said and agree with him. I am not pro-government but wish they would step in here. Doesn't mean I want them in everything or even most things....but this You can be part of a thought without jumping to an extreme The world won't end | |
|
|  jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | said by OldschoolDSL:I'm normally not the kind of person who thinks we should give The Government more power, but this is one time The FCC was trying to do some good. Well, I sort of agree, but I think the FCC was overstepping their bounds in a Title I service...however, as Karl noted, they could reclassify it as Title II, and that would take care of the authority issue. Should be interesting to watch!
--
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by OldschoolDSL:I'm normally not the kind of person who thinks we should give The Government more power, but this is one time The FCC was trying to do some good. Someone needs to keep big business honest! I'm sorry, but I have to make a comment on this one in particular because what you said and how you said it represents SOOOO much what is wrong in government today.
First of all, I'm with you on that we should not be giving the government more power; I'm ALL the way behind you on that one. But, where you lost me on this one is "the FCC was trying to do some good"... Simple enough - if it's not their job, and they don't have the authority, then they have NO BUSINESS 'trying' to do anything, even if it's "for the good"... in a sense, you ARE trying to give the government more power..
Here, in my opinion, is what's simple about this. The government already has all the power it will ever need, have, want, can use, etc. The government HAS the ability to have all the power is wants up to what the constitution will allow - anything after that, the people have to grant them and I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.
But, JUST becuase this is something that is of importance to your (ie: this comcast situation you felt the FCC was doing 'good' with) doesn't mean that a government agency, that lacks the authority to do anything about in the first place, isn't the place to turn for the solution. That's almost like building a house and asking the plumber to pick up the painter's brush to help get the painting done; you just don't do that... it's why you have the painter who is charged with that work performing it in the first place.
If we ALLOW parts of government to get involved in something they don't have the authority to do so in the first place, then we lose aspect of good governance and we start having a form of anarchy in our own government. We don't like it when our President takes powers that he/she doesn't have (say that just in case Hillary were to ever win. haha) and we don't like it when our Federal Congress takes over powers from the states, do we?
My point is - if it's not the FCC's job, in this case, and it's the job of Congress, then WE THE PEOPLE need to put pressure on our representation to get it done, and not celebrate an agency who has no authority to make changes JUST BECAUSE its something you agreed with, in this case... see what I'm saying?
That "someone" that needs to keep big business "honest" exists out there - and it's not the FCC in this case..
On a side note, but somewhat related.. what really has gone wrong with government in this country is not the government themselves, they're doing exactly as they believe they should.. it's WE THE PEOPLE. WE have stopped holding our elected officials accountable for their actions. Our form of government USED to be that the people would dictate and communicate LOUDLY in public gatherings and have expectations on those we elected. Today, however, government goes like this: Some people want to run for office, we listen to them, we vote, they get elected, we go about our own lives and bitch to each other when they slap us in the face.. Government has become more like the NFL and football teams.. we hope they play the game right, and when they don't, we bitch to our friends; we don't go to the players on the team and tell them where they F'd up.. | |
|
| | When the FCC doesn't have the authority When the FCC doesn't have the authority to do something as simple as this, the agency serves no purpose. Its time to either create a new agency that actually has some teeth, or change the rules the FCC plays by.
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/4x 2048Mb G.Skill/WD Raptor 300Gb/3x WD20EADS 2TB/2x PNY GTX 260/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: When the FCC doesn't have the authority said by Camelot One:When the FCC doesn't have the authority to do something as simple as this, the agency serves no purpose. Its time to either create a new agency that actually has some teeth, or change the rules the FCC plays by. They DO serve a purpose.. as it was said above, they allocate and manage frequencies and they ensure standards so that things communicate correctly.. so they already have a purpose. The FCC has become too politically involved which was a mistake in the first place.
There also IS an "agency" that actually has some teeth - it's called "Congress"...
Look deep into the constitution and you will see why the FCC lacks the authority they do. In fact, look deep and you'll also see where many government agencies are actually out of line with the big C... it has to do with assessing certain fines and penalties and who in this country exactly actually has that authority in the first place,... and who doesn't. (That's just one example) | |
| | | | | Re: When the FCC doesn't have the authority Then their authority needs to be expanded upon so they are not only in charge of frequencies, but they are in charge of all forms of communications be it light, frequencies, or smoke signals.
And just because wired technology is not wireless, does not mean it doesn't use a frequency to work. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: When the FCC doesn't have the authority You are right... I am very well aware of closed systems and how they use frequencies.. I'm very much experienced in this.
However, the FCC allocates and manages the AIR, not closed systems. The FCC really only gets involved in closed systems when they become open or egress their signals into competing signals.
What is transmitted OVER those signals should NOT be the concern of the FCC one bit.
And how do you intend on "expanding their authority"...? It's not so much WHAT they can do in their powers - that's easily done by congress.. its their authority to play the police rolls in HOW they handle the so called "offenders"...
Certain judgments and how they elect to impose a fine is something that constitutionally only the courts have the authority to do.. not simply just a government agency. Its a very gray but black and white area here and I'm not going to go deep into it as it would be a discussion of it's own. | |
|
 P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out | All the things to slap "authority" over... lol with all the things this govt had no legal right to do...this is the one that the courts actually over turned.
hahaha
--
 | |
| | | | Re: All the things to slap "authority" over... Yes it's amazing when you step back and look big picture.... | |
| |  Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | Touche!!!! | |
|
| | speech It all came down to, who has more freedom of speech($$$$). | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: speech You do realize that freedom of speech is not as you are really stating it, right? Freedom of speech is directed at speech OF THE PEOPLE towards the government... that's it. It says that the government can't stop us from talking out against them.. (and with out going into the full details of that, I say this only in a basic, simple way..) | |
| | | | | Re: speech I thought your justice system ruled that money is freedom of speech. So a company has more freedom of speech then any individual or group of people. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: speech said by cpsycho:I thought your justice system ruled that money is freedom of speech. So a company has more freedom of speech then any individual or group of people. I think you thought wrong. | |
|
 xdeadhead220, 221, Whatever It Takes.Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA
1 edit | 1934? time to step into the now. time for some good ole fashion regulations like the baby bells got back in the day. that'd slow their roll. even playing field for all, not just the few. | |
| | | Time to build your own community network? Everyone knows that billion dollar companies will never work for the benefit of the communities they claim to serve.
Is it time for people to actually get out of their chair and make their own mesh networks? Big ISPs are not going to get any better as they watch the revenue from their TV and phone services crumble from competition with a fat pipe that does not care about the type of data it transmits.
You might think communities setting private networks is too much work or redundant since ISPs received public funds, but as long as the internet is seen as solely a profit venture and not a social movement things will not improve. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | Hacking charges against Comcast? So when are the Executives at Comcast going to be charged with Hacking the users data stream, by inserting false 'end data transmission' packages?
--
Consumer Rights is more than just a suggestion. | |
| | | | Re: Hacking charges against Comcast? At about the same time that people who use firewalls get sued for doing the same thing.
Many commercial firewalls also send a RST back to the requesting party that is a "false 'end data transmission'" as you say.
You have a strange definition of hacking. | |
| | | | | Re: Hacking charges against Comcast? You have a strange definition of a consumer / commercial implemented firewall. | |
| | | | | | Re: Hacking charges against Comcast? Strange, since I don't.
Why don't you run WireShark on some packets that come into a firewall, and then look at the response that packet gets as it has a RST sent back to the requester looking like it came from server it tried to contact, when in fact it never touched the server. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Hacking charges against Comcast? I dont need to, because I choose to run a firewall (as does my company) to prevent any of that data from gaining access to me.
That is done by OUR choice. They on the other hand were blocking traffic against the user's choice and it was traffic people were specifically requesting. Traffic the user had every right to request and they had NO right to block. Especially without telling them they were doing so.
There is a big difference between selling a service and blocking traffic to your consumers secretly and using a service and choosing yourself to block traffic. | |
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA |  Metered billing here it come's
| |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | 1934... Anyone else just concerned that we are dealing with a 2000+ technical issue, based on a law written in 1934... when not even half the country had telephones... and computers barely existed, yet alone talked to each other.
--
»www.codecipher.com - Marking the way to tomorrow's solutions -- Did you know that Perl is not Dead? »perlisalive.org/ | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: 1934... said by Devanchya:Anyone else just concerned that we are dealing with a 2000+ technical issue, based on a law written in 1934... when not even half the country had telephones... and computers barely existed, yet alone talked to each other. Really? How so? The laws were updated back in the 90's last I checked.
And to go one step further, MUCH of our laws are based on old written laws.. ever read the date on the constitution?  | |
| | | | | Re: 1934... The constitution I read had a date yes. But it was hard to read that part. The lighting at the New York library is a bit dim 
Maybe it's the last dying rebel in me as I grow older... but I think network law should be written by lawyers who are technically astute... and not in the pocket of a company.
I still stay that Laws should have a "must be reviewed by (date)" statement for every one of them
--
»www.codecipher.com - Marking the way to tomorrow's solutions -- Did you know that Perl is not Dead? »perlisalive.org/ | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: 1934... I agree with the "must be reviewed by" date on all laws..
My point, however, on the constitution, is that the document, or "set of laws" date back to when the country was pretty much started... we live by those laws today, so are they out dated?
I think all laws should have a sunset date on them. Seriously, it would stop congress from having to make new laws to go on top of old laws. The problem we have in our government is that we DO have laws on top of laws.. we don't need "new" laws.. we just need to either enforce the laws we already have OR, update the ones we already have..
I think laws, however, shouldn't be written by lawyers in the first place.. they should be written by the people we elected to write them. While many of them ARE lawyers these days, which is 90% of our problem to begin with, we just really need those in the position to do these jobs to actually do the work and STOP delegating everything off to everyone else to do. Otherwise, why do we have these idiots? Sell off Congress for real this time, and abolish that body of government and turn it directly over to the parties and let their lawyers right laws... oh wait, that's what we already have.. never mind. | |
|
| | free market? I support Net Neutrality, and hate Comcast - so I'm disappointed with the ruling.
Any chance the free market could actually change this though?
For example, couldn't Verizon start slamming Concast by marketing a "non-edited internet" or whatnot? | |
| |  DrModemPremium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1 | Re: free market? There is no ISP "free market" if you haven't noticed.
There is a telco monopoly and cable monopoly competing mildly. | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | First off, why would Verzion want to do anything that COMcast isn't doing themselves which is looking after the sustainability of their company?
Second, I don't hate comcast, I could care less about comcast, and I somewhat support network neutrality to a point. (Side note: with NN comes other things that you guys don't think about, such as metered billing... NN isn't going to simply force an ISP to provide the internet AS-IS and not allow them to change the focus on how they sell it, so remember that one)
I'm not disappointed in the ruling AT - ALL but not for the reason that some extremists here would think.. I'm not disappointed in it becuase the courts followed the law.. hmmm.. GREAT concept if you ask me! I'm not willing to give up the law over a personal desire. There is a way to go about change if you want it and being disappointed in this is misplaced. The law is what it is.. don't like it, change the law THEN fight for the change - that's how our country and legal system works.
If we continually forgive those who step on the law in trade for personal desires, it's setting up a VERY VERY VERY bad landscape for OTHER issues that come before us. Say a good amount of people WANTED slavery again in this country but the law didn't allow for it (and say that the constitution hadn't been amended for this example of my explanation) and say some part of the government passed it and a court overlooked basic laws of our country, would that be a good day for the people that wanted it? or a bad day for our country in general? It would be a VERY bad day becuase it would show the people a lack of faith in our own system of laws.
EVEN IF you wanted this ruling to stick and are disappointed that it didn't, you should STILL celebrate that we have a court that is upholding the laws that we have... now if you want that to change, then go change the laws and continue fighting for what you want. But, I, for one, am happy that the courts ruled based on law and not emotion in this case. Personally, I believe the ISPs DO need to back off on their level of control and DO need to invest some of their profits back into their systems and continue to evolve.. but I also understand that with evolution is also going to come some other changes we may NOT really like, as I said before, some form of metered billing. | |
| | | | | Re: free market? I deliberately left CONcast misspelled. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: free market? I know you did.. but when I speak about companies, I tend to do it like an adult and without the need to call businesses by funny names. (It shows a sign of complete and total immaturity in a conversation among adults) It also shows that things like this don't really rule my life like some people do. Yes, I'm passionate about my debate, but in the end, I don't lose sleep over what some communication company is or isn't doing that makes me happy.. it's life. In the end, there is MUCH more important things to get up in arms about in this country, like the weak dollar, rising fuel prices, retirement options, and the BS health care bill shoved on us that we didn't need. How I buy, or chose not to buy, HBO or the internet is the least of my angst and I don't need or desire to come off like a 5 year old for it by calling companies by cutsie little names..
I also don't need to use terms like FUD, shill, astro-turfer, etc. | |
| | | | | |
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Derek Turner Somebody needs to put Derek Turner into a psychiatric hospital if he really believes all that stuff he's saying. Tone it down a little man, its hardly the end of the world. The FCC has outlived its usefulness anyway, good riddance.
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition."
Beyond AM. Beyond FM. XM | |
| | | And then there were none... So,
From this this ruling, it sends a clear message to ALL ISPs that they can lie to their user base and get away with it.
Me and the government have this love-hate relationship.
If Comcast just came out to its users and said "we are doing X", then the FCC would never have had to get involved and no-one would be none the wiser.
It's just EXTREMELY IRONIC that if any one of use were to start a small business webhost and offered 500GB to our users but only gave them 1GB we would be slapped with fines, yet if you make billions of dollars it seems to make that ok.
Morale of the story: If you make billions of dollars, you can do anything you want to your users, especially if you hold a monopoly for a service in certain areas! Great thing to teach our children don't you think? | |
| |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: And then there were none... said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:From this this ruling, it sends a clear message to ALL ISPs that they can lie to their user base and get away with it. No, they can't.
The FCC is just the wrong government department to be creating/enforcing consumer protection laws. These cases can be handled by states Attorney Generals much more effectively than by the FCC.
It was the State of Florida that got Comcast to disclose their cap and procedure for ejecting "abusive" customers from the network: »Comcast Pays Florida $150K For Misleading Consumers
It was the State of New York that went after Verizon for imposing caps on its "unlimited" mobile data service: »Verizon Busted For 'Unlimited' Marketing
All this ruling does is restrict a certain government organization from overstepping its boundary. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: And then there were none... Well said..
.. and it was the State of Minnesota that tackled the Cellular companies and the way they handle ETF fees as well. | |
| | | | | said by espaeth:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:From this this ruling, it sends a clear message to ALL ISPs that they can lie to their user base and get away with it. No, they can't. The FCC is just the wrong government department to be creating/enforcing consumer protection laws. These cases can be handled by states Attorney Generals much more effectively than by the FCC. It was the State of Florida that got Comcast to disclose their cap and procedure for ejecting "abusive" customers from the network: » Comcast Pays Florida $150K For Misleading ConsumersIt was the State of New York that went after Verizon for imposing caps on its "unlimited" mobile data service: » Verizon Busted For 'Unlimited' MarketingAll this ruling does is restrict a certain government organization from overstepping its boundary. It shouldn't be the state's that tackle problems like these, it should come from federal dictation. What's to stop Verizon from still doing this selectively in different states? I mean, a few hicups here and there won't be noticed in different states, but if the federal government went after Verizon and they pulled it in ANY state then our government could easily go after them.
It does send a clear message, and since that the FCC can't tackle you, then who does Uncle Sam have that can go after them? If I were an ISP I would know that I can continue to be greedy, just do it in such a way that you can't actually derive a clear pattern. | |
| | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: And then there were none... said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:It shouldn't be the state's that tackle problems like these, it should come from federal dictation. What's to stop Verizon from still doing this selectively in different states? Every state has an Office of the Attorney General, and legal precedence is already established once one state wins. While precedence doesn't guarantee a victory in every case, it heavily biases the outcome of the trial. Only the State of Florida went after Comcast, and yet they're complying nationwide by rolling out their usage meter and disclosing their cap publicly.
The states can address these issues with the power they already have, and the Attorney General is an elected position which means you can vote someone else in if you feel you aren't being well represented. The FCC is comprised of appointed officials, so if you don't happen to like what policies they come up with -- too bad.
We don't need to give more power to government agencies that can arbitrarily come up with their own regulations without strict oversight and accountability to the public. | |
|
| | National Broadband Plan Solved!!! The National Broadband Plan:
Telcos: Do as you please.
Consumers: Bend over and assume the position, or do without. | |
| jus10
join:2009-08-04
Sterling, VA | Philosophical question: What's the difference between an agency that has the power to regulate and doesn't and an agency which doesn't have the power to regulate? | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Philosophical question: The answer is in the constitution there buddy..
Its not even so much about the power to regulate, its about the power to act like and assess fines and penalties based on rulings of their own. We also have a body of government for that, and they're called the courts.
Congress has the ability to call in for testimony and they can make decisions as a body to move forward on change. They still, mostly, need the president to make change in most cases. They CAN delegate responsibility and authority to another part of government by the change of law by using the 'system' to make that happen. BUT, they can not give 'court-like' authority to another part of government ever, which is kinda what the FCC also believes it has..
| |
|
| | Congressional Conservatives agree with Net Neutrality ……when only given the definition.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) chastised Genechowski in a House subcommittee hearing, and asked him how on Earth the FCC had the authority to “regulate the Internet.” See, Mr. Rogers is confused about Net Neutrality. He thinks it’s all about the FCC regulating content on the Net and picking winners and losers, which is precisely what Net Neutrality prevents ISPs AND government from doing. At 2:47:00 a confused Rep. Rogers agrees with Net Neutrality when presented it’s definition by Genechowski…
»c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/03/2···lan.aspx
The biggest threat to Net Neutrality is allowing continued mis-information about it to spread. It’s not a socialist takeover of the Internet as the lobbyist FUD would have you believe.
Ask yourself this, “If I were on a phone call with a close friend, and either AT&T or the FCC were listening in on the call without either of us knowing, would I be OK with them a) listening in on the call in the first place and b) garbling or disconnecting my call if they didn’t like what they heard?” Of course you wouldn’t be OK with this. You’d feel your right to privacy had been violated. So why on Earth then would it be OK to allow either an ISP or the government to do that with your data as well? This is precisely what Net Neutrality is designed to protect…your right to data privacy. | |
| WHT
join:2010-03-26
kudos:3 | The law trumped a lofty ideal part of the reason the FCC's broadband plan was so vague is because the agency was waiting on this ruling to see precisely where they stand legally. The FCC's policy statement (the lofty ideal) pre-dated Comcast's effort, so I don't think saying the FCC waited "on this (particular ruling)", rather it would be more correct to say the FCC waiting on a ruling, any ruling...anything to see what they raised up the flagpole would get blown down.
Yes, I agree what Comcast did was nefarious, but it did not violate any law (though it did violate the vague and legally unenforceable FCC principle of neutrality). | |
| Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
| Congress and the FCC should say NO to their getting NBC! From the New York Times:
"Members of Congress have expressed concern that the acquisition (or NBC) could give Comcast the power to favor the content of its own cable and broadcast channels over those of competitors, something that Comcast has said it does not intend to do. Now, members of Congress could also fret that Comcast will also block or slow down customers’ access to the Web sites of competing television and telecommunications companies. "
Comcrap can not be trusted! The FCC needs to DENY them the right to acquire NBC! | |
| |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
·Choice One Commu..
| Re: Congress and the FCC should say NO to their getting NBC! said by qworster:From the New York Times: "Members of Congress have expressed concern that the acquisition (or NBC) could give Comcast the power to favor the content of its own cable and broadcast channels over those of competitors, something that Comcast has said it does not intend to do. Now, members of Congress could also fret that Comcast will also block or slow down customers’ access to the Web sites of competing television and telecommunications companies. "Comcrap can not be trusted! The FCC needs to DENY them the right to acquire NBC! I agree.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Great now you can expect caps AND throttling. I guess on the bright side no one will ever go over their cap since most of the things that you do that might put you over your cap will now be throttled. Don't be shocked when that show you're watching on Hulu keeps buffering or that movie download from Amazon or Itunes seems to take an awful long time to download. | |
| | | | Re: Great now you can expect caps AND throttling. I guess this means Torrents will get delayed/throttled again? | |
| | | jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: Great now you can expect caps AND throttling. said by Comuser :
I guess this means Torrents will get delayed/throttled again?
No, why would it? We're fully committed to our protocol-agnostic congestion management system and we think it can be a model for other networks as well.
--
JL
Comcast | |
|
Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Here's the problem: Here's the problem:
Right now the Internet is considered an entertainment service. What It NEEDS TO BE considered is a public utility. European countries are already doing this-they are enlightened enough to realize that the Internet is becoming A PUBLIC NECESSITY!
More and more, companies are requiring you to file employment applications online. Schools are emailing homework assignments. Banks are charging $$ for personal visits. The Internet is should be considered as much of a necessity as water and power. Now, I know what some will say: "you can get internet for free at the library". That doesn't wash any more then the statement that: "you can get heat and light at the library".
Since these greedy companies don't want to allow unfettered Internet access, the Internet needs to become regulated as a public utility. | |
| |  jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | Re: Here's the problem: Queue in the socialist rhetoric counter-arguments in 5... 4.... 3... 2... 1... | |
| | | | The Internet is like a public road. I wonder how companies see the internet, or do they see it like this too (public road)? | |
| | mprogersPremium
join:2007-07-05
Hollis, NH Reviews:
·Charter
| Sure free, regulated, public utility internet for everyone - as fast as Amtrak, as reliable as the post office, as friendly as the DMZ - no competition, just like Ma Bell used to be - remember it took the move AWAY from regulated monopolies to accelerate phone development and bring down call prices.
Oh, and just remember the government regulated part - for all you leftists, imagine Bush-Cheney deciding who gets to communicate, what talk shows are are allowed, and who is jailed for saying or typing the wrong thing; for all you conservatives, imagine Obama-Chavez in the driver's seat.
You don't want government control of your means of communication, and you don't want them tapping it without a warrant - regardless of who's in charge - imagine the other lot in power and be very afraid! | |
| | | Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
2 edits | Re: Here's the problem: said by mprogers:Sure free, regulated, public utility internet for everyone - as fast as Amtrak, as reliable as the post office, as friendly as the DMZ - no competition, just like Ma Bell used to be - remember it took the move AWAY from regulated monopolies to accelerate phone development and bring down call prices. Oh, and just remember the government regulated part - for all you leftists, imagine Bush-Cheney deciding who gets to communicate, what talk shows are are allowed, and who is jailed for saying or typing the wrong thing; for all you conservatives, imagine Obama-Chavez in the driver's seat. You don't want government control of your means of communication, and you don't want them tapping it without a warrant - regardless of who's in charge - imagine the other lot in power and be very afraid! I didn't say that the Govt. should own the Internet, nor did I say it should be free!
I said that the Internet needs to be regulated like the public utility it essentially is! NO everyone doesn't have to have it-any more then not everyone has electric service-BUT if you WANT to have it, it should be accessable, of a guaranteed minimum speed and quality and certainly not WALLED, like Comcrap is going to do to it now-with the court's blessing no less.
Your electric company is a regulated utility. It can not increase its rates willy nilly-it has to apply to the regulating board and JUSTIFY its rate increases. What's wrong with that? No one is saying that Comcast doesn't have the right to make a buck-or even a billion of them-just that they need a bit of reining in. | |
|
| |
|
|
