FCC and Comcast

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Frank Muto [fsmgroup () internetcomplete com]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 1:34 PM
To: David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   FCC and Comcast

For reference:  http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325396,00.asp

"FCC commissioners have said on several occasions that the Internet policy statement is not enforceable, and the law is 
very
clear on that basic point," wrote Joe Waz, senior vice president of external affairs for Comcast. "The policy statement 
is
not a set of rules. It doesn't have any binding effect. And the FCC has never adopted rules in this area."

"The Supreme Court and Congress have made it clear that a federal agency like the FCC can act either through rules or a
complaint processes," Ammori responded in a blog post. "It's astounding that a company with an army of high-priced 
lawyers
would even try to dispute this, as it is a basic fact taught on day one of any administrative law class."

But Congress has said otherwise when it comes to taking it from "policy" to law. Two laws have since been killed.

1. The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 would have prohibited the use of admission control to 
determine
network traffic priority. The legislation was approved by the House Judiciary committee but was never taken for vote,
therefore failed to become law.

2. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 was introduced in the US House of 
Representatives,
referencing the principles of the FCC and authorizing fines up to $750,000 for infractions. It passed the full House of
Representatives, but failed to become law when it was filibustered in the Senate.

The FCC IMO has not met their ancillary jurisdiction powers for what they feel they can do to Comcast. This whole NN 
debate
has matters of opinion on both sides of the issue and should be debated openly for public review and comment.

Does the FCC have jurisdiction over all the applications and content passing on the Internet network or control of a
providers management of network resources? My assumption is not likely, but they (especially Martin) can make a bunch of
noise about. Martin himself is on a political hot seat, so the PR about Comcast helps defer that issue momentarily.





Frank Muto
www.SecureEmailPlus.com

















----- Original Message -----
From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
To: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 7:30 PM
Subject: [IP] Re: FCC and Comcast


> ________________________________________
> From: Richard Bennett [richard () bennett com]
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:58 PM
> To: David Farber
> Subject: Re: [IP] FCC and Comcast
>
> The FCC action is designed to let all sides declare victory, because it's a slap on the wrist but *no fines* or actual
> punishment. The Commission wants to assert jurisdiction, but to keep Congress out of the picture they'll now have to
> undergo a notice-and-comment rulemaking. So it can't really do anything right now except hold press events and issue 
> strong
> statements. But whatever entertains the people is fine.
>
> RB
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com