republican-creole
Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » FCC Crackdown on Comcast Doesn’t Even Include Fine » No Law = No Fine
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
70
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
Letter to the FCC »
« A surprise? NOT  
AuthorAll Replies


IPingUPing
N4BFR
Premium
join:2002-08-30
Smyrna, GA
clubs:
No Law = No Fine

That's because they didn't violate a law or regulation, just some vague "policy statement" that has no teeth.


TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast

said by IPingUPing See Profile :

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

Kearnstd
Elf Wizard

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

SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

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 TK Junk Mail
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.
-
Forums » FCC Crackdown on Comcast Doesn’t Even Include FineLetter to the FCC »
« A surprise? NOT  


Thursday, 20-Nov 06:24:26 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 9 years online! © 1999-2008 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [198] Obama FCC Selection Team Won't Make AT&T Happy
· [100] DSL's Not Dead Yet
· [70] Zone Alarm Pro Free Just For Today
· [66] Harvard Law Professor Sues RIAA
· [51] Cable Grabbing 71% Of New Broadband Customers
· [48] Comcast DOCSIS 3.0 Hits Pacific Northwest In December
· [46] New Xbox 360 'Experience' Goes Live
· [44] Comcast Offers 'Bare Bones' 768kbps VoIP Double Play
· [42] Comcast Buys San Fran Muni-Network
· [41] Spam Success: A 1 In 12.5 Million Shot
Most people now reading
· [WotLK] PVP gear at 80 [World of Warcraft]
· Xbox 360 NXE is available! [Console/Handheld games]
· Heavy pickups if Big 3 fold? [Automotive]
· CRTC Party at Teksavvy Tomorrow [TekSavvy]
· [Unlock] TUTORIAL: VONAGE WRTP54G/RTP300 WITH 5.01.04 [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Another Hopeflicker meter maid tirade [Rants, Raves, & Praise]
· [WotLK] Championing explained [World of Warcraft]
· Philly Metro (VHO8) Rollout Status [Verizon FIOS TV]
· Discussion on CRTC Non-Ruling thus far... [TekSavvy]
· How Do You Check a URL Before You go there for Nasties? [Security]