July 2008

On July 8, Comcast's Joe Waz wrote that Free Press wants to "punish Comcast for engaging in network management that Free Press believes violates the Federal Communications Commission’s Internet Policy Statement." But, he argued, FCC Commissioners have said the Internet Policy Statement is not enforceable, and the law is very clear on that basic point. 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. On July 9, Free Press' Marvin Ammori responded saying, "We want to ensure that all Americans, not just big corporations and their lobbying gangs, have a seat at the table in policy debates. We also want to protect the free and open Internet that we have always enjoyed. And finally, we want to make sure that lawmakers punish any company that tries to illegally insert itself as gatekeeper between consumers and online content. Unfortunately for the cable giant, what Free Press and the public want is the exact opposite of what Comcast wants. Comcast wants to monopolize your Internet connection, block online competitors, and control what consumers do online. Comcast wants to turn the Internet into cable TV, where every Web site has to cut a special deal with them to get carried or else get blocked. And Comcast wants to be above the law while doing this." Ammori identifies what he calls Comcast's "two main lies": 1) Congress never gave the FCC authority to enforce Net Neutrality. Free Press argues Congress gave the FCC more than enough authority to enforce Net Neutrality and to punish Comcast for its violation. 2) The FCC can't punish Comcast because the agency didn't issue a “rule” about Net Neutrality -- only a “policy statement.” Free Press says 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. Nate Anderson asks "Who knew that arcane telecom policy battles at the FCC could 1) be this important and 2) simultaneously be this entertaining?"
(Sources linked below)

AT&T has failed to convince a federal judge in Connecticut to vacate a legal precedent declaring that its U-verse service is a cable service. The telecommunications company petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut to declare as moot that court's July 26, 2007 ruling striking down a finding by the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control from 2006. The most recent AT&T motion asked the judge to amend her final judgment, arguing that the whole dispute became moot in October of last year when the Connecticut legislature approved its state franchising bill. The new legislation created video franchise regulation. That regulation did not rely on a legally defining U-verse in order for AT&T to qualify to deliver video in the state. But the court, in a ruling issued July 10, decided that while the state franchising law resolved the issue of franchising, there are “live issues” that will remain until the Federal Communications Commission or a court decides that elements of the Cable Act do or don't apply to AT&T's video service. Therefore, Judge Arterton refused to amend her previous rulings.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6577558.html?nid=4262

What happens when a bog suddenly decides to remove all reference to someone and all the posts said person ever made on a site?
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/its_all_over_now_violet_blue.php

Time Warner Cable said late Thursday that it has reached an agreement to sell systems in several non-strategic markets with about 80,000 subscribers to Windjammer Communications for an undisclosed sum. Windjammer was created specifically for the deal and consists of Boston private equity concern MAST Capital Management and Jupiter, Fla.-based small cable operator Communications Construction Services.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6577553.html?nid=4262