Will Comcast's Own Words Kill Its Lawsuit Against The FCC?
from the seems-pretty-damning dept
Last year, when the FCC was busy slapping Comcast's wrist for its traffic shaping policies, Comcast pointed out that it wasn't clear the FCC had the authority to do so. I tend to agree, actually. It's not at all clear that the FCC really has a mandate to tell private network operators what they can do with their network -- though, if that argument gets anywhere, it seems likely that a net neutrality-friendly Congress will quickly adjust and add it to the FCC's mandate. However, what was odd was that Comcast waited over a year before finally going to court over this issue. To be honest, I can't see what Comcast "wins" here, even if it wins the case. Congress would likely change the FCC's mandate. Separately, the FTC actually might have a stronger case here, as the real problem wasn't necessarily the traffic shaping, but Comcast's refusal to tell users about it, effectively providing false advertising to customers. That's an FTC issue.But a much bigger problem for Comcast may be the fact that the company has had no problem actively promoting the FCC's supposed "mandate" over them when it suits them. In a separate lawsuit over the very same traffic shaping, Comcast tried to get out of the lawsuit by claiming it was an issue covered by the FCC:
This issue "i.e., the reasonableness of a broadband provider's network management practices" has, however, been firmly placed within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), an administrative agency whose authority to regulate internet broadband access companies' services is well-established.You have to imagine that this quote from Comcast will be prominently displayed by the FCC in response to Comcast's latest action.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fcc mandate, net neutrality, traffic shaping, truth in advertising
Companies: comcast, fcc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That would be like saying
How long before they squeeze out companies like Vonage just because they can degrade network performance for that particular vendor that is in direct competition with comcast voice service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monopolies are never good for the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too Much Control
Was reading another article about the FCC giving the opportunity for the average person to have a voice. Sounds kinda cool http://www.trigeia.com/article.php?id=69378
@trigeia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I ask, not because I can't take a guess at which "FCC" you mean, but because at the end of the first paragraph you switch to "FTC" for a couple of references, and heck, for all I know, that's a typo, and not a deliberate reference to the Federal Trade Commission. Again, I'm not intimately familiar with the US systems, so I'm not absolutely sure.
Pulling the string "FTC" up to Firefox's tabs bar brings up a window for "feedthechildren.com", and an "I'm feeling lucky" search for FTC brings up the website of someone who's probably paid an awful lot of money for that to be the case. I point this out because there are people even more clueless than me on the internet...
At least, I hope there are...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey, sorry. We usually avoid that on acronyms we assume are well known, because after a certain point it just gets annoying.
But...
FCC: Federal Communications Commission. Deals with spectrum allocation, other federally regulated communications services.
FTC: Federal Trade Commission. Deals with, among other things, business regulations, such as truth-in-advertising and consumer protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lazy Wendy's milkshake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lazy Wendy's milkshake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it really a private network though?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it really a private network though?
this is america hippie and in the good ol' US of A we believe in profits above all else. big. corporate. profits.
so no, comcast doesn't have to support your commie notion of "competition" or your gay liberal first amendment rights and they sure as hell don't have to do what the FCC says just because they were built on government money.
son, these are corporate profits we are talking about here. corporate profits are the kind of stuff this great nation of ours was built on and that our forefathers fought for and died to protect.
all that hippie nonsense will affect comcast's god given right to profit handsomely by stomping out their competition and using their monopoly status to offer less and less while charging more and more.
so get a haircut, get a job, and stop all this commie BS about the FCC. once you have some profits of your own you'll understand how important it is to protect them. the end always justifies the means when it comes to protecting those sweet delicious profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it really a private network though?
But unfortunately it is mostly true. Big companies will do whatever they can (legal or otherwise) to protect what they think they are entitled to.
In the Delaware area comcast has, in the last 6-8 months, moved 5 channels from the basic cable line-up into the digital spectrum and raised the price 5 dollars a month.
Soooo for 5 less channels its cost us 5 more bucks? where is the logic and equivalent price association?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it really a private network though?
there are two basic rules in the telco and cable co industry:
1) rates always go up
2) rates never permanently go down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it really a private network though?
I just hate how it technology has made it cheaper for them to manage, service and repair their infrastructure and yet prices dont reflect that. I know I know thats how they increase their profit margin, Im just venting out loud I guess
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When is cable not cable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]