News

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Diplo IGCBP on April 19, 2010 at 4:26pm

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dsearls
Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Subject: [berkmanfriends] Comcast v. FCC: an early course correction?
To: Wendy Seltzer , Berkman Friends



I think you may be on a converging path here with the direction that
Erik Cecil has been going for awhile. He's not trying to save net
neutrality (in fact he thinks it's the wrong fight), but his ideas
about reclassification have merit, I think.

Here is his latest post on the matter:



Here's are Gordon Cook's remarks about Erik's ideas...



... and Gordon's interview with Erik in December:



Be curious to see what ya'll think.

Cheers,
Doc
London, at the moment

At 3:29 PM -0400 4/7/10, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>So here's what I said to Technology Review on the Comcast v. FCC
>decision (opinion at
>)
>
>At least Copps sounds inclined to reclassify:
>
>
>
>The decision, while significant, is not fatal to the cause of network
>neutrality. As many were expecting after the argument, the DC Circuit
>held the FCC had not identified a jurisdictional basis for its order
>against Comcast. That finding, reading the FCC's ancillary jurisdiction
>narrowly, is consistent with public interest groups' complaint against
>the FCC's Broadcast Flag several years ago. We should know from the law
>what administrative agencies can regulate.
>
>As I see it, the ruling means one of two things next: Congress can give
>the FCC explicit authority to regulate Internet provider neutrality, or
>the FCC can reach deeper into the Telecommunications Act and classify at
>least part of broadband Internet service provision as Title II
>"telecommunications service" and demand neutrality based on that
>jurisdiction. (The Brand X decision held only that FCC's earlier
>classification of cable modem service as "information service" was not
>"arbitrary and capricious," but not that such classification was
>required by the Act.)
>
>I support network neutrality -- assuring the Internet's end-users of
>access to non-discriminatory network service on which to build and get
>applications -- and I think we can still get there from here. Since we
>can anticipate that any neutrality rulemaking will face challenge from
>incumbents, the guidance from this ruling can help the FCC to craft a
>stronger, more lasting Rule.
>
>
>I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts.
>--Wendy
>
>--
>Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org
>phone: +1.914.374.0613
>Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School
>Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
>http://www.chillingeffects.org/
>https://www.torproject.org/
>
>----------
>You are subscribed to the Berkman Fellows and Friends discussion list.
>
>Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends
>Mailing list members: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends
>
>Please mind that emails sent through this list are considered public unless
>otherwise noted.