Waiting.... waiting.... waiting....
"Court limits FCC power over Internet; In Net neutrality setback, ruling says regulator can’t order carriers to lift traffic restrictions" by Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | April 7, 2010
A federal court has cleared the way for Internet service providers to limit some online content, declaring that regulators have no power to stop them.
The court ruled 3 to 0 that the Federal Communications Commission exceeded its authority in 2008 when it ordered cable giant Comcast Corp. to lift limits on some kinds of Internet traffic.
Yeah, I may never load.
The decision was a setback for advocates of “Net neutrality,’’ the idea that Internet providers should be required to treat all data alike. And it could mean that the FCC lacks the authority to implement its recently released plan to deliver broadband Internet service to every American.
Democratic US Representative Ed Markey of Malden, a Net neutrality advocate, blamed the ruling on the Bush administration....
Tired of those games; it is your government now.
Pass a frikkin' law.
See: Googling Control of Congress
Oh.
It’s unlikely that the ruling will have any immediate impact on consumers.
But later....
Comcast said yesterday that it will not resume the controversial limits on Internet traffic that spawned the legal dispute. But some Internet activists fear that Comcast and other broadband companies could delay or block data transmitted by business rivals, or data streams containing controversial political ideas.
I think you are uploaded now, 'eh, readers -- or not.
Have I told you I love you today?
Gigi Sohn, president and cofounder of Public Knowledge, a Washington lobbying group that favors Net neutrality regulations, said the court ruling “essentially takes away the FCC’s ability to protect consumers.’’
But Scott Cleland, chairman of NetCompetition.org, a trade group financed by broadband Internet providers, said the ruling allows providers to manage their networks without undue government interference. “Comcast was simply trying to ensure quality of service to its customers when confronted with the problem of bandwidth hogs,’’ Cleland said.
I can see that point.
In 2007, Comcast began restricting the use of a file-sharing technology called BitTorrent, saying users of the service transmitted so much data — including music and video files — that they were slowing down the entire network.
Oh, I'm not doing much of that at all. I'm just here typing away my concerns that remain unaddressed by political leadership.
Users said Comcast had no right to single them out for discriminatory treatment, noting that other heavy Internet uses were not restricted.
Yeah, this is America! No discrimination!
The FCC agreed, issuing a cease-and-desist order compelling Comcast to halt its restrictions. The company complied, but appealed the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, arguing that there was no federal statute giving the FCC authority over the company’s Internet service.
So CONGRESS NEEDS to get its butt in gear, huh?
Sigh. See ya.... who know$ when, readers$.
Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the appeals court unanimously agreed....
Even those who want tougher regulation of broadband Internet services agreed that the FCC was on shaky legal ground....
Yeah, they need a law to enforce. Congress new this was coming; failed again, huh?
Is funding wars and banks all the know to do?
The FCC could reverse the 2002 policy decision and declare that Internet services will be regulated like telephone companies.
Well?
James DeLong, visiting fellow at Digital Society, a free market-oriented think tank, said such a move “would set off a long, long legal donnybrook, though . . . I think the agency would ultimately win.’’
Yeah, but that's too tough, to do something like that for the public they "serve."
Also, Congress could pass a law to expand the FCC’s powers, such as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, cosponsored by Markey, but languishing since July in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Meanwhile, the court ruling could mean trouble for the FCC’s national broadband plan, which was released last month....
Oh, that isn't good!
Related: Googletown, U.S.A.
Whadda ya mean you ain't on the web?
--more--"
Also see: Comcast is King
Guess I better be careful.
Here are a couple more things that will be keeping them busy:
WASHINGTON — Justice Stephen Breyer predicted yesterday that the Supreme Court will one day pass judgment on this year’s health care overhaul.
Then again, maybe not: Republicans Retreat on Health Bill Repeal
Breyer told a congressional panel that the massive health care law, like most major federal legislation, is a good candidate for high court review. More than a dozen Republican attorneys general in several states are determined to challenge the law in federal court, arguing that its requirement that Americans get health insurance is unconstitutional.
Well, maybe!
Breyer said the light caseload in recent years will soon grow....
So how many other things are they going to interject themselves?
Can't they just LEAVE the STATES ALONE?
How many more rights are they going to strip from us?
"Candidate for appellate court faces GOP attack" by Ben Pershing, Washington Post | April 17, 2010
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans mounted a concerted attack yesterday on federal appeals court nominee Goodwin Liu in a session that both parties see as a warm-up for the coming fight to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.
Liu, an associate dean at the University of California at Berkeley law school, is being vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee for a slot on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers nine Western states. Groups on the left strongly support him and many on the right oppose him for the same reason: Liu is an outspoken liberal whose writings have promoted the idea that interpreting the Constitution requires much more than just divining the intent of the Founding Fathers.
This is the kind of stuff that, to me, is unbelievably outrageous.
The thing spells out all you need to do and how the nation is to be governed.
There is no fine print or exception clauses; except for properly introduced and ratified amendments.
The Founding Fathers MEANT WHAT THEY MEANT when they WROTE IT DOWN!
They were INTELLIGENT MEN who UNDERSTOOD GOVERNMENT and TYRANNY, folks!
That is NEVER SUBJECT to CHANGE!!
In their interrogation of Liu, Senate Republicans are testing arguments they will use when President Obama nominates a successor to Stevens.
Yeah, right: Republicans Bowing to Obama on Court Nominee
Man, am I tired of the MSM distortions and deceptions.
Many Democrats hope Obama will name an outspoken liberal in the mold of Liu, and plan to mount a vigorous defense of the Ninth Circuit nominee to demonstrate that such a candidate can clear the Senate gantlet....
I am always amazed at the willing faith of liberal Democrats after so many knife blows to the back.
Liu said the original intent of the Constitution’s framers was “very important’’ for judges to consider, but “it is not the sole touchstone’’ of legal interpretation.
There IS NO BUT, sir, I am SORRY!!
--more--"
Related: Senate Republicans Roll Over For Fed
- Republicans Bowing to Obama on Court Nominee
- Obama's Next Nominee: Cagey Kagan
- Clear the Court: Stevens Leavin'
- Clear the Court: Signing the Campaign Checks
- Clear the Court: Laboring at the Supreme Court
- Clear the Court: Abort! Abort!
- Clear the Court: Surfing For Porn
- Clear the Court: Jury Pool
- Clear the Court: Condoning Cyberbullying
- Clear the Court: Ashcroft's Absolution
- Clear the Court: Fatal Framing
- Clear the Court: Flying a False Flag
