The Far-Reaching Effects of Comcast v FCC 132
eldavojohn writes "We've had a lot of discussion about what the overturning of FCC v Comcast means for net neutrality, but CommLawBlog argues that net-neut is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the effects of this ruling. In the National Broadband Plan, local TV broadcasters might be forced to give up their spectrum 'voluntarily' to be repurposed for broadband; this decision diminishes the FCC's authority to cut such deals. Another issue at stake is how this will affect the FCC's approval of Comcast's acquisition of NBC."
I Must Clarify One Thing (Score:5, Interesting)
net-neut
As the submitter, let the record show that I am not the originator of that term [slashdot.org]. I wash my hands of that wordsmithing and relinquish all credit with coining that term to kdawson or wherever he found it.
Personally the shortened form of that term sounds a bit more like a collection tool employed at a veterinarian than an internet principle.
Re:Comcast makeing NBC cable only and kill off sat (Score:1, Interesting)
"monopoly laws"???? Can you be more specific? They have names... The Sherman Act.. The Clayton Act... and usually they are called antitrust laws, and not monopoly laws...
NBC refusing to deal with satellite companies would be a "unilateral refusal to deal." And it would be perfectly legal under current antitrust jurisprudence.
Re:Comcast makeing NBC cable only and kill off sat (Score:4, Interesting)
in the slashdot world, there's only one 'monopoly law' and it says 'companies are not allowed to do anything i don't like'.
Glad to see someone else has finally said that.
Companies do stupid things. And they screw alot of people. But they're not charities - they're out there to make money; some of which goes in YOUR pocket if you work for them, are a supplier to them, have a 401(k) or some other investment device that has stock in them, etc.
Re:Hype (Score:1, Interesting)
What's so much worse about Ars Technica than, say, Slashdot?
Re:It's all about the competition (Score:3, Interesting)
The small ISPs, and I'd argue the rapid uptake of the Internet in the US, really only existed because of regulation. The '96 telco reform act forced the incumbent 'baby bells' to do business with startup phone companies. These in turn sold lines to ISPs in ways the bells wouldn't. Like affordable state wide phone trunking so no more physical equipment in every dialing area. When Powell's kid started running the FCC under the Bush era, they rolled back all the '96 telco reform rules in favor of big business. ISPs started dying quickly after this as the bells no longer had to play fairly, not even having to fake playing fair.
I'm all in favor of strong regulation by the FCC. Break up the physical lines from the service side of companies so there is fair and equal access. The lines were put in and more than paid for by taxpayers, time to move them to truly open as a public service. If the last mile was a commodity like it should be, we'd have so much competition available that net neutrality wouldn't be an issue as you could choose your provider of choice.
Re:i'm skeptical of net neutrality (Score:3, Interesting)
if Comcast upgrades its connection to Google but not to Bing (at least, not yet), that makes Google a faster responding search provider, customers use Bing less, and Microsoft is screwed
Except the opposite would happen, ComCast would make Google slower not faster and Bing faster not slower. Comcast is in bed with MS [microsoft.com].
Falcon
Re:i'm skeptical of net neutrality (Score:4, Interesting)