<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;authority&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:19:54 PDT</pubDate>
<title>More Details On Copyright Office's Suggestions On Copyright Reform; Some Good, Some Bad</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/14043322341/more-details-copyright-offices-suggestions-copyright-reform-some-good-some-bad.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/14043322341/more-details-copyright-offices-suggestions-copyright-reform-some-good-some-bad.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier today, we broke the story that the head of the US Copyright Office, Maria Pallante is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/09225322338/surprise-register-copyrights-expected-to-call-reduction-copyright-term.shtml">proposing</a> major copyright reforms, including reducing the term to life plus 50 with the ability to proactively renew for another 20 years.  While this was a move in the right direction (though not far enough), there were plenty of other proposals that were worrisome.  Some more details are starting to come out.
<br /><br />
First, I'm at a Santa Clara University conference all about the DMCA (fun stuff!) today, and Rob Kasunic from the Copyright Office mentioned that Pallante's talk at Columbia a couple weeks ago, where most of this information comes from, was merely a "shorter" version of her larger proposal.  And that's impressive since her talk covered <i>a lot</i> of different areas concerning copyright.  Now, the Association of Research Libraries has <a href="http://policynotes.arl.org/post/45438311615/notes-from-register-pallantes-the-next-great#_=_" target="_blank">posted the notes of an attendees at that lecture</a>, Greg Cram, from the NY Public Library.  He points out that these are just his own notes, and may not be totally accurate.  However, there are some details.  First, the reduction in copyright term is basically what we discussed:
<blockquote><i>
Term of 50 years, renewable for an additional 20
<br /><br />
&#8212;The Supreme Court decision in Golan v. Holder is last word on whether life plus 70 years is constitutional
<br /><br />
&#8212;However, the term of copyright protection could be modified to 50 years after the death of the author, renewable for another 20 years
<br /><br />
&#8212;This would put the burden on the copyright owner to renew copyright term at the end of 50 years after death
<br /><br />
&#8212;Modeled after &sect; 108(h), something the Copyright Office is very fond of
<br /><br />
&#8212;This proposal would be acceptable under various international treaties, including the Berne Convention
</i></blockquote>
This is a small step in the right direction, which is surprising, since pretty much all steps have gone in the other direction, in favor of maximalism.  However, there is plenty to be worried about.  Here are a few such points:
<blockquote><i>
Stronger Enforcement &#8212;The new law must respect the integrity of the internet, including free speech &#8212;There needs to be, however, a mix of legislative and voluntary efforts to combat infringement online &#8212;On solution may be to increase criminal penalties for streaming, or at least bring them in line with the penalties for distribution through downloads
</i></blockquote>
In other words... perhaps we trade off shorter terms for more criminal prosecutions for "streaming," even as there are serious questions about why basic streaming should be illegal <i>and</i> with so much evidence that greater enforcement does little to help copyright holders' bottom line.  That's a problem.
<blockquote><i>
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act &#8212;The Internet has evolved since DMCA passage in 1998 &#8212;Congress should review the &sect; 512 safe harbors &#8212;Congress also needs to review &sect; 1201 rulemaking, especially in light of the White House response to a petition on unlocking mobile phones
</i></blockquote>
This is the part that worries me.  The entertainment industry has been really itching to ditch the DMCA's safe harbor provisions that protect service providers from liability for the actions of their users.  If <i>that's</i> the trade-off for shorter copyright terms, it's <i>not</i> worth it.  The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA are a huge part of why the internet has been able to develop so many wonderful services.
<br /><br />
The &sect; 1201 rulemaking, however, is the issue concerning anti-circumvention, which <i>should</i> absolutely be re-examined, as it's created a huge mess for all sorts of legitimate uses.  But, again, re-opening the safe harbors provision should be a non-starter. Nothing good can come from that.
<blockquote><i>
Incidental Copies &#8212;Not all copies are the same &#8212;Perhaps there could be discrete exceptions for certain incidental copies &#8212;For more information on this issue, see the Copyright Offices 2001 study on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
</i></blockquote>
Depending on where this falls out, this could be pretty important.  Hollywood has often tried to argue that "incidental" copies should be seen as infringing, and cases like the Cablevision case have raised some issues around that.
<blockquote><i>
Public Performance Right for Sound Recordings &#8212;Copyright Office is a &#8220;strong supporter&#8221; of a public performance right for sound recordings &#8212;Disparities between terrestrial radio and internet radio royalty rates are hampering new business models
</i></blockquote>
This is an old battle that's been fought for years and years, and is basically a tax on broadcasters for the benefit of the RIAA.  It's silly since it's obvious that the record labels directly value radio airplay, because they pay for it via payola.  Arguing that radio stations should have to pay back for the "right" to promote a musician seems kind of silly.  
<blockquote><i>
Statutory Damages &#8212;Review registration requirements &#8212;Look at statutory damages from all angles &#8212;Statutory damages are important part of copyright act and should be retained &#8212;Need to provide guidance to courts about how statutory damages should be applied
</i></blockquote>
This one could be good, since the statutory damages are so out of whack with reality.  However, again, just watch as Hollywood -- with its ridiculous belief that "more punishment" will suddenly get people to buy again -- argues that these rates need to go <i>up</i> not down.
<blockquote><i>
Other Exceptions/Limitations &#8212;The libraries and archives exception in Â§ 108 should be updated &#8212;Update exceptions for the blind and print disabled in &sect; 121 for the digital world &#8212;Explore new exception for higher education institutions &#8212;Personal space-shifting
</i></blockquote>
These are important, but are really reflections of problems of a system that has automatic copyright applied to nearly everything and not nearly enough recognition of <i>individual rights</i>.  The solutions here are useful, but are basically just patching up evidence of why overreaching copyright law is fundamentally broken.  On that issue, however, she apparently believes that more compulsory licensing can be a solution:
<blockquote><i>
    Opt-Out v. Opt-In &#8212;Extended collective licensing could potentially solve many problems 
</i></blockquote>
Of course, this ignores just how screwed up the collective licensing process often becomes, with the focus just being on constantly raising rates, often squeezing out other business models.  On top of that, the distribution challenge means a lot of wasted overhead and an all too frequent situation in which big name artists end up getting the money that should go to smaller artists, since they're harder to find and to track.
<blockquote><i>
Small Claims &#8212;The Copyright Office is studying this issue &#8212;Small claims may be a way for rights holders to enforce rights when federal litigation may be too expensive &#8212;The Copyright Office could, potentially, take a lead role in administering small claims
</i></blockquote>
We <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/23325421252/proposed-copyright-small-claims-court-may-have-bigger-impact-than-dmca.shtml">discussed this recently</a>, and how it could actually have widespread impact, leading to more infringement lawsuits being filed.  This needs to be watched carefully.
<br /><br />
There's also the issue of giving herself a lot more power:
<blockquote><i>
Finally, Congress should expand the role of the Copyright Office. The Office could help to resolve questions of law or fact through advisory opinions. The Office could also help to establish best practices on a number of topics, including searching for copyright owners. If an extended collective licensing scheme is devised by Congress, then the Office could provide transparency to that system.
</i></blockquote>
Basically, they want to make the Copyright Office a bigger deal, like the FCC or something.  This has a whole host of risks, especially when the Copyright Office has a big <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130130/23085521833/former-riaa-vp-named-2nd-command-copyright-office.shtml">revolving door</a> with the entertainment industry.
<br /><br />
Once again, this is going to be a very big deal when the full details of these suggestions are put forth -- and we should be quite worried about a number of the ideas above that could make things significantly worse, rather than better.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/14043322341/more-details-copyright-offices-suggestions-copyright-reform-some-good-some-bad.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/14043322341/more-details-copyright-offices-suggestions-copyright-reform-some-good-some-bad.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/14043322341/more-details-copyright-offices-suggestions-copyright-reform-some-good-some-bad.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>going-to-be-a-mess</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130315/14043322341</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 04:16:57 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Wyden Traps Feds In Their Own Words: ACTA Explanation Opens Up Big Hole In Cybersecurity Bill</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/14470119832/wyden-traps-feds-their-own-words-acta-explanation-opens-up-big-hole-cybersecurity-bill.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/14470119832/wyden-traps-feds-their-own-words-acta-explanation-opens-up-big-hole-cybersecurity-bill.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Back in March, when the US State Department <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120307/13454918027/obama-administration-acta-is-binding-dont-worry-your-pretty-little-heads-about-tpp.shtml">responded</a> to Ron Wyden's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/01545117544/as-ustr-insists-acta-doesnt-need-congressional-approval-wyden-asks-state-dept-second-opinion.shtml">questions</a> about the feds' authority to negotiate and sign onto ACTA without Congressional approval (damn you, <a href="http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/20-power-to-regulate-commerce.html" target="_blank">Constitution</a>), it made an odd (and rather new) claim: that Congress had actually already approved the executive branch's ability to negotiate and approve international agreements on intellectual property issues. The claim was that the ProIP Act (of 2008) said the newly appointed IP Czar should create a joint strategic plan which, among other things, helps identify how the administration can deal with IP enforcement issues by "working with other countries to establish international standards and policies for the effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights."
<br /><br />
Yes, because Congress said that the IP Czar should create a strategic plan in which the administration can work with other countries on IP enforcement, the administration now claims that Congress effectively abdicated its powers over international commerce on that issue, despite it never clearly stating that.
<br /><br />
Given that strained interpretation, Wyden has noticed that the new <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120719/16090619768/new-cybersecurity-bill-may-actually-take-privacy-concerns-seriously.shtml">cybersecurity bill</a> that the Senate is considering could be broadly interpreted in the same manner to create all sorts of powers for the administration to ignore Congress in crafting international agreements concerning online security.  He's now <a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/124874063/Wyden-Letter-to-Koh-Re-Cyber-and-ACTA-July-2012" target="_blank">sent the State Department a letter asking for clarification</a>.  Here's the key part:
<blockquote><i>
Do these provisions, or any others, in S. 3414 authorize the Executive Branch to enter into binding agreements with foreign governments for the purposes of establishing disciplines on cybersecurity?  If so, under what circumstances would Congress need to consider such agreements and under what circumstances would you argue that Congress need not consider such agreements?  If S. 3414 does not authorize the Executive Branch to enter into binding international agreements over cybersecurity without Congress' consideration of such an agreement, how do you square this view with your interpretation of the Pro IP Act of 2008?
</i></blockquote>
In other words: Wyden is calling the State Department on its bullshit retroactive interpretation of Pro IP by noting that if they truly believe it, then the new cybersecurity bill would effectively mean Congress gives up its powers to have oversight on any international agreements about cybersecurity -- something the administration almost certainly does <i>not</i> want, since that would spark a debate that would likely hold up approval of the bill.  The State Department, of course, wants it both ways.  It wants to claim that the Pro IP gave the administration the power to ignore the Constitution with IP issues, but the same is not true of the cybersecurity bill.  But that would involve ignoring that the same language is present in both bills.
<br /><br />
I fully expect that the State Department will now seek to tapdance its way around this -- or (more likely) not answer until after the cybersecurity debate is over.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/14470119832/wyden-traps-feds-their-own-words-acta-explanation-opens-up-big-hole-cybersecurity-bill.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/14470119832/wyden-traps-feds-their-own-words-acta-explanation-opens-up-big-hole-cybersecurity-bill.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/14470119832/wyden-traps-feds-their-own-words-acta-explanation-opens-up-big-hole-cybersecurity-bill.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>which-is-it?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120725/14470119832</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:48:46 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Comcast Appeals FCC's Wrist Slap</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080904/2252142173.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080904/2252142173.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As was widely <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080710/1513541642.shtml">expected</a>, Comcast <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Appeals-FCC-Throttling-Ruling-97480" target="_new">has appealed the FCC's ruling concerning its traffic shaping practices</a> -- even though that ruling was a total <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080713/1401571658.shtml">slap on the wrist</a> that had no real punishment other than a verbal scolding.  But, of course, for Comcast, it's a question of principle -- with the principle being that the FCC has <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1804141817.shtml">no authority</a> over it on this matter (except, of course, when it's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080710/1513541642.shtml">politically convenient</a> for Comcast to say otherwise).
<br /><br />
While the ruling against Comcast was rather pointless and meaningless, this appeal could create a much more interesting lawsuit, helping to more clearly define the FCC's authority on these issues.  Amusingly, despite the effective issues being identical to the question of the FCC's authority over consumer electronics in the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040310/0045239.shtml">broadcast flag debate</a> from four years ago, expect various public interest groups to align on the opposite sides of where they did back during that fight.  Apparently, FCC regulation is bad, except when it's in agreement with your opinion.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080904/2252142173.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080904/2252142173.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080904/2252142173.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-can't-even-not-punish-us!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080904/2252142173</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:02:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Don't Be Too Quick To Cheer On FCC On Its Net Neutrality Response</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1804141817.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1804141817.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With most reports <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209602109&#038;subSection=News">assuming</a> that the FCC will vote in favor of some sort of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080713/1401571658.shtml">wrist slap</a> on Comcast for its traffic shaping this week, one of the things that doesn't make sense is the folks who are cheering about this move who also <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040310/0045239.shtml">fought like dogs</a> to keep the FCC from implementing the broadcast flag.  As you may recall, a few years back, the entertainment industry pushed for the FCC to mandate a broadcast flag that would allow it to define rules for whether or not its content could be recorded by DVRs.  The courts rightfully determined that such a mandate was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050506/0853248.shtml">outside the scope</a> of the FCC's authority.  However, an FCC ruling on net neutrality is basically covering identical grounds, yet <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10000821-38.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_new">many of the groups cheering this decision are the same who fought against the Broadcast Flag</a>, claiming the FCC had no mandate.
<br /><br />
Now, to be clear, the concept of network neutrality is definitely a good thing -- but having the FCC suddenly put itself in charge of regulating such things (even if it's regulating it in a reasonable manner) is really dangerous.  Those who are celebrating this decision should be worried about what it means.  Specifically, they're going to have little leg to stand on when the FCC next tries to mandate something outside of its authority (which is almost certainly going to happen in the near future).
<br /><br />
That <i>doesn't</i> mean that the apocalyptic predictions from the industry will come true, however.  Represented by a positively ridiculous and blatantly silly <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/27/AR2008072701172.html">editorial in the Washington Post by FCC commissioner Robert McDowell</a>, it's pure rubbish to suggest that this ruling by the FCC means the internet might "grind to a halt" is totally unsubstantiated sensationalism that has been shown <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060328/1859213.shtml">time</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070917/010343.shtml">time</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070413/011103.shtml">time</a> again to be false.  There isn't a serious bandwidth crunch -- and whatever potential crunch may be coming could be dealt with by some modest improvements in infrastructure, not necessarily by breaking network neutrality, which is more of an attempt to double charge for bandwidth than anything else.
<br /><br />
However, supporters of net neutrality may be making a big mistake in cheering on the FCC as it expands its authority in this area.  The FCC has never been about protecting consumer rights, and granting them this authority (which the law appears not to do) opens the door to a lot more trouble down the road.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1804141817.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1804141817.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1804141817.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>double-standards</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080728/1804141817</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 03:10:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Would Wikipedia Be The Same With Edits Needing Approval?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1906271714.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1906271714.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Wikipedia has apparently been testing a system by which new edits from most users <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/wikipedia-tries-approval-system-to-reduce-vandalism-on-pages/index.html?partner=rssuserland&#038;emc=rss" target="_new">don't show up for most visitors until they get approved</a> by someone with "authority."  The plan sounds similar to one that was suggested <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070808/013230.shtml">a year ago</a> -- but in that case, the new edits would simply be shaded in a different color to warn people that they hadn't been reviewed.  That seems much more effective than completely waiting to approve any edit -- especially since the "approvals" are really just to weed out vandalism, not to review the actual trustworthiness of the content.  But with color coded "unreviewed" content, it will remind users to make sure they're even more cautious than they should be with regular Wikipedia content.  Either way, requiring approval before edits go live seems like it would take away much of the spirit that made Wikipedia what it is today.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1906271714.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1906271714.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1906271714.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>loses-some-of-the-appeal</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080717/1906271714</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:32:09 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Kevin Martin Tries To Thread The Needle In Sanctioning Comcast</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080713/1401571658.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080713/1401571658.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As was widely <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080710/1513541642.shtml">expected</a>, FCC boss Kevin Martin has come out saying he believes Comcast violated FCC rules in its traffic shaping program, and he's recommending that the FCC <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/technology/12comcast.html?adxnnl=1&#038;adxnnlx=1215893205-gy8vbdOZuNH0/wvZumQV g" target="_new">sanction, but not fine, Comcast</a> and order it to stop its traffic shaping (something it's already planning to do).  Kevin Martin's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080310/004649483.shtml">favoritism</a> towards the telcos is well known -- so it comes as no surprise that he'd come out against Comcast.  He's given every indication that such a move was in the cards.  However, the lack of a fine -- combined with telling Comcast to do what it was already doing -- is an interesting move.  If anything, it may be an attempt by Martin to quietly assert control over cable and hope that the cable industry doesn't fight back.
<br /><br />
Whether or not the FCC's mandate really does include cable is an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/195617592.shtml">open question</a> -- and the cable companies have at least a decent claim to the fact that their systems are not covered by the FCC.  So, here's a situation where the FCC is slapping Comcast's wrist in such a way that Comcast is unlikely to mind -- but if it "agrees" to the response, then it may be effectively admitting that the FCC <i>does</i> have a say in how cable companies operate, which could open quite a Pandora's box in terms of the FCC's overall mandate. 
<br /><br />
There is, of course, a simpler way out of this that no one appears to be taking.  The real problem most people had with Comcast's actions was that it wasn't at all transparent about them -- continually insisting that they weren't doing anything.  Effectively, Comcast may have been guilty of false advertising in terms of how its network worked.  So why not have the FTC, rather than the FCC, slap them down for their lack of transparency, rather than having the FCC step in where it might not belong?
<br /><br />
As for those who are claiming that Martin's statements are somehow a "victory" for network neutrality, you might want to think again.  Martin has made it clear in the past that he's not a supporter of network neutrality -- especially when it comes to the telcos, telling AT&#038;T that if it felt it needed to start discriminating traffic for a valid business reason, it should <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070101/224728.shtml">feel free</a> to do so.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080713/1401571658.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080713/1401571658.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080713/1401571658.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-little-of-this-and-a-little-of-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080713/1401571658</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:26:24 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Comcast Says FCC Has No Authority To Stop Traffic Shaping</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/195617592.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/195617592.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This probably won't come as much of a surprise, but Comcast is now suggesting that <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/19/comcast_fcc_legal_authority/" target="_new">the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate its traffic shaping activities</a>.  This comes in response to Kevin Martin suggesting that the FCC <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080310/004649483.shtml">would rule against Comcast</a> for traffic shaping (which seemed odd enough, considering that Martin was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070101/224728.shtml">perfectly fine</a> with AT&#038;T traffic shaping).  Comcast is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080314/090224542.shtml">already suing</a> the FCC over its telco favoritism, so this might just be one more thing to toss on the pile.
<br /><br />
It's tough to know who to favor in this situation -- but Comcast may be technically correct that this extends beyond the FCC's authority.  Still, it might not be good policy for the company to say so, considering the efforts being made to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/122300247.shtml">put in place</a> net neutrality legislation.  If supporters of this legislation notice what Comcast is saying, it might just explicitly add language to the bill to give the FCC the authority that Comcast now says it doesn't have.  So, even if Comcast is right, saying so out loud may not have been the wisest move at this juncture.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/195617592.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/195617592.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080319/195617592.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>lawsuit-already-shaping-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080319/195617592</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>