Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Rob, 10 Mar 2008 @ 3:19am

  
  

  Maybe he had a change of heart.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  A. L. Flanagan, 10 Mar 2008 @ 4:01am

  
  

  Errr... Follow the money?
  
  (Just guessing)

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Liquid, 10 Mar 2008 @ 4:38am

  
  

  Re:

  I think his nose is just a little brown too...

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 4:15am

  
  

  Because he's a spineless money-grubbing little sock-puppet of a man, that's why.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Genny Pershing, 10 Mar 2008 @ 4:22am

  
  

  A la carte

  Because high on the Chairman's agenda was A LA CARTE which cable refused to give him - and he has had a vendetta ever since. Next would be the question of where A LA CARTE came from? Was this a rel right issue of a community getting sick of paying for Sex in the Siddy when what they really wanted to watch was the 24 hr Tammy Fay Baker channel.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  James (profile), 10 Mar 2008 @ 5:06am

  
  

  Looking for his next Job?

  It will be interesting to see what his next job is.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Overcast, 10 Mar 2008 @ 6:33am

  
  

  He's a politician for all intents and purposes. It's just expected...
  
  I guess AT&T is paying them more?

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  KnowTheDude, 10 Mar 2008 @ 6:38am

  
  

  No surprises

  Kevin has only 10 months to find a new job. He is universally hated by many (with the exception of Telcos). He is just trying to line up either a direct job with them, or a job with a firm (law firm) wanting a close relationship with AT&T.
  
  He is the worst FCC head in decades, and deserves nothing but foodstamps when his time is up.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Hans, 10 Mar 2008 @ 7:13am

  
  

  Obviously...

  It's because AT&T bribed Kevin Martin, while Comcast did not.
  
  Oh wait, did I say bribed? What I really meant to say was that AT&T made some political contributions. Yeah, that's it.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  DanC, 10 Mar 2008 @ 7:43am

  
  

  I'm going to go with "Because he's a hypocrite" for the win.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Josh H, 10 Mar 2008 @ 8:45am

  
  

  re: 9

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Josh H, 10 Mar 2008 @ 8:46am

  
  

  re: 9

  Considering he does not hold an elected office, it would be difficult for Martin to acquire any "legal" campaign contributions.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 8:51am

  
  

  Is Martin from texas?
  
  Is he? Is he? Martin must have helped out Bush somehow. Yee-haw! Business texas-style!

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 12:34pm

  
  

  Re:

  I believe Martin is from South Carolina.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 7:51pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  > I believe Martin is from South Carolina.
  
  Wikipedia says he "served as the Deputy General Counsel to Bush-Cheney 2000, on the Bush-Cheney recount team in Florida."

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 8:54am

  
  

  AT&T typically doesn't compete with other telecoms, they do with cable companies.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 12:41pm

  
  

  I'm guessing a big factor is that Comcast wasn't using traffic shaping. They were forging TCP packets, not telling anyone they were doing it and denying they were doing it when asked about it. It's a little different than up front traffic shaping and is arguable illegal under several laws. They even tried lying to congress claiming this was common practice.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2008 @ 6:29pm

  
  

  Why is it a Kevin Martin decision to make ?
  I thought what Comcast is doing is illegal and that the DA or the FBI should be involved.
  
  I dont think it is up to the FCC to decide when to prosecute and when to look the other way.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  USWESTguy, 11 Mar 2008 @ 5:03am

  
  

  It's because the cable companies are so entrenched (read monopolies). In the NE I'm paying over $115 for basic cable and VOIP. We need new players in the market, like att, to drive down the costs. It's a kind of telecom affirmative action.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment