 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | 7 years? Why only bound for 7 years? |
|
|
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by ptrowski:Why only bound for 7 years?
It keeps them from using their dominant position for a period of time while allowing them to respond at the end of the ban period to any changes that have occurred with competitors whose actions are not restricted by this ban. |
|
 pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | Comcast's DeathStar quote:
Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station NBC Comcast corporation.
Indeed. Big MegaCorp will take over the Univers(al)e. Where is this 'force' now? |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | reply to RARPSL
Re: 7 years? Thanks, that makes sense! |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| How binding? The total package seems reasonable, and about the best that could be expected.
My only question is how they are guaranteed...i.e. what penalty would be imposed if they (CC) weasels, and what proof would be needed to impose the penalty?
7 years seemed long, but once I thought about how long AT&T delayed, before meeting some of the "conditions" they agreed to for their merger, I realized 3 years isn't enough.
Perhaps the clock shouldn't start running until ALL coditions are met. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to pokesph
Re: Comcast's DeathStar What a fantastic allegory! Kudos Karl.
Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design. Your friends, up there on the sanctuary moon Disney, CBS, HBO, Blockbuster and Netflix, are walking into a trap, as is your Rebel fleet ISP. It was *I* who allowed the Alliance FCC to know the location algorithm of the shield generator our throttling devices. It is quite safe from your pitiful little band. An entire legion of my best troops lawyers awaits them. Oh, I'm afraid the deflector shield monopoly will be quite operational when your friends arrive realize their content's priority on our network is BE. |
|
| reply to RARPSL
Re: 7 years? the 7 years doesn't make a difference. Comcast KNOWS the FCC has NO legal power to create such a demand on them. They'll wait and let this get all approved then they'll do what they want and in return when the FCC or states try to do anything; they'll slap them into court and find out the terms of the deal are illegal and Comcast will come out a head.
Karl fails to point out the FCC has NO legal power over the Internet each and every time this comes out. |
|
| reply to tshirt
Re: How binding? This is NOT binding. Comcast knows this and has been said over and over again. The FCC has NO LEGAL Power to ENFORCE ANYTHING on the Internet. NONE! The Courts have ruled this over and over again and the ISPs know this and have the FCC right where they want them. SCREWED |
|
| reply to hottboiinnc
Re: 7 years? /ignore |
|
| reply to Jim Kirk
Re: 7 years? no its not about ignoring my post. It's true. The FCC has NO legal power over the Internet. They know that and so do users on this site. But people like YOU fail to realize that and always want them to create "regulation and law" on things they can NOT. That's the whole issue and problems. The FCC has NO real power on ANYTHING except the public airwaves. That was why they were created and that is their mission and fuction. To protect the Pubic Airwaves and that is IT. NOT cable TV. Why, if it does NOt transmit on the Public Airwaves, the FCC can NOT regulate let alone stick their nose some where it does NOT belong. |
|
Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to hottboiinnc
Re: 7 years? Karl fails to point out the FCC has NO legal power over the Internet each and every time this comes out.
Note though the FCC claims they believe they have the right to promote and protect service competition over networks under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
While that claim will be tested in the courts, merger condition requirements agreed to by Comcast do not exist on the same legal playing field as the FCC's neutrality rules. |
|
| (mod note: edited, complaining about moderation is against forum rules)
And it is CLEAR. The FCC's guidelines start AIRWAVE; RADO and Telephone. NOT Internet. The Courts have ruled- thus making the FCC "conditions and any rules" they decide to create for the Internet null. They are NOT enforceable. The Courts have ruled OVER and OVER again agreeing with ISPs and their parent companies. |
|
| Merger conditions agreed to by involved corporations absolutely are enforceable. |
|
| actually not. they are just as what they say "conditions" they are not enforceable. ANY company that agrees to any of them can get out of them. Especially when gone to court. And when the FCC sets those that are NOT legal and are null; are just that. NOT enforceable from the start.
Not to be mean or anything; but a few law classes wouldn't hurt. |
|
Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | Again, you're wrong. You've confused the FCC's tenuous legal footing in terms of enforcing neutrality rules or other new rules or requirements on deregulated ISPs -- with their enforcement authority over agreed-to merger conditions. Because some specific types of conditions can be challenged does not magically equate to "the FCC has no authority to do absolutely anything," and the FTC can step in where needed. I can get a few sector lawyers to join this thread and discuss this if you would like... |
|
| Right. If enforceable, the FTC rather than the FCC is the regulatory body that can enforce the merger rules. The FCC was toothless in enforcing the Telecom act of 1996.
At the end of the day all of this eventually will end up in court. |
|
| Yes, it all will if the conditions wind up being significant. But frankly I think the FCC conditions will likely be intentionally weak, and won't cover anything Comcast isn't prepared to do voluntarily. |
|
