FCC BROADBAND HEARING IN PITTSBURGH

The Federal Communications Commission traveled to Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh
Monday to discuss "Broadband and the Digital Future." The FCC commissioners heard about
privacy, fairness and commercial possibility. Rep Mike Doyle (D-PA) helped organize the event saying it was intended to address two major
concerns -- the so- called "digital divide" between those who have broadband access
and those who don't, and "Network Neutrality," or the openness of the Internet. The United States government needs to expand its
broadband mapping efforts and collect information about Internet speed tiers,
Federal Communications Chairman Kevin Martin said. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said,
"No matter who you are, or where you live, or how
much money you make ... you will need, and you are entitled to have
these tools (broadband Internet) available to you, I think, as a civil
right." Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein echoed Doyle's and Martin's
calls for regulations and seconded Martin's belief that America must
find a solutions that will help increase broadband deployment and
speed while also lowering the cost of broadband. Commissioner Deborah
Taylor Tate emphasized her efforts to crack down on online child
pornography. Internet service providers should be free to take
unilateral action against such sites, she said. Tate also cited the
need to respect intellectual property rights online. Commissioner
Robert McDowell, appearing to reject some of the more regulatory
policies of his colleagues, said that the Internet has flourished
because engineers have, and should continue, to be the solvers of
engineering problems, not governmental officials.

Links to source articles:

Of particular note: "At FCC broadband hearing, speeches but no consensus"
Courtesy of the Benton Foundation <http://www.benton.org>


FCC and Comcast

For reference:  http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325396,00.asp

"FCC commissioners have said on several occasions that the Internet policy statement is not enforceable, and the law is very
clear on that basic point," wrote Joe Waz, senior vice president of external affairs for Comcast. "The policy statement is
not a set of rules. It doesn't have any binding effect. And the FCC has never adopted rules in this area."

"The Supreme Court and Congress have made it clear that a federal agency like the FCC can act either through rules or a
complaint processes," Ammori responded in a blog post. "It's astounding that a company with an army of high-priced lawyers
would even try to dispute this, as it is a basic fact taught on day one of any administrative law class."

But Congress has said otherwise when it comes to taking it from "policy" to law. Two laws have since been killed.

1. The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 would have prohibited the use of admission control to determine
network traffic priority. The legislation was approved by the House Judiciary committee but was never taken for vote,
therefore failed to become law.

2. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 was introduced in the US House of Representatives,
referencing the principles of the FCC and authorizing fines up to $750,000 for infractions. It passed the full House of
Representatives, but failed to become law when it was filibustered in the Senate.

The FCC IMO has not met their ancillary jurisdiction powers for what they feel they can do to Comcast. This whole NN debate
has matters of opinion on both sides of the issue and should be debated openly for public review and comment.

Does the FCC have jurisdiction over all the applications and content passing on the Internet network or control of a
providers management of network resources? My assumption is not likely, but they (especially Martin) can make a bunch of
noise about. Martin himself is on a political hot seat, so the PR about Comcast helps defer that issue momentarily.