This week we learned that six out of nine Supreme Court Justices don’t understand the nature of the relationship between information services and telecommunications. Yesterday in a six-three decision, Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, ruled that the FCC was within its statutory authority to rule that cable broadband providers are not required to share their facilities with other ISPs, even though telcos that provide a similar service (DSL) and are required to. Associate Justice Scalia wrote the dissent, with Ginsburg and Souter also dissenting:
It is indeed a wonderful new world
that the Court creates, one full of promise for administrative-law
professors in need of tenure articles and, of course, for litigators. I would adhere to what has been the rule in the past: When a court interprets a statute without Chevron deference
to agency views, its interpretation (whether or not asserted to rest
upon an unambiguous text) is the law. I might add that it is a great
mystery why any of this is relevant here. Whatever the stare decisis effect of AT&T Corp. v. Portland,216 F. 3d 871 (CA9 2000), in the Ninth Circuit, it surely does not
govern this Court’s decision. And–despite the Court’s peculiar,
self-abnegating suggestion to the contrary, the Ninth Circuit would already be obliged to abandon Portland‘s holding in the face of this Court’s
decision that the Commission’s construction of “telecommunications
service” is entitled to deference and is reasonable. It is a sadness
that the Court should go so far out of its way to make bad law.
The full text of the decision and dissent is available for you to read for yourself.
Just in case you thought this only affects cable access, Commissioner Abernathy’s comments on the ruling may dispel any illusions:
I am gratified that the Supreme Court has deferred to the Commission�s finding that cable
modem services are �information services.� As I stated when the ruling upheld today was
adopted, this classification accords the Commission the flexibility it needs to craft a minimal
regulatory environment that promotes investment and innovation in a competitive marketplace.
Now that the Court has resolved lingering uncertainty regarding the regulatory treatment of
cable-based Internet access services, I am hopeful that the Commission will act quickly to
establish a similarly forward-looking approach for competitive wireline xDSL services.
Hey, this has nothing whatsoever to do with this particular post, but I’ve been poking around here on and off for awhile and figured I should say hello.
I’m an amateur pen-and-paper game designer and semi-avid roleplayer. While I’m not a terribly big fan of D20, I love the Iron Kingdoms setting and have been quite impressed with all of the books and supplements put out for it thus far.
And I’ve enjoyed reading your takes on them thus far. So, that’s it. Just thought I’d stop being an anonymous lurker and start being a lurker who’d introduced himself.
Hey jackass!
Ever heard of FAIR USE?
Stop using such potty mouthed language to attack those who directly upload your graphics within the protection of the Fair Use clause of copyright law!
Just because someone directly uploads your graphics DOES NOT make them ANY kind of “thief”
“bandwidth theft” DOES NOT EXIST!
TWO SIMPLE WORDS QUASH YOUR LYING LIBERAL SAYSO ABOUT THAT:
FAIR USE!
Have a look at the following:
http://www.fairuse.org
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/ccmcguid.htm
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107—-000-.html
http://www.umuc.edu/library/copy.html
http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/checklist.htm
http://www.cetus.org/fairindex.html
AND BESIDES…did YOU know that those FALSE claims you keep making about others who directly upload your graphics are grounds for you facing CRIMINAL CHARGES for REAL harassment?
Learn the truth at http://www.haltabuse.org/ , moron, and pull your head out of your ass.
DIRECT UPLOADING IS NOT A CRIME, AND UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU DON’T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE.
SO NO FUCKING SALE.
SHELL OUT MORE MONEY AND GET AN UNLIMITED BANDWIDTH PACKAGE, YOU FUCKING MENTAL RETARD. YOU MAKE A PERSON WITH DOWN’S SYNDROME LOOK LIKE LEONARDO DAFUCKINGVINCI YOU FUCKING IGNORANT FREAK.
I’m quite aware of the concept of fair use. Why are you complaining about the image that you are directing people to? Your ignorance of the results of the code you place on your own website is none of my personal responsibility. If you choose to link to an image that will, with some consistency, claim that you are a thief, that is your own doing. Especially in light of the March 10, 2003 post on this site ( http://burrowowl.net/wordpress/200303/joy-of-images/ ) referencing the precise measures I was undertaking to prevent poor behavior such as yours, you had a more-than-reasonable opportunity to predict the consequences of your code and avoid embarrassing yourself as you apparently have.
You had many options available to you, and you chose one that made you look like the irresponsible, thoughtless, direct-linking douche-nozzle that you are.