Careless talk costs wives
|
|
|
Judges question FCC authority
THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM might put the brakes on the Federal Communications Commission's bid to maintain net neutrality.
The major US cable company Comcast hauled the FCC before the judges after it was fined by the watchdog agency for blocking filesharers.
Now it seems that a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is not happy with the FCC's reasoning and is asking whether the commission has authority to regulate Internet Service Providers such as Comcast.
If the appellate judges rule against the FCC in this case, then moves by the body to maintain an open and free Internet through a "net neutrality" rule-making proposal could be stymied.
Should the court decide the agency lacks authority to carry out its plans, then US telcos can continue to do do as they please.
If that happens then the FCC will have to ask Congress to pass "open Internet" legislation, which has been waiting in the wings to give the agency cover.
US Federal Appeals Court Judge Raymond Randolph told the FCC's General Counsel Austin Schlick that it appeared the FCC acted based on policy statements that are "aspirational, not operational."
However FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said he was confident that the agency has the necessary legal authority to do its job. µ
Share this:
Share
All this talk about net neutrality for what...there are some companies now that distribute software that seems to solve the solution...
New version of uTorrent ... uses less traffic... although this version is still in beta...
ZapShares ... CNet's download.com gave them a positive review...stops files from being shared...stop the files from being shared...= no uploading...= less throttling...or not need to throttle
PeerBlock ... controls who your comp is talking to...reduces the amount of traffic and need to throttle...
The point is that there are solutions now out there that fix the problem. The FCC should stay out of this!
Oh hell yeah!!!
Probably won't ever happen, but the 16th Amendment looks like doublespeak to me(I'm referring to the book 1984, not sure if I have the right word), so it would be nice if the judges did something about this so-called mandatory social security and income tax.
If the Constitution forbids directly taxing a citizen, and the 16th Amendment doesn't contradict that(and it doesn't if you make a grammatical analysis of all the pertinent stuff) then WHY do people go to jail for not paying their income tax? Slavery is illegal, so why is peonage practiced in the US of A?