Re:Call the *AA? (Score 1)

This was decided at the level of the supreme court - the brand x decision. scalia's dissent is pretty excellent (it's rare that I agree with him for what that's worth) - he talks a lot about pizza. "When all is said and done, after all the regulatory cant has been translated, and the smoke of regulatory expertise has blown away, it remains perfectly clear that someone who sells cable-modem service is 'offering' telecommunications," (AC, on behalf of the 3 dissenting justices). http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-277.ZD.html But that was the dissent, and the majority ruled (Thomas was the opiner) unbundling requirements under the 1996 act do not apply because the service (broadband over cable) is an information service (nee enhanced service). The FCC quickly followed this up with a ruling saying fiber-based end-user broadband should be treated similarly (not so for wholesale fiber trunks). But (and this is a sir mixalot sized but) - VOIP was not considered; they just ruled on if the pipes should be regulated as pipes. "By contrast, the high-speed transmission used to provide cable modem service is a functionally integrated component of that service because it transmits data only in connection with the further processing of information and is necessary to provide Internet service." (Thomas decision) - no reference to regulation of voice being provided inside that information stream. The comcast argument moving forward will likely be based on the idea that packets are just packets until they're processed elsewhere but this begs the question why are they prioritized at all? At it's core what I don't understand is why Comcast thinks the FCC won't reconsider on this point - some (any?) front other than the regulation of the pipes themselves. The court in brand x defers to (while softly agreeing with) the FCC's "understanding of the nature of cable modem service" - which sets up for what is called Chevron deference to the FCC's area of expertise on technical subjects. Should the FCC simply rule on VOIP service, on which there is no court language, the court's ruling on if the FCC was right to find the regulation of the pipes and the provision of information services over them could quite easily go out the window. Given the likelihood of demonstrable harm to a VOIP provider of being blocked, I would not be surprised to see this issue decided quickly by the FCC and then by the courts. Martin has never been particularly happy with cable providers, had I been Comcast I'd've asked ATT to do this first.