DISQUS

Technology Liberation Front: Is the FCC getting desperate?

  • James Gattuso · 3 years ago
    The sec. 706 the Commission was is using here has nothing to do with war powers. They were referring to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which directs the FCC to encourage advanced services, NOT section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 (war powers). It's an entirely appropriate provision for the FCC to consider using in this proceeding.
  • precision blogger · 3 years ago
    The FCC has hit on a great idea, not a typo. The current "war" (on terrorism) obviously will never end, so war powers will be permanent. It's really worth grabbing any power you can get that might be permanent, isn't it?
    - precision blogger,
    http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
  • Jerry Brito · 3 years ago
    James, Thanks for pointing this out. From reading the NPRM, however, it's impossible to tell that's what they meant. In the sentence before they mention �§ 706 they refer to �§ 621(a)(1) of the 1934 Act. In fact, every mention of a statutory section before �§ 706 is in reference to the 1934 Act. So, it's disconcerting that they suddenly say 'Do we have Authority under �§ 706?" and don't bother to say they mean to reference the 1996 Act and not the 34 Act generally. I guess it's just jargon and they expect everyone to know what 706 means. -Jerry
  • James Gattuso · 3 years ago
    It's jargon. Like saying "section 214" or "271 approvals". It's meant to keep outsiders out of telecommunications. There's a secret handshake too, but I'm not allowed to show it to you.