Community Page
- techliberation.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Why don't more proprietary software vendors use a common license? The proprietary EULAs mostly say the same things -- couldn't the BSA or somebody issue a standard one?
- Twitter as we know it was built for about $15-20 million. Google lasted almost a year on $100,000 before taking over the world with $25 million of investor money. This is highway robbery, you could...
- I think the news people are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" bind over Google's indexing and summarizing of their work. Allowing it to be indexed gets them a little...
- I'm a software engineer who has built web applications for Office Depot, Target, AIG (no I'm not proud of it) and many others. J. Stephens apparently has not worked in the private sector....
- Exactly.
The Technology Liberation Front
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » DOJ Appeals Important Broadband Case to Supreme Court
Started by TLF · 11 months ago
No excerpt available. Jump to website »
4 years ago
Sometimes a judicial outcome can be summed up by the aphorism "hard cases make bad law." At other times, perhaps, it is bad law that makes hard cases. Brand X Internet Services v. FCC is an example of an easy case making bad policy.
Here we're talking about horizontal stare decisis. Simply put, the Court ruled that cable modem service is a form of telecommunications service to be consistent with its own ruling in a prior case. The previous case involved a suit against the city of Portland, Oregon, whereby the city had placed forced access conditions on the sale of a cable franchise. The court held that cable modem service had telecommunications service components. As such, the city of Portland could not regulate the cable modem services -- only the FCC had the legal authority to do so.
So should a court remain consistent for consistency-sake, recognizing that there is a value to predictability in the law? Or should the court be more policy results-oriented? See my comments from last October at http://cei.org/gencon/016,03716.cfm
3 years ago