http://tlf.disqus.com/The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.enWed, 01 Feb 2006 05:07:57 -0000http://techliberation.com/2004/08/30/doj-appeals-important-broadband-case-to-supreme-court/#comment-1442539nieruchomoÃ?â?ºci, ogÃ?â??oszenia nieruchomoÃ?â?ºci, mieszkania warszawanieruchomoÃ?â?ºci warszawaWed, 01 Feb 2006 05:07:57 -0000http://techliberation.com/2004/08/30/doj-appeals-important-broadband-case-to-supreme-court/#comment-1442538Brand X is less about telecom and is more of a case concerning the doctrine of stare decisis, or the practice of following precedent.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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 <a href="http://cei.org/gencon/016%2C03716.cfm" rel="nofollow">http://cei.org/gencon/016,03716.cfm</a>BradenTue, 31 Aug 2004 12:08:35 -0000