{"id":87032,"date":"2010-05-01T22:24:23","date_gmt":"2010-05-01T14:24:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp-productionenv-bjg9h2g2bgg5b8aa.southeastasia-01.azurewebsites.net\/news\/fight-over-internet-control-provides-window-for-satellite\/"},"modified":"2010-05-01T22:24:23","modified_gmt":"2010-05-01T14:24:23","slug":"fight-over-internet-control-provides-window-for-satellite","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/news\/fight-over-internet-control-provides-window-for-satellite\/","title":{"rendered":"Fight Over Internet Control Provides Window for Satellite"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Elements of the appeals court decision implicate the plan directly. \u201cPolicy statements are just that \u2014 statements of policy. They are not delegations of regulatory authority\u2026. Policy statements can help illuminate that authority to which the authority must ultimately be ancillary,\u201d the court\u2019s three-judge panel wrote.<\/p>\n

The U.S. District Court of Appeals<\/b> told the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that it does not have the authority to regulate Internet business practices, which sets a precedent for all related policy, including net neutrality. While the FCC\u2019s International Bureau Chief Mindel De La Torre said the ruling should not have affect spectrum allocation, some analysts are nervous about what the decision means for the National Broadband Plan.<\/p>\n

This is a big win for telcos and a big loss for network operators and Internet applications and, once again, demonstrates the telcos\u2019 lobbying power \u2014 something satellite broadband players struggled with while trying to influence the makeup of the National Broadband Plan.<\/p>\n

The fight over net neutrality has been very contentious \u2014 even within the FCC itself \u2014 and is far from over. \u201cToday\u2019s decision is not just a blow to the FCC\u2014it\u2019s a blow to all Americans who rely on an open Internet that serves all comers without discrimination,\u201d Commissioner Michael Copps said in a statement. \u201cSince 2002, I have warned about the dangers of moving the transmission component of broadband outside of the statutory framework that applies to telecommunications carriers. The only way the Commission can make lemonade out of this lemon of a decision is to do now what should have been done years ago: treat broadband as the telecommunications service that it is.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the other side of the FCC line, Commissioner Robert McDowell said: \u201cI am pleased that today\u2019s court order makes clear that Title 1 of the Communications Act provides the FCC with no authority to regulate the network management practices of an Internet service provider. I hope this decision will provide certainty in the marketplace and will not lead to the unnecessary classification of broadband service as a monopoly phone service under Title 2I of the Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

But while the FCC takes a new look at how it can regulate Internet access, with plenty of outside support and outside opposition to any move the FCC takes, satellite broadband providers have an opportunity to capitalize and make their services more widely known. One of the interesting aspects of this battle is that there are large areas where Comcast is considered a broadband monopoly because consumers believe their only option is a terrestrial service.<\/p>\n

Part of this can be traced to the Broadband Plan itself, as policymakers continue to focus on broadband as the highest speed possible rather than looking at the speeds satellite broadband provides as a marked improvement over no access, dialup and DSL services.<\/p>\n

While the high-profile players continue their Internet fights, it\u2019s time for the satellite sector to do its part to show everyone concerned that the telcos do not have broadband monopolies and the public has a viable broadband choice from above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Elements of the appeals court decision implicate the plan directly. \u201cPolicy statements are just that \u2014 statements of policy. They are not delegations of regulatory authority\u2026. Policy statements can help illuminate that authority to which the authority must ultimately be ancillary,\u201d the court\u2019s three-judge panel wrote. The U.S. District Court of Appeals told the U.S. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-87032","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87032"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=87032"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87032\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}