A federal appeals court gave notice Friday it likely would reject the Federal Communications Commissions authority to sanction Comcast for throttling peer-to-peer applications.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suggested as much during oral arguments from the FCC and Comcast. The Philadelphia-based cable concern is appealing the agencys 2008 decision ordering it to stop hampering the peer-to-peer service BitTorrent as a traffic-management practice.
The move was in response to complaints Comcast was sending fake signals to users of BitTorrent, a bandwidth-heavy protocol often used to pirate copyright content.
You have yet to identify a specific statute, Judge Raymond Randolph told an FCC lawyer regarding the legal authority to ding Comcast.
To be sure, Fridays reaction to the appellate court hearing made it increasingly clear the Obama administrations FCC has been preparing for a defeat concerning net neutrality (.pdf), one of the largest issues surrounding internet freedom.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martins replacement, Julius Genachowski, proposed new rules last year that the agency hopes could sidestep an unfavorable circuit decision.
This case underscores the importance of the FCCs ongoing rule-making to preserve the free and open internet, Genachowski said in a statement. I remain confident the commission possesses the legal authority it needs and look forward to reviewing the courts decision when it issues.
The three-judge panel did not indicate when it would rule.
Genachowski said the agency was enforcing the net neutrality Four Freedoms, a set of agency principles dating to 2005 that guarantee that cable and DSL users (.pdf) have the right to use the devices, services and programs of choice over their connections.
The appeals court, however, appears to be taking Comcasts position.
The cable company, which is engaged in talks to merge with NBC Universal, has repeatedly argued the FCC had no right to tell it how to manage its internet traffic. Comcast maintains the FCCs decision was arbitrary because the enforcement of so-called net neutrality rules did not go through the proper rule-making process.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suggested as much during oral arguments from the FCC and Comcast. The Philadelphia-based cable concern is appealing the agencys 2008 decision ordering it to stop hampering the peer-to-peer service BitTorrent as a traffic-management practice.
The move was in response to complaints Comcast was sending fake signals to users of BitTorrent, a bandwidth-heavy protocol often used to pirate copyright content.
You have yet to identify a specific statute, Judge Raymond Randolph told an FCC lawyer regarding the legal authority to ding Comcast.
To be sure, Fridays reaction to the appellate court hearing made it increasingly clear the Obama administrations FCC has been preparing for a defeat concerning net neutrality (.pdf), one of the largest issues surrounding internet freedom.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martins replacement, Julius Genachowski, proposed new rules last year that the agency hopes could sidestep an unfavorable circuit decision.
This case underscores the importance of the FCCs ongoing rule-making to preserve the free and open internet, Genachowski said in a statement. I remain confident the commission possesses the legal authority it needs and look forward to reviewing the courts decision when it issues.
The three-judge panel did not indicate when it would rule.
Genachowski said the agency was enforcing the net neutrality Four Freedoms, a set of agency principles dating to 2005 that guarantee that cable and DSL users (.pdf) have the right to use the devices, services and programs of choice over their connections.
The appeals court, however, appears to be taking Comcasts position.
The cable company, which is engaged in talks to merge with NBC Universal, has repeatedly argued the FCC had no right to tell it how to manage its internet traffic. Comcast maintains the FCCs decision was arbitrary because the enforcement of so-called net neutrality rules did not go through the proper rule-making process.
For more information contact All About Jazz.
