[opendtv] Re: Comcast sued for not selling set-top boxes, CableCARDs

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:21:25 -0800

I recall the Carterfone case, which went to the Supreme Court because the
Bell System said that the FCC lacked the authority to permit non-Bell system
phones.  The Bell System lost, then dragged their heels.

That has NOTHING to do with this case.  This has nothing to do with the
arguments in that case; I've read all the pertinent papers in the Carterfone
case.

They did keep the $1 per phone per month fees in place until the FCC's
computer II case decision went into effect AND the Carter-era Justice
Department did one of their few good acts; acting to break up the monopoly
of AT&T owning local telephone companies.  (AT&T received the $1 per phone
per month, by the way.)

Comcast doesn't own a monopoly national telephone network.  Comcast has a
local monopoly, granted by local franchising authorities and pursuant to FCC
legal and technical rules.

This case concerns those technical rules.  The plaintiff's attorney seeks to
avoid the FCC by making a claim under (I assume) section 17500 of the
California's Business and Professions code (unfair business practices) which
is the only claim that has any degree of positive merit; everything else is
the purview of the FCC and is settled law.

You can't effectively appeal to the courts a waiver action by the FCC.
That's the real complaint here, that the FCC has granted Comcast a temporary
waiver of the plug and play rules.

The proper venue is still the FCC.

John Willkie

-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Cliff Benham
Enviado el: Saturday, December 27, 2008 11:38 AM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Comcast sued for not selling set-top boxes, CableCARDs

John Willkie wrote:
> That one would have even a lower chance of surviving the motions stage.
>   
You may recall another case that went ultimately to the U. S. Supreme 
Court with great success when 
'Ma Bell' claimed that consumers owning and providing their own 
telephones, would compromise the
Bell System's capabilities and performance.  In reality, just like the 
cable and satellite companies today,
all they wanted was to keep those equipment rental fees coming in every 
month.
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.


 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 12-2008