Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Loss in court casts in doubt status of Web watchdog

Here's what appeared in the paper today.

By Cecilia Kang

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to force Internet service providers to keep their networks open to all forms of content, throwing into doubt the agency's status as watchdog of the Web.

The FCC has long sought to impose rules requiring Internet providers to offer equal treatment to all Web traffic, a concept known as network neutrality. But in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the agency lacked the power to stop cable giant Comcast from slowing traffic to a popular file-sharing site.

Although the Comcast case centered on the issue of network neutrality, the court's ruling could hamper other initiatives, including the Obama administration's ambitious plans to expand high-speed Internet service nationwide and the agency's enforcement of new truth-in-advertising rules on broadband speeds promised by carriers.

Analysts said the decision in effect removes a government enforcer that otherwise would prevent a company such as Comcast from blocking the Hulu or YouTube video sites from its network, analysts said.

Keep reading here for the full story.

By Cecilia Kang  |  April 7, 2010; 8:29 AM ET
Categories:  Broadband , Comcast , FCC  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Three options for the FCC
Next: Comcast, net neutrality and the future of the FCC


The very first sentence of this article betrays Mr. Kang's bias toward the agenda of Google, her corporate sponsor. The FCC never was the "watchdog of the Web." Congress never authorized it to do that. But she misleadingly claims that the court has somehow deprived it of such authority. She then bemoans the fact that the agency might not be able to impose the "network neutrality" regulations for which Google is lobbying (both directly and via DC "astroturf" groups such as Public Knowledge, Free Press, Media Access Project, and the New America Foundation -- the last of these essentially being a wholly owned subsidiary of Google). When will the Post show Ms. Kang the revolving door (which would almost certainly lead to a PR job at Google) and replace her with an unbiased reporter?

Posted by: LBrettGlass | April 7, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Good God Brett. Get back on your meds please. Your obsession with Google is just unhealthy, for you, your neglected wife, and for everyone who has to read your garbage on this forum.

Brett, the hateful racist disgusting stalking game you play on this forum is just so tired. It's abusive, and just plain wrong. What is wrong with you? Have you no soul?

But I guess it makes sense in light of all the allegations going around about you and your stalking behavior and other legal run ins concerning children and people who disagree with you.

Get some help, please. And WaPo, do what so many other websites and email lists have done, and BAN HIM FOR LIFE already.

Posted by: AmyBandini | April 8, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm. It seems that the moment one posts a comment critical of something that Cecilia Kang has written, Ms. Kang or a confederate posts a message accusing the first poster of everything from spousal abuse to child molestation. Rather sad, but I guess that's the level to which discourse inside the Beltway has sunk.

Posted by: LBrettGlass | April 9, 2010 11:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company