LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JayPC who wrote (7372)	6/22/2000 2:39:00 PM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (2) of 12823

Jay- Thanks. The below(highly edited) seems to be the heart of the ruling. Kind of a technical detail about semantics. Nonetheless, IMO, it's pretty clear it was the right decision to overturn the local Portland franchising authority. Gee if it's that simple, wonder why it took months to figure it out? -MikeM(From Florida) ******************* From the ruling: Because Portland premised its open access condition on its position that @Home is a "cable service" governed by the franchise, we begin with the question of whether the @Home service truly is a "cable service" as Congress defined it in the Communications Act. We conclude that it is not. Subject to limited exceptions, the Communications Act provides that "a cable operator may not provide cable service without a franchise." The Act defines "cable service" as "the one-way transmission to subscribers of video programming, or other programming service, and.... This definition does not fit @Home. Internet access is not one-way** and general, but interactive and individual beyond the "subscriber interaction" contemplated by the statute.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next