Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (23277)	6/22/2000 2:15:00 PM
From: G_Barr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

Not really a complete victory for ATT, at least in their eyes. The decision basically says that state and local authorities have no authority to regulate cable internet access because it is a "telecommunications service" and not a "cable service". However, the court makes clear that the FCC could regulate such service including by instituting common carrier regulations. ATT had argued all along that cable internet access was a "cable service", the regulation of which was preempted by the Cable Act. This was the way the district court in Virginia recently ruled. In such a case, not even the FCC could impose common carrier type regulations. Pretty typical for the 9th Circuit to take it upon themselves to rule on a grounds that was not argued by either party below.