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: G_Barr who wrote (23279)	6/22/2000 2:34:00 PM
From: GraceZ	Respond to of 29970

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". At least this keeps the local yahoos off their case and puts regulation back into the federal realm. It was ridiculous to have all these different cities trying to place their varied restrictions on T/ATHM. FCC has proven themselves to be amenable towards T in their recent decisions.

To: G_Barr who wrote (23279)	6/22/2000 3:27:00 PM
From: KailuaBoy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

G Barr, 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". I disagree. The ruling as I read it states that cable Internet service is "not" a cable service as defined by the Communications Act. The ruling does not state that it "is" a telecommunications service. I'm not a lawyer. Am I wrong ? Is this an important nuance? Thanks, KB PS: I stand corrected. In another section it states what I said that it didn't state. See gpowell post Message 13928646