http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/comment-page-1/#comment-32454 James Gattuso Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:45:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/#comment-32454 <p>It's jargon. Like saying "section 214" or "271 approvals". It's meant to keep outsiders out of telecommunications. There's a secret handshake too, but I'm not allowed to show it to you.</p> It’s jargon. Like saying “section 214″ or “271 approvals”. It’s meant to keep outsiders out of telecommunications. There’s a secret handshake too, but I’m not allowed to show it to you.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/comment-page-1/#comment-47710 James Gattuso Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:45:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/#comment-47710 <p>It's jargon. Like saying "section 214" or "271 approvals". It's meant to keep outsiders out of telecommunications. There's a secret handshake too, but I'm not allowed to show it to you.</p> It’s jargon. Like saying “section 214″ or “271 approvals”. It’s meant to keep outsiders out of telecommunications. There’s a secret handshake too, but I’m not allowed to show it to you.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/comment-page-1/#comment-32453 Jerry Brito Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:29:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/#comment-32453 <p>James, Thanks for pointing this out. From reading the NPRM, however, it's impossible to tell that's what they meant. In the sentence before they mention Ã??Ã?§ 706 they refer to Ã??Ã?§ 621(a)(1) of the 1934 Act. In fact, every mention of a statutory section before Ã??Ã?§ 706 is in reference to the 1934 Act. So, it's disconcerting that they suddenly say 'Do we have Authority under Ã??Ã?§ 706?" and don't bother to say they mean to reference the 1996 Act and not the 34 Act generally. I guess it's just jargon and they expect everyone to know what 706 means. -Jerry</p> James, Thanks for pointing this out. From reading the NPRM, however, it’s impossible to tell that’s what they meant. In the sentence before they mention Ã??Ã?§ 706 they refer to Ã??Ã?§ 621(a)(1) of the 1934 Act. In fact, every mention of a statutory section before Ã??Ã?§ 706 is in reference to the 1934 Act. So, it’s disconcerting that they suddenly say ‘Do we have Authority under Ã??Ã?§ 706?” and don’t bother to say they mean to reference the 1996 Act and not the 34 Act generally. I guess it’s just jargon and they expect everyone to know what 706 means. -Jerry

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/comment-page-1/#comment-47709 Jerry Brito Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:29:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/#comment-47709 <p>James, Thanks for pointing this out. From reading the NPRM, however, it's impossible to tell that's what they meant. In the sentence before they mention Ã??Ã?§ 706 they refer to Ã??Ã?§ 621(a)(1) of the 1934 Act. In fact, every mention of a statutory section before Ã??Ã?§ 706 is in reference to the 1934 Act. So, it's disconcerting that they suddenly say 'Do we have Authority under Ã??Ã?§ 706?" and don't bother to say they mean to reference the 1996 Act and not the 34 Act generally. I guess it's just jargon and they expect everyone to know what 706 means. -Jerry</p> James, Thanks for pointing this out. From reading the NPRM, however, it’s impossible to tell that’s what they meant. In the sentence before they mention Ã??Ã?§ 706 they refer to Ã??Ã?§ 621(a)(1) of the 1934 Act. In fact, every mention of a statutory section before Ã??Ã?§ 706 is in reference to the 1934 Act. So, it’s disconcerting that they suddenly say ‘Do we have Authority under Ã??Ã?§ 706?” and don’t bother to say they mean to reference the 1996 Act and not the 34 Act generally. I guess it’s just jargon and they expect everyone to know what 706 means. -Jerry

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/comment-page-1/#comment-32452 precision blogger Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:22:45 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/#comment-32452 <p>The FCC has hit on a great idea, not a typo. The current "war" (on terrorism) obviously will never end, so war powers will be permanent. It's really worth grabbing any power you can get that might be permanent, isn't it? - precision blogger, http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com</p> The FCC has hit on a great idea, not a typo. The current “war” (on terrorism) obviously will never end, so war powers will be permanent. It’s really worth grabbing any power you can get that might be permanent, isn’t it? - precision blogger, http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/comment-page-1/#comment-47708 precision blogger Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:22:45 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/#comment-47708 <p>The FCC has hit on a great idea, not a typo. The current "war" (on terrorism) obviously will never end, so war powers will be permanent. It's really worth grabbing any power you can get that might be permanent, isn't it?<br>- precision blogger,<br><a href="http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com">http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com</a></p> The FCC has hit on a great idea, not a typo. The current “war” (on terrorism) obviously will never end, so war powers will be permanent. It’s really worth grabbing any power you can get that might be permanent, isn’t it?
- precision blogger,
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/comment-page-1/#comment-32451 James Gattuso Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:26:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/#comment-32451 <p>The sec. 706 the Commission was is using here has nothing to do with war powers. They were referring to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which directs the FCC to encourage advanced services, NOT section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 (war powers). It's an entirely appropriate provision for the FCC to consider using in this proceeding.</p> The sec. 706 the Commission was is using here has nothing to do with war powers. They were referring to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which directs the FCC to encourage advanced services, NOT section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 (war powers). It’s an entirely appropriate provision for the FCC to consider using in this proceeding.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/comment-page-1/#comment-47707 James Gattuso Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:26:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/12/20/is-the-fcc-getting-desperate/#comment-47707 <p>The sec. 706 the Commission was is using here has nothing to do with war powers. They were referring to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which directs the FCC to encourage advanced services, NOT section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 (war powers). It's an entirely appropriate provision for the FCC to consider using in this proceeding.</p> The sec. 706 the Commission was is using here has nothing to do with war powers. They were referring to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which directs the FCC to encourage advanced services, NOT section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 (war powers). It’s an entirely appropriate provision for the FCC to consider using in this proceeding.

]]>