Slashdot Mirror
Cable Equal Access Case Goes to Supreme Court
DCTooTall writes "The FCC has ruled that Cable High-Speed Internet is an Information Service, and therefore not subject to the same equal access regulations that govern DSL. Brand-X Networks sued the FCC for equal access to the Cable Networks and won. The FCC appealed the decision and next Tuesday the case goes to the Supreme Court. The Telco's have repeatedly used the current FCC stance on Cable Broadband in their fight to get the same monopoly on DSL. This case has the potential to not only open the Cable networks to competition, but also prevent the Telco's from further attempts on limiting DSL options."
imagine that.
When you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness. So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
Party on! Excellent!
I submitted this as a story back in December, and it was rejected.
Oh, and GET SOME PRIORITIES!!!!
Why is the Schiavo case such a big deal? Has this kind of thing NEVER happened before?
By taking no action they gave their support to the status quo, i.e. one spouse has the right to make life an death decisions for the other. The sanctity of marriage some call it.
They're not considering Schiavo because every court has held that the Florida court has acted properly, and there's no legal reason to retry the case in a higher court. The Supreme Court isn't for Republicans who want to cry to mommy when daddy says "no". SC appeals require that justice has not been served in the lower court, and Schiavo's parents have had their days - years - in court. Let the husband bury his wife in peace, instead of perverting the entire system of US justice to have a political argument about metaphysics. Our courts are for mundane matters like network access, not for faith debates.
--
make install -not war
The Supreme Court declined to look at the Schiavo case not because it's unimportant, but because the law in that area is quite well defined already. As much as the media and the right to lifers are talking this up, it's really not a contentious case with respect to Constitutional law.
Help prevent the slashdot effect; stop reading the articles.
Should've submitted it twice. That'd do the trick!
It has happened thousands of times before. What has never happened before is another party (her parents) having the money and the political savvy to involve politicians in the process.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
My response to Schiavo: Paging Dr. Kavorkian. Dr. Kavorkian to the vegetable ward please.
This decision affects the nation, thus it should be in the highest courts. The Terry Schiavo case (god bless her soul) has already been decided by 17 judges... its getting ridiculous. Personally, I feel that unless a person specifies in writing that they don't want to be kept alive, assume the will to live and keep them alive as long as possible. But it doesn't matter what I think... I used to think that only big corporations could manipulate the courts, Terry Schiavo's parents have manipulated and abused the court system to no end. I would like to see Terry live, but obviously there is something in the husband's argument that is making sense to alot of judges. I don't know both sides of the story and something tells me its a little more in depth the "the husband wants her dead for reason X". Anyway... I digress, the point is that Terry Schiavo affects one person, not a nation, if you write in a living will that you wish to not be given artificial life support then your request will be honored. This won't set precedent for anything other then that families will disagree, it didn't belong in the court system to begin with (but don't even get me started on baseball...).
Regards,
Steve
One involves the FCC, which is a federal agency, while the other focuses on state law. Provided that the state law isn't violating some federal law, or especially the US constitution, the SCOTUS should definately put it pretty low on the priority list. Actually, I think the SCOTUS' policy is not to get involved at all in cases that are at the state level--that is, they are in the state's juristiction rather than federal jurisdiction.
if you write in a living will that you wish to not be given artificial life support then your request will be honored.
Except she didn't write a living will. The husband claims that she told him this but there is no written or recorded proof.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
If you take the position that the guardian of a severely handicapped spouse has the right to decide whether that spouse should live or die, can you extrapolate from that that guardians of severely mentally handicapped children should also be allowed to let those wards die?
If the law says that the spouse has the right to decide whether to prolong the life of a loved one in the absence of a living will, then where does this right end? Or better asked, where does it begin? Braindead? Severely mentally handicapped? Unable to resume normal life? Something even less severe?
There are quite a few questions that are still wide open in regards to this type of situation. Just because the Supreme Court decides that it's not interesting doesn't mean that they are right.
If that's the case, then I suggest that you pay for Terry's medical bills, until she dies of natural causes -- in about 50 or so years.