Court of Appeals Rejects FCC's Cable Subscriber Cap

olsmeister writes "The US Court of Appeals Friday threw out the FCC's cap on the number of cable subscribers one operator can serve, saying the FCC was 'derelict' in not giving DBS its due as a legitimate competitor. 'We agree with Comcast that the 30% subscriber limit is arbitrary and capricious. We therefore grant the petition and vacate the Rule,' said the court, which concluded that there was ample evidence of an increasingly competitive communications marketplace and that cable did not have undue control on the programming pipeline. The FCC commissioner's statement (PDF) is available online."

Comments

Re:Not around here

[sexconker]

Your mother obstructs my view of the south, you insensitive clod!

I don't need an unobstructed view of the south, you insensitive dingo!

Etc.

Re:Some links

[UdoKeir]

Looks like it was a panel of Republican appointees. Hardly surprising they come out on the side of the corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_H._Ginsburg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Raymond_Randolph

Re:seems like activist judging by conservatives

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress clearly empowered---in fact required---the FCC to set subscriber caps on cable operators in the Cable Act (1992). The court striking down these limits appears to be engaging in legislative policy analysis that is Congress's purview, not the D.C. Circuit's.

So what's the big deal?

That's what courts do nowadays. Since the days of FDR for sure, courts no longer just interpret the law, they attempt to make law.

If you want courts to uphold and interpret the law, we more judges like Alito & Roberts, and less like Sotomayor.*

To all you liberals out there who think the Constitution is a "living" document....a conservative court would not have ruled this way.**

And I'd be more than willing to bet that most slashdotters here oppose this ruling, yet have conniption fits whenever someone advocates a conservative court.

-john

* and lets not forget that judges appointed by Republicans are not always conservative

** with the obvious IANAL stipulation based on my layman's reading of the summaries of the ruling