http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-272008A1.pdf
Today, FCC moved to change the landline and wireless privacy rules to
"prevent pretexting".
The actual report and order is on:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...CC-07-22A1.pdf
for those of you with S&M tendencies, strong stomachs or students of
government lawyer doublespeak Orwell would be proud of. For instance, in
the footnotes:
"175 See United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 177-78
(1968) (Southwestern Cable). Southwestern
Cable, the lead case on the ancillary jurisdiction doctrine, upheld
certain regulations applied to cable television
systems at a time before the Commission had an express congressional
grant of regulatory authority over that
medium. See id. at 170-71. In Midwest Video I, the Supreme Court expanded
upon its holding in Southwestern
Cable. The plurality stated that “the critical question in this case is
whether the Commission has reasonably
determined that its origination rule will ‘further the achievement of
long-established regulatory goals in the field of
television broadcasting by increasing the number of outlets for community
self-expression and augmenting the
public’s choice of programs and types of services.’” United States v.
Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 667-68
(1972) (Midwest Video I) (quoting Amendment of Part 74, Subpart K, of the
Commission’s Rules and Regulations
Relative to Community Antenna Television Systems; and Inquiry into the
Development of Communications
Technology and Services to Formulate Regulatory Policy and Rulemaking
and/or Legislative Proposals, Docket No.
18397, First Report and Order, 20 FCC 2d 201, 202 (1969) (CATV First
Report and Order)). The Court later
restricted the scope of Midwest Video I by finding that if the basis for
jurisdiction over cable is that the authority is
ancillary to the regulation of broadcasting, the cable regulation cannot
be antithetical to a basic regulatory parameter
established for broadcast. See FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U.S. 689,
700 (1979) (Midwest Video II); see also
American Library Ass’n v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (holding
that the Commission lacked authority to
impose broadcast content redistribution rules on equipment manufacturers
using ancillary jurisdiction because the
equipment at issue was not subject to the Commission’s subject matter
jurisdiction over wire and radio
communications)."
I musta missed something.....(c; I'll reread it again........drunk.
Larry
--
Is it any wonder why cellular is so expensive and Skype is so cheap?
New FCC rules on privacy. 
Linear Mode
