Search

The article discusses the application of Comcast's causal canon to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Topics include the evolution of causation standards in employment discrimination law, the impact of the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Comcast Corporation v. National Association of African American-Owned Media on causation in employment discrimination claims, and the potential implications of applying Comcast's causal canon to the newly enacted Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

A remarkable thing happened this week when I checked the price of Spectrum’s latest TV and internet bundles. For new customers, Spectrum is currently advertising a bundle with 500Mbps internet [...]

Mass media companies can be elaborated as organizations that manipulate technological components for their various departments such as movie studios, publishing houses, radio and television station management teams that impact a large range of audience via vast communication strategies. The companies have also been referred to as media conglomerates, media groups, or media houses further illustrating their grasp over the global markets and their revenue structures. The largest media companies such as Apple, Disney, and Comcast among others, offer products and services to users that are diverse individuals as well as large organizations leading to significant revenues as well as challenges that have been further explored in a comprehensive manner in the study. IoT utilizes wireless networks that are without infrastructure to install a huge number of wireless sensors that track system, physical, and environmental conditions. If you're wanting to integrate WSN into your business, our highly driven and experienced engineers can give you an all-encompassing solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the rise of video streaming and cloud services, the Internet has evolved into a content-centric service platform. Due to the best-effort service model of the Internet, the quality of service (QoS) of Internet services however cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, characterizing QoS is challenging since it depends on the autonomous business decisions such as capacity planning, routing strategies and peering agreements of network providers. To quantify the QoS for Internet-based services, we regard the Internet infrastructure as a transport system for data packets and study the Internet ecosystem and the economics of transport services collectively provided by the autonomous network providers. In contrast to the traditional transport economics that studies the movement of people and goods over space and time, our focus in the Internet transport economics is the movement of streams of data packets that create information services. In particular, we model the supply of network capacities and demands of throughput driven by network protocols and establish a macroscopic network equilibrium under which both the end-to-end delays and drop rates of Internet routes can be derived. We show that this equilibrium solution always exists and its uniqueness can be guaranteed under various realistic scenarios. We analyze the impacts of user demands and resource capacities on the network equilibrium and provide implications of Netflix-Comcast type of peering on the QoS of users. We demonstrate that our framework can be used as a building block to understand the routing strategies under a Wardrop equilibrium and to enable further studies such as Internet peering and in-network caching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Measures of media concentration typically rely on two primary indices: CR4 and HHI. These indices are based on the market share of the top firms as well as the share of total revenues for top firms. These indices only serve as an adequate representation of media concentration sectors if one assumes that the top firms are competitors. However, these measures do not adequately capture the degree to which top firms work together through joint ventures or other shared interests. By using network analysis, this article illustrates the joint ventures that exist among the five largest media firms (Comcast, the Walt Disney Company, National Amusements, AT&T/WarnerMedia, and Fox/News Corporation). We argue that this type of analysis can supplement existing measures of media concentration and may also be useful for policy debates, particularly in reviews of proposed mergers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a case study of the CAP! Comcast campaign produced and distributed by the Media Mobilizing Project (MMP) in Philadelphia. The framing and distribution strategies of this campaign, which fought for and won concessions from Comcast during the 2015 franchise negotiation with the city, are analyzed to foreground the labor of policy advocates working within networked communications. The author complicates the often-celebrated potential of social movements that use digital technologies and social media by detailing the multifaceted frame-setting and distribution tactics employed by MMP organizers throughout this campaign. Rather than analyze what frames the news media applies to SMOs, this article reviews how activists developed campaign messages, through media, that challenged existing narratives. Understanding the political and socioeconomic conditions that underlie the work of social movements is necessary for a review of the messaging, organizing, and relationshipbuilding efforts of activists working toward meaningful media policy reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During 2014-2015, the Antitrust Division achieved enforcement successes in a wide range of matters. Many, such as the case against American Express, played out publicly in court proceedings. But two of the Division's most significant investigations over the past year involved mergers that the parties abandoned in the face of concerns that were expressed by the Division. In each of these mergers, economic analysis played an important role in understanding their likely impact on competition. This article provides a sample of the types of issues that have been raised in recent antitrust cases that did not, ultimately, end up on the public record. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We discuss several FCC proceedings and other matters of economic interest. These include: the Commission's new Open Internet ('net neutrality') rules and economic challenges they pose; regulatory implications of a potential reclassification of certain online video distributors as multi-channel video distributors; the proposed Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger; a set of policy experiments that involve extension of the 'Lifeline' universal service program to broadband, and the IP technology transition; and, finally, two major policy initiatives to improve the management of spectrum used by mobile wireless providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a 2009 cross-sectional database of digital cable systems in the United States, this study examines the combined effects of vertical integration and regional concentration (cable TV clusters) on the carriage and tier positioning of cable networks. Focusing on four basic cable network segments—the outdoor, cartoon, movie, and Comcast affiliated networks—this study finds that vertical integration has reduced program availability for cable subscribers by increasing their access to integrated networks and by limiting their access to unaffiliated networks. It also finds that an increase in the regional concentration of cable systems positively affects the availability of overall basic cable networks, regardless of vertical ownership. An increase in regional concentration is also associated with a decrease in the effects of vertical integration, suggesting that system efficiency through regional concentration may mitigate the vertical integration effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the usability of television for a blind person. Topics covered include tendency of many blind people to regard the process of dealing with television to be so difficult that they prefer other means of entertainment, the advancements in television which made incrementally harder for people with visual disabilities to use and the efforts of mass media company Comcast to make its set-top boxes accessible for blind people.

The article offers information on the history, benefits and significance of using data caps as a mechanism to create artificial scarcity for selling blocks of data to consumers and content providers violating the network neutrality principles. Topics discussed include recovery of sunk costs for reinvestment, abuse of network capacity, and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) suit against Comcast for manipulation of peer-to-peer (P2P) software such as BitTorrent.

The Communications Act of 1934 created a dual review process in which mergers in the communications industry are reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well as the antitrust authorities. Commentators have criticized dual review not only as costly and redundant, but also as subject to substantive and procedural abuse. The process of clearing the 2011 Comcast-NBC Universal merger provides a useful case study to examine whether such concerns are justified. A review of the empirical context reveals that the FCC intervened even though the relevant markets were not structured in a way that would ordinarily raise anticompetitive concerns. In addition, the FCC was able to use differences between its review process and that used by the Justice Department to extract concessions from the merging parties that had nothing to do with the merger and which were more properly addressed through general rulemaking. Moreover, the use of voluntary commitments also allowed the FCC to avoid subjecting certain aspects of its decision to public comment and immunized it from having to offer a reasoned explanation or subjecting its decision to judicial review. The aftermath of the merger provides an opportunity to assess whether the FCC's intervention yielded consumer benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reflects on the Daubert standard, a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony during U.S federal proceedings, in light of Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes case. Topics discussed include violation of federal anti-trust laws by mass media company Comcast Corp., use of social media network by experts for the analysis and evolution in the Court's jurisprudence on class certification.

The article discusses U.S. court case Comcast Corp v. Behrend. The topics discussed include information on class action suits, the goals of class action and antitrust law, rules related to treatment of individualized damages, and the procedural and factual aspects of the case. Also discussed is alleged involvement of the broadcasting firm Comcast in suppressing regional competition in violation of U.S federal antitrust law.

This article responds to James Keyte, Paul Eckles, and Karen Lent's article "From Hydrogen Peroxide to Comcast: The New Rigor in Antitrust Class Actions" ("'The New Rigor",), it argues that The New Rigor offers valuable strategic advice to defense counsel -- and insight into defense counsel's strategic thinking -- but is much less effective as an objective statement of the law or a normative argument for legal reform. In the parlance that I adopt, The New Rigor succeeds in the role of coach but much less so in the roles of commentator and critic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2009, the Third Circuit decided Hydrogen Peroxide, which announced a more rigorous standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for assessing whether a putative class could establish antitrust injury. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided Comcast v. Behrend, a case that carries potentially broad implications for both antitrust cases and Rule 23(b)(3) class actions generally. A review of the case law starting with Hydrogen Peroxide and continuing through Comcast and its progeny reveals the new rigor in antitrust class action decisions and suggests what the future may hold, including the type of arguments that may provide defendants the most likely chance of defeating class certifi-cation. After Comcast, rigor under 23(b)(3) can no longer be avoided in assessing all class actions questions, and courts should now apply Daubert fully in the class setting concerning both impact and damages. Courts should also closely evaluate plaintiffs' proposed methodologies for proving impact to determine if they apply to each class member. Finally, courts will inevitably have to determine how rigorously to scruti-nize experts' damages methodologies and whether Comcast requires or suggests more scrutiny in assessing common evidence for measuring damages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the extent to which the decision of the Washington, D.C. Circuit in the case Comcast v. FCC limits the authority of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority to implement the transparency protection defined in its Final Rules, "Preserving the Open Internet," which took effect on November 20, 2011. Topics discussed include elements of the Rules that FCC may have limited authority with and unique aspects of the transparency requirement.

The article presents a speech by Mignon L. Clyburn, the Commissioner of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which was delivered at the 2012 Symposium hosted by "CommLaw Conspectus: Journal of Communications Law and Policy" and the Institute for Communications Law Studies on April 11, 2012. Several communications law issues are addressed, including the merger of cable television provider Comcast Corp. and entertainment company NBC Universal Media LLC.

The article focuses on the connection between Internet service providers (ISPs), for-profit companies offering access to the Internet, and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which regulates the access and use if the Internet by using the principles of network neutrality (net neutrality). It states that net neutrality is significant in technological advancement. It says that a large section of the events led to Comcast Corp. v. FCC and its progeny.

The article offers brief information on the antitrust enforcement in media industries and the challenges regarding the joint venture between media companies Comcast Corp. and NBC Universal Inc.

The past year in economics at the Federal Communications Commission focused on protecting competition in developing online markets. Our review discusses important economic issues that are raised by the FCC's Open Internet rulemaking (which is commonly referred to as 'net neutrality') and its review of Comcast's programming joint venture with General Electric's NBC Universal affiliate. The Open Internet rule focused on established online markets, while the Comcast/NBCU transaction addressed nascent competition online along with competition in video programming and distribution offline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice had a number of interesting cases during the last year. The merger between Comcast and NBC-Universal presented an interesting challenge of preserving existing competition from an emerging technology. The abandoned attempt by NASDAQ to acquire NYSE shed light on a number of competitive interactions between financial exchanges. Hospital contracts in Texas illustrated that exclusive dealing is still a violation of Section 'NASDAQ's Proposed Acquisition of NYSE' and will be pursued by the Antitrust Division. And, a number of cases as well as a new policy guide on the subject demonstrate that the Antitrust Division will work with parties and accept innovative remedies to eliminate competitive problems in ways that may better preserve efficiencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article challenges the various jurisdictional theories that underpin the FCC's net neutrality regulation. The assertion of jurisdiction by the FCC over any aspect of the Internet ecosystem has raised populist, congressional, and even judicial rhetoric to a crescendo and resulted in a recent vote to defund the FCC's efforts. This Article places the current crisis squarely in the context of the long-standing jurisdictional struggle between regulation and antitrust law. These two regimes are often at jurisdictional cross-purposes because, even though they both purport to maximize the social good, they do so by inapposite means. Indeed, there is a policy choice inherent in the very jurisdictional authority permitted each regime--a choice that the FCC's jurisdictional bases for net neutrality may actually circumvent and obfuscate. Focusing on the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP and the D.C. Circuit's decision in Comcast Corp. v. FCC, this Article examines the jurisdictional boundaries between the regulatory and antitrust camps. In analyzing the jurisdictional limits of each through the lens of the net neutrality debate, this Article reveals opportunities for congressional reforms beyond mere rhetoric. To identify problematic uses of regulatory authority, this Article: (1) creates an innovative grouping of possible bases for regulatory authority labeled "satellite jurisdiction" and (2) proposes a new framework to classify possible jurisdictional overreach in what the author brands as either "procedural opportunism" or "substantive opportunism." Finally, this Article recommends a new standard by which both procedural and substantive jurisdictional opportunism may be tempered and antitrust authority maximized where most salutary and appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the U.S. court case Comcast v. U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which dealt with the FCC's authority to regulate Internet service providers (ISPs). Topics include network neutrality, discriminatory network management practices on consumers by ISPs, and the evolution of the broadband telecommunications market.

The article presents a testimony of Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America, before the U.S. Senate Committee to the Judiciary hearing on competition in the media and entertainment distribution market. Cooper discussed the proposed merger of mass media companies Comcast Corp. and NBC Universal. He analyzed the impact on the deal on competition in the market and operations of broadcasters and cable operators. The effect of the merger on prices for media consumers was also discussed.

The article presents a testimony of Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and chief executive officer (CEO) of Media Access Project, before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on competition in the media and entertainment distribution market. Schwartzman endorsed the proposed acquisition of mass media company NBC Universal by Comcast Corp. He also discussed the impact of the deal on the public and the competitive landscape in the market, particularly other distributors of cable and Internet content.

The article presents a testimony of Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America, before the U.S. Senate Committee to the Judiciary hearing on competition in the media and entertainment distribution market. Cohen discussed the potential anti-competitive impact of the proposed acquisition of mass media company NBC Universal by Comcast Corp. He highlighted the effect of the deal on jobs and labor standards in the industry, video distribution and content markets, and the emerging Internet video marketplace.

The article presents a joint written testimony of Brian L. Roberts, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of mass media company Comcast Corp., and Jeff Zucker, president and CEO of NBC Universal, before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on competition in the media and entertainment distribution market. The testimony discussed a planned joint venture under which Comcast will acquire a majority stake in and management of NBC. Roberts and Zucker addressed fierce competition among distributors in the market.

The article focuses on the importance of mandating full internet service provider (ISP) transparency and suggests two-step analysis in identifying whether a practice is considered reasonable or unreasonable network management. It says that reasonable network management calibrates net neutrality principles to the technical realities of the Internet. It mentions the Comcast Corp. vs. U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) case, which involved the former in unreasonable network management.

The article analyzes the implication of the merger of NBC Universal Inc. and Comcast Corp. It examines various business models pursued by Comcast in the new media marketplace. It explores the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) role in the proposed deal and in dealing with issues not within the scope of a merger review. It provides an overview on the public interest standard on diversity, innovation and competition as applied to broadcasting and cable.

The article discusses the need for Federal Communication Commission (FCC) network management regulation with the growth of Internet users in the U.S. It refers to Internet Policy statement issued by the FCC and how it was violated by Comcast Corp. It states that FCC can back on track through the design, implementation, and enforcement of Internet rules in order to reestablish network management practices. It adds that clear and enforceable Internet regulations are needed to ensure compliance.

This essay focuses on the intermediating role of the Internet and the barriers to network neutrality. Network neutrality is defined as a network design principle, which points to the aspiration of a public information network to equally treat all content, sites and platforms. A description of the problem of network-neutrality is discussed, in light of the decision of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to condemn Comcast's deviation from network neutrality in terms beyond the network level.

This Article examines a largely unexplored frontier in the "Net Neutrality" debate: the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act's proscriptions against deceptive conduct as a legal limit on Internet Service Provider (ISP) discrimination against Internet traffic. ISP discrimination against certain types of Internet traffic has blossomed since 2005 when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with the Supreme Court's blessing in NCTA v. Brand X and FCC, relieved ISPs from common-carrier regulations that prohibited discrimination and reclassified ISPs as "information service providers." This Article argues that the Internet's architecture and codes presumed common carriage, indicating that the Internet's design and industry "self-regulation" cannot alone prevent ISPs who control access to the Internet's physical layer from becoming its gatekeepers. The FTC and FCC must use their respective authority to police the gulf between ISP promises and practices, protect Internet users and competition, and safeguard the Internet itself as a source for innovation and a wide range of speech. In August 2008 the FCC condemned cable-based ISP Comcast's actions that interfered with subscriber use of peer-to-peer Internet protocols to legally share files and access Internet content, practices that contradicted Comcast's offer of unfettered Internet access. While that order is being appealed and the FCC considers formal adoption of net neutrality principles, this Article examines Comcast's actions in light of the FTC Act's deceptive practices standards. It also analyzes the market promises and terms of service of other cable, wireline, wireless, and satellite-based ISPs to examine industry practices that limit consumer choice and competition. To protect Internet users and the Internet itself as a platform for competition and new voices, the FCC should determine whether those practices violate the Communications Act. This Article also recommends that the FTC declare that ISP advertisements of unlimited data or Internet access violate the FTC Act's deceptive conduct provisions when the ISP's material limits on Internet use are not prominently highlighted in the ISP's enticements to subscribers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the issue regarding the internet content discrimination which calls for net neutrality regulations. It explores the history of internet such as the Internet protocols and the broadband access as well as government entities that are pushed to act on the issues. It examines the Comcast Corp. dispute in the light of net neutrality. It also discusses primary peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing protocol and the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) decision net neutrality debate.

The Comcast Situation, the latest development in a story of increasing private control over access to basic communications functions, has brought national attention to the way in which this country conducts its communications policy. In this Article, Professor Crawford suggests that the FCC's ad hoc treatment of Comcast reveals the fundamental incoherence of current communications law. After tracing the history of the nondiscrimination principle in U.S. treatment of telegraphy and telephony, Professor Crawford suggests that regulatory gymnastics and credulous courts have caused us to forget that private discriminatory control over basic communications networks has never been acceptable! At the same time, public uproar over growing private domination of this basic service is rising to the level that caused the U.S. to create its communications legal structure in the first place. Professor Crawford calls for reforms that will restore the role of basic non-discriminatory transport that the framers of U.S. communications law had in mind. Open access fiber installations should be the rule. Making access to dumb, dark, and cheap fiber ubiquitous will provide this essential kernel of non-discriminatory transport. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the authority of the U.S. Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) in enforcing Internet policy and the power to decide the Free Press Complaint. An overview of the history of regulatory laws in relation to the Comcast P2P Order is provided, along with the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction as claimed by the FCC and its adjudication to Comcast Corp.'s broadband network management. It looks at how the FCC approached the Comcast controversy, and analyzes the defect in its approach. The article discusses U.S. Internet policies, precedent cases related to broadband management, and the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction.

In August 2008, the FCC found that Comcast's restrictions on peer-to-peer upload transmissions were unreasonably discriminatory, arbitrarily targeted a particular application, and deprived consumers of their rights to run Internet applications and use services of their choice. The Comcast ruling represents a significant change in the FCC's direction: given the FCC's past decisions that broadband Internet access services do not fall within the "common carrier" category, it is notable that the agency has now imposed nondiscrimination requirements on these services. This Article shows that the rationales articulated in the FCC's Comcast order, stressing both (i) concerns about protecting competition and (ii) concerns about protecting consumers from disruption of their ability to communicate freely and privately, are rooted in centuries of Anglo-American law defining the obligations of "common carriers," The FCC appears to be moving away from its traditional emphasis on the competition policy concerns, which justify asymmetrical regulation of dominant providers for the sake of enabling competition, and toward an emphasis on the consumer protection issues, which justify symmetrical regulation of all service providers regardless whether they have market power. These developments in the U.S. echo the discussion now going on in Europe in the context of the package of proposals on a new common regulatory framework for telecommunications, released by the European Commission on Nov. 13, 2007, and which is now being debated by the European Parliament and Council. On both sides of the Atlantic, a trend is emerging to permit network discrimination only if the discrimination is narrowly tailored to achieve legitimate objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article outlines the polarization of debate on the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-proposed net neutrality policy. It recommends the FCC to develop an effective consumer competition and protection policy strategy, highlights the FCC's decision to classify broadband under Title I information service, and mentions the dispute between communications firms Comcast and BitTorrent over the interference of Comcast with BitTorrent traffic.

The article presents the case Kristian v. Comcast Corp. in the U.S. According to the author, the plaintiffs have filed a claim against Comcast for alleged violations on both state and federal antitrust law, by attempting to control prices through participating in anticompetitive practices. In addition, they have claimed that Comcast has engaged in conducts that prevent or interfere with competition.

The article reports on the enforcement of class arbitration waivers and its impact on arbitration clauses. A class arbitration combines elements of an arbitration and a class-action suit by importing collective bargaining into the arbitration process. The use of class arbitration was implicitly validated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Green Tree Financial Corp v. Bazzle. In the case of Kristian vs. Comcast Corp., the 1st District Court ruled the class arbitration waiver in the customer service agreement of the cable company Comcast was unenforceable and severed that portion of the clause, allowing a class arbitration to proceed. Self regulating organizations (SRO) such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) have opted against class arbitration.

Name: Raymond (Ray) Davidson Title: Chief Operating Officer Time at APHSA: One month Life Before APHSA: Earlier in my career I held leadership positions in operational and administrative functions with [...]

Byline: Jack Fitzpatrick Ten PACs that donated to former Rep. Tim Bishop (D) before he lost his reelection bid have already donated to Rep. Lee Zeldin (R). 'Those PACs, run [...]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case Comcast v. Behrend which erodes the plaintiff's ability to gain certification in the class action mechanism. It examines the effect that the mass media and communications company Comcast Corp. has had on the certification stage, the history of the class action and the evolving history of the mechanism. It also provides a full review of the analysis of the case.

Byline: Jack Fitzpatrick AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon 'donated heavily' to incoming House freshmen, 'cultivating early relationships with the next generation of lawmakers.' The three companies 'targeted many of the 65 [...]

The article presents a testimony of Thomas W. Hazlett, panel on a joint venture between mass media companies Comcast Corp. and NBC Universal, before the U.S. Senate Committee to the Judiciary hearing on competition in the media and entertainment distribution market. Hazlett addressed the economic policy that concerns about the effect of the proposed merger on competition in the market. He highlighted the impact of the deal on cable operators and other businesses in the market, such as Verizon and Time Warner.

The article discusses a court case wherein the Comcast Corp. questions the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on its adoption of 30 percent subscriber limit for cable television operators. The court reviewed the issue and concluded that the FCC rule is arbitrary and capricious. It says that the FCC rule has been established to avoid competition threats as competencies among television programs are growing. It says that the rule was cancelled since it has failed to follow right procedures.