FTC Says It May Be Unable To Regulate Comcast, Google, and Verizon (arstechnica.com) 86
The Federal Trade Commission is worried that it may no longer be able to regulate companies such as Comcast, Google, and Verizon unless a recent court ruling is overturned, ArsTechnica reports. From the article: The FTC on Thursday petitioned the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing in a case involving AT&T's throttling of unlimited data plans. A 9th Circuit panel previously ruled that the FTC cannot punish AT&T, and the decision raises questions about the FTC's ability to regulate any company that operates a common carrier business such as telephone or Internet service. While the FTC's charter from Congress prohibits it from regulating common carriers, the agency has previously exercised authority to regulate these companies when they offer non-common carrier services. But the recent court ruling said that AT&T is immune from FTC oversight entirely, even when it's not acting as a common carrier. It isn't clear whether the ruling sets an ironclad precedent preventing the FTC from regulating any company with a common carrier business.
Someone missed the Spirit of the Law (Score:2)
This was of course not the intent of the law when it was written.
Re: (Score:2)
The spirit was willing, but the execution is weak.
Re: (Score:1)
This was of course not the intent of the law when it was written.
Which of course highlights the utter fucking stupidity surrounding the "Spirit" interpretation of any law in the black and white world of legality we live in today.
Re:Someone missed the Spirit of the Law (Score:4, Insightful)
This was of course not the intent of the law when it was written.
Laws are not supposed to be enforced according to someone's interpretation of their intent. If the law is not performing as intended, then it can be amended by the lawmakers.
Oh yeah -- the courts are not supposed to interpret intent either; they're supposed to make judgements according to the way laws are written. This, of course, is an area where practice often departs from theory.
Re: (Score:2)
> Oh yeah -- the courts are not supposed to interpret
> intent either; they're supposed to make judgements
> according to the way laws are written.
Have you ever in your life seen a design spec that covered all possible use cases?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever in your life seen a design spec that covered all possible use cases?
Nope, but I've also not seen a protracted court battle over something that wasn't actually addressed in the contract's specs either. I've seen debates of what the spec means, but never have I been sued for non-conformance on a requirement not at least implied by the contract.
We have a serious problem in this country where our laws and regulations are out of hand and in many cases conflict with each other. This, my friends, is on of the paralyzing affects of "big government" and should not be so.
Re: (Score:2)
If the courts are not the last line of defense against unjust laws, then who or what are?
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. courts have no role in determining the "justness" or "unjustness" (or "fairness" or "unfairness") of a law. They are only to apply existing law -- which includes the United States Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.
If Congress passed a law (and the President either signed it or the President's veto was overridden) that "No commercially produced shoes in half-sizes shall be shipped across state boundaries in trade", it might not be "fair" to people who wear a size 10½ shoe but
Re: (Score:2)
Government has no "rights". We, the people, agree to cede our rights to the common government in the interests of the common good. We, the people, also can reclaim every one of those rights through the democratic process. Corporations are simply collections of people - owners (sometimes stockholders), employees, customers.
We, the people, could even amend the U.S. Constitution to repeal every word of it and replace them with a declaration that the person with the user name uncqual on /. is the supreme ruler
Re: (Score:2)
That's an overly simplistic (dare I say, engineering) view of how the law works. While their decisions are grounded in statute and constitutional law, as well as common law, they have broad enough latitude in how they apply it that they use a number of doctrines to actually figure out how they're going to rule even if they could rule either way based on the merits of the case. The higher up the court, the more likely this becomes - after all the case is sufficiently ambiguous that the lower courts couldn't
Re: (Score:2)
If the drafters of the shoe-size law were not rigorous, yes, the courts could decide it was too vague to enforce. However, it's easy to get this right so, unless the courts were doing something they should not be doing, it would not likely be an avenue that would result in an successful challenge to the law. "Fairness" of the law would never be a proper reason for a court to rule for/against the shoe-size law.
Actually, the Supreme Court doesn't "strike down laws" - the laws often stay on the books because t
Re: (Score:2)
>"Fairness" of the law would never be a proper reason for a court to rule for/against the shoe-size law.
Actually - that would entirely depend on how it's written. There are numerous laws which have a fairness clause - and explicitly leaves the question of whether a particular case is fair or not up to the courts to determine. This is common where the law is trying to protect an activity which should be legal in certain circumstances but not in others - and it's difficult to determine upfront a universal
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't mention that the shoe-size law had a "fairness" clause. Most laws don't so it's disingenuous to assume that a random hypothetical law would when no mention has been made of such a clause.
The "fair use" section of copyright law is more the exception than the rule.The "fair use" section is an essential part of copyright law as, otherwise, the law would stifle the press et al from even quoting material from copyrighted sources and thus would interfere with the intent of portions of the First Amendment
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that similar sections in copyright laws all over the world, with radically different legal systems, all used the term 'fair' in their names ? Dutch/Roman law for example reffers to it as "fair dealing" exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still an unfortunate use of the term -- it's not "wrong", it creates confusion for many who don't understand the law and confuse the term with the more abstract and flexible and moralistic term "fair" rather than a relatively precise and narrow meaning in the US copyright law. It isn't a problem for those in the publishing business or in the legal profession of course.
Re: (Score:2)
From a practical matter, yes. As a Constitutional matter, the ammo box is not a factor.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing "fairness" with "law" and the "Constitution".
The BoR is, legally, simply the first ten amendments to the constitution. The Federalists felt them unnecessary as the Federal government wasn't granted the right to restrict speech, arms, or to quarter soldiers etc. so they couldn't do it. The Anti-Federalists, in a last stand, demanded a BoR which the Federalists agreed to. The Federalists though were wary that the rights enumerated in a BoR might be construed to be the only rights to be reta
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Juries are.
The legislative branch is supposed to pass good laws. Failing that...
The executive branch is supposed to enforce the law fairly and refuse to enforce bad laws. Failing that...
The judicial branch is supposed to decide whether a law is enforceable and how to do it, or if a law is a bad law that is completely unenforceable. Failing that...
Jury nullification and voters kicking out the bad actors in the legislative and executive branches. Because "We The People" is how this whole thing is supposed to
The Intent... (Score:2)
Laws are not supposed to be enforced according to someone's interpretation of their intent. If the law is not performing as intended, then it can be amended by the lawmakers.
Oh yeah -- the courts are not supposed to interpret intent either; they're supposed to make judgements according to the way laws are written. This, of course, is an area where practice often departs from theory.
Several centuries would like to disagree with your talking point.
Intent is *one* factor in interpreting what a law means. How persuasive a factor it is depends on the circumstances and the jurisdiction in which the law is being interpreted and all of the other factors that suggest a different result. Sometimes it comes in through lenses like "consistent with public policy" or "intent to solely regulate the entire area of law" or "under a statutory scheme designed to" or "the legislative history of the Amend
Re: (Score:2)
If a law is vague and two different interpretations are opposing each other, then what should the courts do when asked to adjudicate? The problem with the view that the courts should not be interpreting laws is used most often by people who think the laws are already perfectly clear and precise except and that their political opponents are just too stupid to see otherwise. In practice the vagueness of laws creates an entire industry of lawyers fighting back and forth hoping to make headway. After a few c
Re:Executive Overreach (Score:5, Insightful)
congress was very clear that the FCC regulates common carriers, not the FTC.
And "common carrier" is a hat that a company wears. If they're not wearing that hat, they're not under the FTC. To say otherwise would put the SEC in charge of a day trader's murder trial.
Re: (Score:3)
To say otherwise would put the SEC in charge of a day trader's murder trial.
Or put the Post Office in charge of concealed carry policies.
Wait. They do that now.
Re: (Score:2)
All they did was put out a formal policy to follow federal law. They are not directly arresting or prosecuting.
Re: (Score:2)
formal policy to follow federal law.
During the Bush administration, the posted regulation at the local Post Office permitted carry by those possessing a valid state CCW. Under the Obama administration, the signs were revised to restrict this to carry by 'officials'. Same law, different interpretations.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Executive Overreach (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCC only regulates the communication - it doesn't regulate all aspects of their business. The FTC is saying that they may not be allowed to enforce anything on a company that is partially under the FCC at all:
The panel’s ruling creates an enforcement gap that would leave no federal agency able to protect millions of consumers across the country from unfair or deceptive practices or obtain redress on their behalf. Many companies provide both common-carrier and non-common-carrier services—not just telephone companies like AT&T, but also cable companies like Comcast, technology companies like Google, and energy companies like ExxonMobil (which operate common carrier oil pipelines). Companies that are not common carriers today may gain that status by offering new services or through corporate acquisitions. For example, AOL and Yahoo, which are not common carriers, are (or soon will be) owned by Verizon. The panel’s ruling calls into question the FTC’s ability to protect consumers from unlawful practices by such companies in any of their lines of business.
The FCC claims mobile is common carrier and not (Score:2)
> The mobile side of AT&T's business is clearly not
> "common carrier" and is regulated by the FTC.
Of course FCC regulates common carriers. In the last few years, under Wheeler, the FCC has said:
mobile voice, but not data, is common carrier and subject to FCC regulation.
mobile voice AND data are common carrier and subject to FCC regulation.
Neither mobile voice nor data are common carrier and subject to FCC regulation.
It may be clear to YOU which is common carrier and which isn't, but Tom Wheeler,
Re: (Score:1)
Of course FCC regulates common carriers. In the last few years, under Wheeler, the FCC has said:
mobile voice, but not data, is common carrier and subject to FCC regulation.
mobile voice AND data are common carrier and subject to FCC regulation.
Neither mobile voice nor data are common carrier and subject to FCC regulation.
It may be clear to YOU which is common carrier and which isn't, but Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC, can't seem to decide.
I think your sequence may not be date based.
A message of hope (Score:2)
Screw your Courage to the sticking place. Stay with us dear customers!
Our bottomless pit of greed means you no harm. There is no need for nasty government oversight. We will serve you, our loyal subjects. We will always treat you right, compete fairly, and allow new companies to compete with us.
Hmmmm.... (Score:2)
"A 9th Circuit panel previously rule"
Time to investigate the panel's financial records and those of their close friends and family for "improprieties" I'd say....
Time to get really corrupt (Score:3)
But the recent court ruling said that AT&T is immune from FTC oversight entirely, even when it's not acting as a common carrier.
Well that's a dumb precedent to set. AT&T might as well start defrauding consumers in any way they can think of. The worst that happens is a few class action lawsuits...maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Break them up, then (Score:5, Insightful)
It's nothing more than a different style of monopoly similar to a mafia-run operation. You will buy only their product, from them, at prices they command. They've already killed all real competition, so you don't have a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you can cite a statute to base this idea on you're just blowing hot air and as long as all your doing is complaining on Slashdot you may as well not even do that.
I'm no lawyer, so it would take an absurd amount of time to find any sort of legal citation. My guesstimate (yes, guess, see previous statement about not being a lawyer) would be that something along the lines of Comcast hasn't yet occurred and there would not be a lot of legal precedent. First, we are dealing with a single corporation that does not compete with itself and faces minimal competition in multiple markets, some of which have "government-approved monopolies" (even if it's municipal-level last-mi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Large oligopolies lasting at least a decade have almost always:
1. Had crappy service
2. Stagnate the industry
3. Bribe law-makers via their deep pockets in their favor
It's especially true when they control multiple sectors, such as content/product creation and delivery, OS and applications, hardware and software, etc. because they create proprietary or unpredictable interface "standards" that lock out newcomers.
They argue they need economies-of-scale to be efficient, but that's largely BS, as Japan car co's a
Re: (Score:3)
Owning the means to production is just good business sense - even the full vertical stack. Exploiting that is the only time there's a problem.
WTF? (Score:2)
For "common carrier" to be a meaningful distinction, some agency needs to be responsible for making sure entities that claim to be common carriers actually behave that way. If it's not the FCC's responsibility, whose is it?
Re: (Score:1)
Except when the FCC *is* involved they're suddenly not common carriers?
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to re-read. It's the FTC, not the FCC, that the court said has no say in this matter. Not that I agree with the decision. What the court is essentially saying is that if a company acts as a common carrier in any way then the FTC has no say over their non-common carrier activities. So that would mean that the FTC can't regulate Yahoo because Yahoo is owned by Verizon.
That's bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
entities that claim to be common carriers
Today, the FCC is claiming authority over my company. So I choose not to be a common carrier. Tomorrow, the FTC tries to regulate me. Now I'll be a common carrier.
Bullshit. It's not up to a company to pick and choose its regulatory environment. If it is doing common carrier stuff, the FCC should sent a letter saying, "You're fall under my jurisdiction." Don't want to be a common carrier? Then sell off those parts of your business that provide those services.
So corporatocracy rules? (Score:3)
Either:
a. These companies become "immune" from the FTC, but lose their franchise/market exclusivity status permanently and pay the government back all of the money they were given to build infrastructure, or
b. They can be sanctioned by the FTC for breach of consumer laws, fraud, misrepresentation and other consumer problems
Between this and the now-mandatory binding arbitration clauses in consumer contracts from these companies, the American consumer is in a really bad spot.
Re: (Score:1)
Just draw a line through "the I herby agree" part, and initial it, then sign it. Chances are the sales people won't even look at it after she signed it. Once they've accepted payment the contract is valid and you haven't agreed to the clause despite the signature at the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did companies become immune to fraud, collusion and misrepresentation?
Did you know manipulating the stock market is illegal per the SEC yet corporations do it all the time via buybacks? How do you suppose that's allowed to happen? Have you looked at the Clinton administration wikileaks documents? For example: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]. It's all corrupt from top to bottom.
Re: (Score:1)
Since they bribed lawmakers and judge selectors to give them "freedom".
They are people now: Giant people with deep pockets and lots of lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
not like there are solid alternatives.
And if there are, all they have to do is collude with the other carriers to fix pricing. After all, the FTC isn't coming after them.
what about unfair metering? (Score:2)
what about unfair metering CAN some regulate over that?
Re: (Score:1)
Especially considering how hard they're working to get laws passed to prevent public options from being created.
FTC? (Score:3)
Re:FTC? (Score:4)
Because AT&T is a communications company... and it sells phones, and is an employer, it pays taxes, and it owns shares of other companies.
The FCC regulates AT&T's use of spectrum and communications.
The FTC regulates their sale of physical goods and other trade.
OSHA regulates their employee safety.
The IRS regulates their tax payments.
And the SEC regulates their purchase and sale of stocks.
Just because they are a telecommunication company doesn't mean that nobody but the FCC has any jurisdiction, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
False advertising is under FTC jurisdiction - and that should not have anything to do with the company's main line of business. The FCC doesn't regulate advertising.
Brought to you by your friends at... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing TLAs need is the ability to reproduce.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
If they want to play.. (Score:1)
If thats the game they want to play alright then. In order to avoid regulatory loopholes, businesses operating under common can no longer offer non common carrier services.
I'd be more than happy to have all isp's be just isp's. If all they can compete on is data service, we might start to see some real advancement in isp offerings.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if the precedent holds that common carrier is black or white and who regulates them based on that holds, they're going to still be able to offer non-common services. What they really won't like, though, is that this is consistent with the FCC's argument that because they are common carriers and tie non-common offerings to common offerings that the FCC gets to regulate the non-common offerings.
3 letter acronyms (Score:1)