FCC Sued by Broadband Industry Groups Over Net Neutrality Rules (arstechnica.com) 34
Several broadband industry lobby groups have filed lawsuits against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in an attempt to overturn the recently approved net neutrality rules. The regulations, which prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, are scheduled to take effect on July 22. The lawsuits were filed in various US appeals courts by groups representing cable, telecom, and mobile Internet service providers, including NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, USTelecom, CTIA-The Wireless Association, and several state-level associations. The groups argue that the FCC lacks the authority to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 without explicit instructions from Congress.
In addition to the lawsuits, the industry groups have also petitioned the FCC for a stay of the rules, claiming that their members will suffer irreparable harm if the regulations take effect while litigation is pending. The FCC is expected to reject the petition, but the groups can then seek an injunction from appeals court judges to prevent enforcement. The industry's legal challenge is based on the Supreme Court's evolving approach to the "major questions" doctrine, which limits federal agencies' ability to make decisions on significant issues without clear congressional authorization. However, FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks maintains that the agency's authority to regulate broadband as a telecommunications service is "clear as day."
In addition to the lawsuits, the industry groups have also petitioned the FCC for a stay of the rules, claiming that their members will suffer irreparable harm if the regulations take effect while litigation is pending. The FCC is expected to reject the petition, but the groups can then seek an injunction from appeals court judges to prevent enforcement. The industry's legal challenge is based on the Supreme Court's evolving approach to the "major questions" doctrine, which limits federal agencies' ability to make decisions on significant issues without clear congressional authorization. However, FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks maintains that the agency's authority to regulate broadband as a telecommunications service is "clear as day."
If the telcos are upset (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the government is doing something right.
Re:If the telcos are upset (Score:5, Interesting)
If it were up to me we would take over the telecom companies and make them state owned companies. I'm done with these @ssh@ts.
Re: (Score:2)
That's part of the problem. In the past when AT&T got a national monopoly it came with the stipulation that they provide universal access. In other words, you scratch our back and we'll scratch yours. These days, these local and regional monopolies are not returning the favor, they instead act like a tiger raised from a cub who now realizes that the people who nurtured it are also very tasty.
Re:If the telcos are upset (Score:4, Informative)
Precisely. The vast majority of people in the USA don't actually have any competition for internet service. Even if you live in a metro area that claims to have competition, the telcos often get a pay-for-play monopoly on apartment complexes, or trade "right of way favors" to cut the market up.
Accorrding to the maps, I theoretically "have competition" from Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon Fiber. In reality, Verizon Fiber doesn't yet come into my neighborhood because AT&T owns that right-of-way, and AT&T refuses to run their own fiber offering, leaving me a "choice" between a $60-a-month shitty, underpowered AT&T DSL connection barely better than dialup, or $80-a-month for Comcast cable.
It's not really "choice."
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a large metro area and I do have broadband competition where I am.
- Cable from a well known provider that does not 'cap' your usage. Actually decent service unless you are a night owl.
- DSL or whatever 'magic' AT&T is currently offering. They stopped mailing flyers to me years ago.
- Some poorly rated unknown of a fiber to the home operator that is always hiding more fiber conduits & sending out discount flyers.
of the 3 I find the cable provider to be the least objectionable. The fiber-to-t
Re: (Score:2)
And before I forget ...
- The 5G service is decent and available from multiple carriers at 5G speeds (whatever that means).
- Fixed Wireless home access using 5G should also be available from the same wireless carriers.
- No Google Fiber out here. Not even a peep about that, but I could consider it if it became available on all that fiber currently being installed in the ground here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I get either AT&T vDSL (fiber to the neighborhood, it's not bad but not as fast as cable and slightly overpriced for the speed I get); or Comcast which is highly overpriced and does not have a good connection to my place (two analog cables which would need to be combined in a converter box I think). It's competition, but it's not the sort of competition that drives down prices. Neither are high up in the list of companies whose customers love them.
Oh ya, AT&T also has a new internet plan bas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Monopolistic policies are caused by socialist politics and economic planning. Wherever there is a lack of competition, it is due to regulations that create barriers to entry for competitors.
Re: If the telcos are upset (Score:3)
I grew up in France where the one telco was state owned. This resulted in technology falling behind and very high prices. They subsequently privatized, but with a high level of regulations that are actually enforced. The result is a lot of competition and much lower prices than the US, both for fixed internet service and mobile phones.
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up in France where the one telco was state owned. This resulted in technology falling behind and very high prices. They subsequently privatized, but with a high level of regulations that are actually enforced. The result is a lot of competition and much lower prices than the US, both for fixed internet service and mobile phones.
You're wasting your breath here. There's a wave of nostalgia for 60's-70's style nationalization here among the older fellow travelers, and among the younger ones, romantic notions that they've never had to personally put to the reality test. Long lines and empty shelves at state stores, real and metaphorically speaking, are probably going to have to be something that future generations re-learn the hard way. The current mayor of Chicago has discussed the possibility of state (or city) owned retail shops ha
Re: (Score:2)
I have never heard of any bread lines in France, except during WWII.
As a teenager running a BBS out of my home, though, it really sucked to pay $3/hour for local calls in the early 1990s - never mind long distance calls.
The Minitel was a good innovation for 1980, but became very quickly outdated technologically unfortunately. It had a 32 years run, which is far too long, but more than can be said for many Internet services. France fell behind the US in terms of internet connectivity in the 1990s, especially
Re: (Score:2)
The regulations, which prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization
Awwwww, was someone planning to split the net into little feudal empires?
I wonder if the plan was to only get money from everyone, or if part of the payments would be along the lines of "if you allow content critical of our company, your site gets throttled and deprioritized"
Sued? How touching. (Score:3)
Suing a government agency? By lobbying groups? Wow, they must have enacted something that would take effect too quickly for the lobbying checks to clear. I didn't know our government still had it in them. I feel like giving them a root beer and a lollipop! Well done government! You finally got one thing right!
Re: (Score:2)
Unelected bureaucrats saw a problem and fixed it. They could have, like a politician decided to follow the money. Instead, they have to prove in court, that fixing this problem is their job, not the job of easily-bribed ^H^H^H -persuaded politicians. Unfortunately, technology has changed; the law and politicians haven't. So the courts probably will decide that "the FCC lacks the authority" to fix this problem.
In the very unlikely event the ultra-conservative US courts decide that ISPs can't choose whe
Cable Oligarchs Are Feelin' The Heat! (Score:5, Interesting)
The govt is already targeting his assets as we've seen with the LiveNation lawsuit and I believe their true intention is to go further than just that one company. This schmuck owns or recently owned controlling stakes in:
Pandora
SiriusXM
The Atlanta Braves
Discovery
Formula One
LiveNation/Ticketmaster
iHeartMedia/ClearChannel
Oh and he's the most prolific individual land owner with over 2.1 million acres. No one has had a more active role in shaping the current media ecoysystem that's tearing our country apart. Here's a short clip I cut of a talk he gave at a business school where he describes Rupert Murdoch creating Fox News as part of his own vertically integrated media empire. He brags about choosing it's political alignment. Murdoch was just middle management for Malone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Malone is truly villainous and this lawsuit is laughable. The govt is coming from him and this lawsuit won't even slow 'em down.
Then the FCC replies ... (Score:3)
The groups argue that the FCC lacks the authority to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service
All of these subsidies and wireless bandwidth are intended for telecommunications services. Want some? So then, are you or are you not a telecommunications service?
Agencies (Score:2, Insightful)
>"The groups argue that the FCC lacks the authority to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 without explicit instructions from Congress."
They are probably correct. Most of these Congress-created, huge, unelected, bureaucratic, regulatory agencies are operating well outside their mandates. And the Supreme Court will probably side with the ISP's. Congress will have to actually do something if they want these policies (good/bad/or whatever)
Re: (Score:2)
regulat[e] interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges . . .
But good policies raise "Major Questions," so who knows where this will end up.
Re: (Score:2)
>"This seems easily within Congress' mandate for the FCC[...] But good policies raise "Major Questions," so who knows where this will end up."
It really isn't even about if one thinks the policy is "good" or not. Some of the mandates are so vague and general/broad, they can be interpreted to mean just about anything... "go do whatever you like, however you like, to whomever you like, for as long as you like."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Remember that saying: We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it."
Oh, I very much remember that. I believe a quote from Pelosi. Congress is full of "swap creatures" who are completely captured by corporations and agencies and either have no stances or anything, or their stances just change with the wind of their non-citizen masters. Not all of them, but enough to make the system a mess.
I understand the function and need for some regulatory agencies. But you can't just create them and
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand what his actually means?
It means the lobbyists wrote the legislation, it was copy/pasted into the bill at the last minute, and no one had a chance to undo the corrupt pro-industry crap that screws us over. It's a basic part of the regulatory capture that means guaranteed profit and brain dead regulation. The other part is the bribes, aka campaign contributions, that allow the copy/past in the first place. It's win/win for the pol
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting reply ... but it overlooks the obvious ETHICAL QUESTION:
Which is worse in your example?
- The lobbyists that wrote the material that you say is "copy/past(e)"? [adding the missing 'e']
- Or the legislators and/or their staff that blindly DID THE ACTUAL "copy/past(e)"?
Please don't reply that ethics does not matter or my question is irrelevant because that's just a 'fancy dance sidestep' of my question.
Re: (Score:1)
>"The groups argue that the FCC lacks the authority to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 without explicit instructions from Congress."
They are probably correct
The communications act allows the FCC to independently regulate telephone, telegraph, television, and radio communications.
It covers the entire communications and broadcasting industry, assignment of frequencies, rates and fees, terms of subscriber access, commercials, and broadcasting in the public interest.
Another title allows the FCC to independently grant right-of-way as well as being the body to enforce imminent domain.
Note that all of the original AT&T contracts have been null and void for decades
This may be the end of net neutrality (Score:3)
Hah! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you've worked on cable networks then you know that they have multiple up and down channels, and most line cards have several up channels (down to you) and only one or two down channels. They simply aren't set up to sell you symmetric internet access without selling you a lot less of it, and then they ostensibly would have to charge you less which they're not interested in doing.
Get me a very tiny violin (Score:2)
Fuck you AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon (Score:2)