AT&T, Verizon and telco pals file lawsuit to KILL net neutrality FOREVER America's top telcos are suing the FCC over its efforts to impose net neutrality regulations on US broadband networks. AT&T, Verizon, and others, represented by trade body USTelecom, will drag the Federal Communications Commission to the appeals court in Washington DC in a bid to overturn fresh rules on what ISPs can and can't …
I envision the Networks doing something <cross arms> <scream> We're not a Common carrier. We're special.<hold breath until they turn blue>
All this means is that the lawyers get rich, Congress will get lobbyists carrying brown envelopes, and customers will get screwed in the end.
Is anyone even reading the new Regs?
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
No Taxes?
“Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes or fees; the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited by the congressional Internet tax moratorium. “
Universal service fee must not be a tax.
“We partially forbear from section 254(d) and associated rules insofar as they would immediately require mandatory universal service contributions associated with broadband Internet access service.”
Did you really think they were going to fix it so Comcast can’t block Netflix?
“But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements — placing more emphasis on the use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last - mile broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from commercial disagreements perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and—just as importantly—the potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes—are reflected in very different narratives in the record.
While we have more than a decade’s worth of experience with last-mile practices, we lack a similar depth of background in the Internet traffic exchange context. Thus, we find that the best approach is to watch, learn, and act as required, but not intervene now, especially not with prescriptive rules.”
The joke is on whoever thought the government really will do "net neutrality". They are laughing at the stupid public while they collect massive taxes with one hand and "contributions" with the other.
And that was just in the first 25 pages. Read it and weep.
All this means is that the lawyers get rich, Congress will get lobbyists carrying brown envelopes, and customers will get screwed in the end.
All very true. But at the heart of the matter is this: Can the FCC issue "regulations" that have the force of law? Initially groups like the FCC, FTC, SEC, etc. would issue advisories. But now they are issuing regulations, which are suddenly treated the same as laws, effectively bypassing the legislature and President.
Please look up the difference between "rules" and laws. The FCC has always issued rules which are always written by executive agencies. They clarify the specifics of how they will execute the laws written by congress..
This is done because congress can not write ever contingency into law. Too time consuming, they lack expertise and many on the right actually think longer bills are inherently problematic. Would you rather a chemist or congress set arsenic limits?
Three important things to know about this process. the FCC as indeed all executive agencies when crafting rules do so under the authority of congress, secondly congress can pass a law over riding rules, and or become more specific in the laws they pass. Which you will often see happen during periods of divided government. Third executive orders are limited to changing, clarifying or creating rules - again laws written by the executive agency under the authority of congress to help them execute those rules.
You are not quire reading that right. What the GOP is saying is that net neutrality, as implemented, is not legal because it does not have the force of law.
The USA is split on net neutrality - the people are for it, while lobbyist$ are against it. This means the Dems say they are for it while quietly taking lobbyists money to not introduce a law supporting it, while the Repubs correctly point out it is illegal unless a law is passed making it legal. Neither party is doing anything to legally stop it. Meanwhile the President pretends to be uninvolved, as usual.
The people are for net neutrality? That is a buzzword. it has no meaning. What we have now is a three hundred page document that was not released before the vote. What is actually in it, I don't know. I have other things on my plate, but from what I have heard it is fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
"Matt Wood, policy director at advocacy warrior group Free Press told the Washington Post: "These companies have threatened all along to sue over the FCC's decision, even though that decision is supported by millions of people and absolutely essential for our economy. Apparently some of them couldn't wait to make good on that threat."
A statement like that only make sense in a country where the government is for the corporations, and not for the people.
23 upvotes? For a throw-away remark? I certainly hit gold there. Thank you, thank you, you're a lovely audience *mwah!* *mwah!*
The 1 downvote puzzles me though. Someone who doesn't like or comprehend sarcasm? (Eh, understandable)
Or maybe works for one of those two lovely, fluffy companies?
... will this court action hit Verizon back, again? I mean, it is remotely possible that the court will rule that, for one reason or another, the rules need to be amended to include more regulation, not less. For example, local loop unbundling.
That would be funny. (in lieu of dreamer icon)
Uh, yeah, right. Try "anti-monopolistic regulations"
The bare fact is that supply of broadband services in the USA has degenerated into cozy duopoloes and monopolies frequently protected by state-level legislation.
Endusers are faced with "the Phone Company or the Phone Company" most of the time and in most areas where there's any choice, it's "the Phone Company or the Cable Company".
Both of the oligopolies have demonstrated that given the opportunity they will engage in rent-seeking behaviour.
In areas where there's real broadband supply competition, these same outfits don't engage in that behaviour.
AT&T has almost completed reassembling itself since the 1980s, with state-level regulator collusion(*) and without that pesky "Universal service to all" obligation imposed on it by 1930s antitrust lawsuits.
(*) CLECs and competitive access to local loop for DSL have both been outlawed by many state legislatures in exchange for promised upgrade works by incumbent telcos which subsequently never materialised (or in cases where they were begun, were quickly cancelled once the competition ceased to exist).
The USA currently has the best laws and politicians that money can buy and is set to become largely irrelevant in the overall world scheme as its internal infrastructure starts disintegrating. It's likely to resemble the mafiaocracy of Russia before too much longer.
The USA currently has the best laws and politicians that money can buy and is set to become largely irrelevant in the overall world scheme as its internal infrastructure starts disintegrating. It's likely to resemble the mafiaocracy of Russia before too much longer.
What do you mean, "before too much longer?"
I really don't understand why they are so anti. Yes, there is a short-term impact that means their bottom line is less padded than it might otherwise be. But they aren't going to make a loss and the playing field remains level - if anything the rules of the game become much clearer and they can get on without further interference.
By pursuing this strategy they simply open themselves up to continuous attack from the likes of Google and Hollywood who will be forever trying to prevent the telecoms providers from profiteering on the back of their content.
ATT & Verizon would do well to remember that the technology works against them as well. Content delivery works nicely through satellite internet since it is predominantly one way. There is no need to use their broadband networks to view films or YouTube and one can quite easily imagine Google producing a version of Chromecast that links wirelessly with a small satellite dish .
WHAT ? ? ?
And where do you expect the bandwidth for the satellite system of yours to come from ? It would only work if all high bandwidth useage ie video were restricted to what is basically linear like terestrial tv.....
Dont forget most of us want to start watching a youtube video or film etc at different times to the rest of the world.
Yeah about that Satellite thing being predominantly One-way... How do I send my requests for p0rnz. Ughh, Cat Photos to the Satellite Operator then. I gathered that in times past this was done using a 56k Dialup. It would take much convincing that the Cable Co's were so thoroughly evil as that...
Yes, there is a short-term impact that means their bottom line is less padded than it might otherwise be.
You answered your question yourself. Very few, if any, stockholder corporations want a smaller bottom line*. They have no concept of long term goals.
*There are some exceptions though I can't think of any off the top of my head. Most family owned corporations will use long term thinking until the IPO hits....
No. It'll be much, much worse. They company can sue the government, in a court of arbitration, which will have the power to interpret and void a sovereign nation's legislation if that legislation damaged "investors" potential profits. So the FCC would be up shit creek, as would the EPA and in the UK, all the "Off-X" entities. Investor-state dispute settlement is fucking scary.
Strictly speaking, not true. And that's going to be a key part of the legal challenge.
IF the FCC decision required Congressional consent they'd have a stronger case that their decision meets Constitutional muster. But the FCC's argument in voting the rules through without public review was precisely that Congress wasn't going to act so they needed to.
This post has been deleted by its author
This action bt Telcos is not unexpected.
What is so obvious is that is most other developed nations, Net Neutrality type regulations have actually helped these jurisdictions operate more freely, and Internet access quality and rates for business, government and citizens are better than in USA - by every measure, which is supposedly the "Greatest Nation on Earth" (sic).
If the sue-ballers bothered to read the Communications Act of 1934 in its entirety, they would have seen that all radio transmissions in the US are the property of the United States of America and its citizens. They would realize that probably close to 90% - 95% of all internet traffic runs either thru the telco's own copper wire or satellite transmissions. Therefore, they are subject to FCC oversight whether they like it or not.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
