back to article America yanked from the maws of cellphone complaint black hole

A US federal appeals court has prevented the country from falling into a telecoms black hole – by asserting that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) does have the authority to fine phone giant AT&T for misleading subscribers. The decision today marks a significant shift in how telecommunications companies will be regulated in …

  1. elDog

    Strange that Pai (the GOP/NRA/USSR stooge) was in favor(?)

    With this administration's toadies its really hard to figure out who's on first and who might have scored.

    For you non US baseball people (which includes almost all Americans), "first" means getting a kiss, "second" is probably a bit of touchy-touchy, "third" is everything but delivery, and "home run" is real bragging rights - but that's from a very old man's recollection - never having even fouled once.

    All I can tell from this is that the FCC is kicking its cans down the road where they can be further kicked by lobbyists and legislative critters. Pai's mental capacity is apparently already overloaded which is why Dump appointed him.

    1. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: Strange that Pai (the GOP/NRA/USSR stooge) was in favor(?)

      Don't worry, thanks to years of US TV and films, we understand your first/second/third base analogies, although including the word 'base' would have made it easier to translate.

      Oh, and over here we call it rounders, not baseball.

      1. Milton

        Re: Strange that Pai (the GOP/NRA/USSR stooge) was in favor(?)

        "Oh, and over here we call it rounders, not baseball."

        Indeed. It is a game enjoyed by young children, I believe.

        1. Michael Habel

          Re: Strange that Pai (the GOP/NRA/USSR stooge) was in favor(?)

          Yeah we call it Little League Baseball.

    2. Alistair
      Windows

      Re: Strange that Pai (the GOP/NRA/USSR stooge) was in favor(?)

      @ elDog

      For one, it was us Canucks what put that game together for you. For two, Michael Aday and Jim Steinman more or less made the analogy listed a global one.

  2. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

    Pai is in favor because his strategy is to neuter the FCC by claiming that the FTC has jurisdiction. Since the regulations from the FCC have historically *generally* been more specific, Pai is angling to dismantle the FCC's control over telecoms and broadcasting entities by making them "just" another business. This strategy is popular with his masters (Verizon et al) because why would they want to (e.g.) provide service in unprofitable areas...

    1. Donn Bly

      FCC in favor of ruling

      Verizon advertised one thing and provided another - that is a TRADE issue.

      All politics and snide comments about Pai's industry masters aside, it really makes perfect sense for the FCC to be in favor. The FCC should never have been in the position to regulate trade and advertising. Trade and advertising is the mandate of the Federal *TRADE* Commission, not the Federal *COMMUNICATION* Commission.

      Constant scope creep in Washington is always a problem as people in power try to grab more and more power, but this is just a clarification of where that chalk line on the sidewalk actually is so that the FTC is free to go after Verizon without one hand tied behind their back.

      Having the FCC do it makes about as much sense as having the Department of Energy do it because phone lines use energy.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: FCC in favor of ruling

        When the FCC first talked about the FTC handling these issues the FTC stated that they didn't have the resources or manpower to oversee the Telecoms under the new classification.

        But I do see your point.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: FCC in favor of ruling

        But advertising is a form of COMMUNICATION. Plus the companies involved specialize in COMMUNICATION. What happens when COMMUNICATION is your basic TRADE?

      3. cortland

        Re: FCC in favor of ruling

        >>Having the FCC do it makes about as much sense as having the Department of Energy do it because phone lines use energy.<<

        Actually, that dates back to the days of the Bell company monopoly on telephone service. They got the monopoly and the FCC got to require a really good quality of service.

  3. Kev99 Silver badge

    I think practically EVERY ISP has false and misleading advertising when it comes internet speeds. Case in point - Frontier loves to advertise its internet speed as "up to" X Mbps. (They've recently doubled their up to speed in adverts). As West Virginia proved, to the toon of $160 Million, Frontier provides no where near the advertised speeds. We're supposed to get "up to" 3Mbps over ADSL. We haven't seen over 2.7 in four years, and often are as low as 756Kbps. Not to mention needing to reboot the modem multiple times a week and completely losing the connection multiple times every DAY. The FCC blew off my complaints and Frontier admits in writing it has no intention to improve our service. And I thought the FCC said broadband was over 20Mbps, not "up to" 3Mbps.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In Canada we have the CCTS...

    CCTS = Commission for Complaints against Telecommunications Services

    Once upon a time, some people we know had an "Unlimited" mobile data plan that was (as it turns out) unlimited only as far as about 5GB per month. Argument ensued, a CCTS complaint was filed, and eventually a significant settlement was offered and accepted.

    Those people we know now own a couple of acres on a very lovely tropical island, paid for in part by the settlement.

    The property is thus called "The Settlement".

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So AT$T mislead it's customers but then said:

    "You can't do anything about it" because of it's classification?

    But the FCC said things like this wouldn't happen.

    Thanks Ajit! NOT!

  6. Maelstorm Bronze badge

    Alternate facts?

    A spokesman for the US telco told us: "Today’s decision on jurisdiction does not address the merits of the [FTC's] case. We are reviewing the opinion and continue to believe we ultimately will prevail."

    I wasn't aware that wishful thinking was a legal theory. But then again, corporate litigators are paid to argue that 'wishful thinking' isn't what we think it is. Alternate facts anyone?

  7. Patrician

    Internet Service Providers seem, the world over, to be a law unto themselves; some areas of the US seem to have really been dealt a bad hand though.

    It's about time that the words "up to" are no longer legally able to be used buy ISP's, the technology today is such that they should be able to provide an reasonably accurate assessment of expected up and download speeds at any given property.

    The fact that VM in the UK for instance can advertise legally "up to 200MB download speeds" when they are fully aware that those speed aren't ever achievable at peak times (16:00 to 23:00 and all weekend). Laws need to be passed and enforced that make them state in their ads the *speed that can be expected at peak times* and not some pie in the sky theoretical maximum.

    1. Charles 9

      The trouble is, and it's been mentioned before, that Your Mileage May Vary, depending on where you're trying to connect. A lot of contention experienced by end users is caused by things outside the ISP's control, and the ISP cannot be expected to be held responsible for these holdups although they are going to be the ones to face all the flak from their customers regardless. It's basically a situation where "truth", or even conservative estimates, cannot really be made even if it's the thing upon which customers base most of their decisions concerning ISPs.

      1. Nunyabiznes

        @Charles

        Good point. However, the provider should be able to prove that their connection to your property line can provide what they are claiming - at least at off peak times. And they should be forced to have a caveat that states what the worst speed will be at full loading.

        ISPs tend to oversell their bandwidth much like airlines oversell seating and they should be called on that.

        Back to the article:

        Although the 9th Circuit historically has the highest rate of overturned opinions by the Supreme Court, this appears to have solid legal reasoning behind it.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        A lot of contention experienced by end users is caused by things outside the ISP's control, and the ISP cannot be expected to be held responsible for these holdups

        Only where there's a common carrier arrangement, AND the ISP is not part of the network operator.

        Where those don't apply (almost all cable networks, non-competitive copper networks, and where the ISP is owned by the network operator) the vast majority of contention issues are on the local network or dedicated backhaul, and are caused by poor forecasting or more commonly mendacious marketing promises backed by unethical sales. In these instances there is a critical failure of regulation, which appears to be unfortunately common across most anglophone countries.

        1. cortland

          I was one of those laid off – and our employer eventually folded – when one of the Baby Bells, not wanting to cut the people actually installing the technology in on the profits, decided to renege on a $4 billion (over 10 years) contract to install the then-new ADSL systems in its district.

          That's water over the dam. Or used beer.

          The last I saw of them, a local medium wave broadcaster had changed from easy listening music, which (even if it got into everybody's telephone lines was at least easy to listen to, to full-time Korean-language evangelist preaching.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like