Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > Legal barrage launched over FCC Open Internet regulation in DC courts

Legal barrage launched over FCC Open Internet regulation in DC courts
Thread Tools
NewsPoster
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2015, 07:51 AM
 
The battle in the US court system to scuttle the new Open Internet regulation as approved by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has begun. Filed yesterday in Washington DC, trade group US Telecom has petitioned the courts on behalf of AT&T, Verizon, and a few others to block the Title II and net neutrality imposition, calling it "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion."

Highlights of the order under fire include the mandate that ISPs "shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management." Not specifically addressed are interconnect rules, such as the peering arrangements between Netflix and ISPs, other than the FCC will intercede as it deems necessary, following examination. AT&T has already used the legislation to escape two lawsuits.

USTelecom President Walter McCormick said of the Title II implementation that the company does not believe that "the Federal Communications Commission's move to utility-style regulation invoking Title II authority is legally sustainable. Therefore, we are filing a petition to protect our procedural rights in challenging the recently-adopted open Internet order." FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler disagrees, saying that the legal construct was written with legal challenges in mind.

THe ISPs are primarily railing against Title II regulation, treating the Internet Service Providers as common carriers, in part. Major Title II provisions that are going to be applied to ISPs include enhanced investigation of consumer complaints, protections for consumer privacy, fair access to poles and conduits, protections for the disabled, and an enhancement to the Universal Service Fund for underserved area expansion. Notably, the order "will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees -- there will be no automatic Universal Service fees applied, and the Congressional moratorium on Internet taxation applies to broadband."

Little is known as of yet how the telecommunications industry will fight the proposal, other than on constitutional grounds, which does not appear to hold water. The suit paperwork claims to have been filed "under an abundance of caution" in case the FCC retroactively judges that the rules are in effect now, versus after they are entered in the federal register some time this summer.

( Last edited by NewsPoster; Mar 24, 2015 at 03:48 PM. )
     
Flying Meat
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SF
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2015, 12:47 PM
 
Poor babies.
     
apple4ever
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lancaster, PA 17601
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2015, 12:55 PM
 
Its funny how the "evil" corporations derided for allegedly harming the internet are the ones fighting for the freedom of the internet.

Its saddening how so many techies don't understand the terrible danger of Title II regulation and the threat it poses to an open and free internet. But those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.
Pennsylvania Patriot
Mac Lover
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2015, 01:01 PM
 
Apple4ever, how do you think Title II is going to be a threat?
     
Flying Meat
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SF
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2015, 03:51 PM
 
No, apple4ever. They are fighting only for their OWN freedom. Make absolutely NO mistake about it.
They could care less about YOUR freedom of the internet. In fact, would like to charge you, coming and going, for some types of content, and restrict others.
     
DiabloConQueso
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2015, 04:47 PM
 
Its saddening how so many techies don't understand the terrible danger of Title II regulation and the threat it poses to an open and free internet."

I would be more than happy to hear the reasons you think that this statement is true, and to give consideration to those reasons in an unbiased, logical, and pragmatic manner.

If you understand the dangers of Title II and think that we do not understand the dangers of Title II, please, explain to us the dangers of Title II and how they apply to end-users of the internet.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2015, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by DiabloConQueso View Post
Its saddening how so many techies don't understand the terrible danger of Title II regulation and the threat it poses to an open and free internet."

I would be more than happy to hear the reasons you think that this statement is true, and to give consideration to those reasons in an unbiased, logical, and pragmatic manner.

If you understand the dangers of Title II and think that we do not understand the dangers of Title II, please, explain to us the dangers of Title II and how they apply to end-users of the internet.
This is the longer version of what I said a few posts up
     
Charles Martin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2015, 04:57 PM
 
Yes, I'm assuming apple4ever has actually read the proposal so that he or she knows what they're talking about ... because we'll need some citations that back up any claims made ...
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
     
unicast reversepath
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2015, 08:51 PM
 
.....patiently waiting for the Pontiff of the interwebs to return. This should be good, unless it was a post and run....



If you have Ghosts, you have Everything!
     
apple4ever
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lancaster, PA 17601
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2015, 03:13 PM
 
The proposal may not do anything TODAY to harm the internet, but it opens up the ability of the government to harm it in the future. That's the problem. Just because the FCC is going to "forebear" things now, doesn't mean they will in the future. Nor will that mean that they can't do harm with the things they already have. There are plenty of things Title II can be used to harm the internet.

This proposal is solving a problem that doesn't exist, using a tool that is terrible for solving that problem anyway.

@Flying Meat- they may only be motivated for fighting for their own freedom, but the end result is they are also fighting for my freedom. They may want to charge more (which they haven't done) but guess what- if they do I can choose to go elsewhere. With the government running things, I do not have that choice.

And you are also not familiar with regulatory capture are you? That's where they industry being regulated ends up in control of the agency that is regulating them. It happens all the time, and in the end now they will have the power of the government to force what they want. Like the exact thing you are wanting to stop- charging different prices for different transmissions. Guess what is in Title II- explicit authorization to paid prioritization. So you are fighting for the companies to be allowed to do exactly what you don't want them to do.

Again, too many techies see the immediate POTENTIAL threat (because again paid prioritization is not happening) instead of the long term much larger threat.
Pennsylvania Patriot
Mac Lover
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2015, 04:20 PM
 
Out of curiosity, have you read the regulation?

I see you're focusing on paid prioritization, which only a very small portion of the regulation is about. What do you think about common thoroughfares, bandwidth limitation of unlimited plans, and the other things the regulation discusses that are happening now, including throttling of services like Netflix when they don't like the traffic they bring, that doesn't actually impinge network management.

Why don't you think there's a problem? Are municipal deals with broadband exclusivity (which are now no longer allowed) a good thing?

Regulatory capture. What's your parallel? The Paid prioritization "authority," which isn't that at all actually, isn't in the Title II part, by the way.

I'm not an idealogue, I am FAR from the left, and way closer to the right, but the republicans left me long ago. This isn't party based, and is based on a reading of the document. Yeah, government over-regulation is bad, but the ISPs can't be trusted to self-regulate.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:51 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,