Broadband providers file lawsuits against FCC to crush net neutrality rules

D

DragonSlayer101

Posts: 405   +2
Staff
What just happened? Broadband service providers and industry lobby groups have sued the FCC in an attempt to prevent it from reinstating net neutrality in the US. The lawsuits were filed by NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, USTelecom, CTIA-The Wireless Association, and others, who argue that the agency cannot unilaterally reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 without Congressional authorization.

The plaintiffs took their lawsuits to several appellate courts, including the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit, and the D.C. Circuit, but only one of them will hear the cases after being chosen by a lottery. While USTelecom filed its lawsuit in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Alamo Broadband took its case to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.

USTelecom's lawsuit argues that the new rules are not only "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion," but also violate a number of existing laws and regulations. According to the group's president, Walter McCormick, its members support an open internet but do not believe that the FCC has the authority to impose net neutrality regulations on the industry. "We do not believe the Federal Communications Commission's move to utility-style regulation ... is legally sustainable," he said.

The FCC has responded to the lawsuits, saying that it was expecting the industry to mount legal challenges to the new regulations. However, the agency believes that the rules are legally enforceable and the petitions will be dismissed by the courts. As of now, the new rules are slated to take effect on July 22, but it remains to be seen if the courts will hinder the FCC's plans.

In addition to the lawsuits, the lobby groups have also requested that the FCC halt the implementation of net neutrality by June 7, claiming that its members will suffer serious damage if the rules go into effect in their current form. The FCC is expected to reject the request, but the industry bodies can then ask the appeals courts to order an injunction to prevent enforcement.

The legal challenges come weeks after the FCC voted to reinstate net neutrality seven years after it was repealed under former Chair Ajit Pai. Voting in April was along party lines, with the three Democratic commissioners, including Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, voting in favor of the bill, while the two Republican commissioners on the panel voted against.

Permalink to story:

Broadband providers file lawsuits against FCC to crush net neutrality rules

 
Good! Net Neutrality is a power grab by the government. I support Net Neutrality, but not through an FCC rule that gives them carte blanc over our internet. It needs to be passed through congress by a bill that contains nothing, no other fat, but a couple of paragraphs declaring Net Neutrality. This current method is not what you think it will be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bwbeam and Phylop
ferris209 said:
Good! Net Neutrality is a power grab by the government. I support Net Neutrality, but not through an FCC rule that gives them carte blanc over our internet. It needs to be passed through congress by a bill that contains nothing, no other fat, but a couple of paragraphs declaring Net Neutrality. This current method is not what you think it will be.
Click to expand...

That's not how its *supposed* to work. Congress specifically made agencies like the FCC to regulate industry because having Congress have to micromanage every potential regulation is simply not possible (doubly so in todays environment). Congress empowers agencies run by experts in the industry they oversee to manage how that industry operates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m3tavision, Ultraman1966, Beerfloat and 4 others
I'll just note, most of these same telecoms that want to avoid treating Internet Service as common carrier status, DO want common carrier status for any tax incentives and payouts, exclusivity (like franchise agreement type stuff), and protections they get as a common carrier. They want the benefits without the responsibilities. Common carriers for telecoms requires them to carry all lawful traffic, and I have no idea how they've decided since it's packet data rather than circuit switched calls that they suddenly have the right to not just carry the traffic as they are being paid to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m3tavision, Ultraman1966 and safari801
gamerk2 said:
That's not how its *supposed* to work. Congress specifically made agencies like the FCC to regulate industry because having Congress have to micromanage every potential regulation is simply not possible (doubly so in todays environment). Congress empowers agencies run by experts in the industry they oversee to manage how that industry operates.
Click to expand...

And by ceding control and legislative powers to unelected 'experts', we get capricious application of law that regrettably has been allowed for far too long under the utterly bananas Chevron Deference doctrine. The administrative state is a black hole into which trillions of taxpayer dollars disappear with nothing to show for it.

Thankfully, Chevron deference is before SCOTUS, and may finally be reigned in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: messy
ferris209 said:
Good! Net Neutrality is a power grab by the government. I support Net Neutrality, but not through an FCC rule that gives them carte blanc over our internet. It needs to be passed through congress by a bill that contains nothing, no other fat, but a couple of paragraphs declaring Net Neutrality. This current method is not what you think it will be.
Click to expand...
If you think that's what the FCC rules are like then you haven't read them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeffs0418
anastrophe said:
And by ceding control and legislative powers to unelected 'experts', we get capricious application of law that regrettably has been allowed for far too long under the utterly bananas Chevron Deference doctrine. The administrative state is a black hole into which trillions of taxpayer dollars disappear with nothing to show for it.

Thankfully, Chevron deference is before SCOTUS, and may finally be reigned in.
Click to expand...
So you prefer to elect known low IQ politicians who don't know what to do instead of letting experts in the field do their work? Would you prefer to elect every firefighter or doctor personally? Would you prefer to elect every person who works in the country?

FYI, you did elect the FCC head, just not directly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ultraman1966, Beerfloat, Jeffs0418 and 1 other person
mgilbert said:
As usual, the Republicans voted in favor of big business, and the Democrats voted in favor of everyday working people. It's been that way for decades...
Click to expand...
It wasn't good for working people in 1934, and it isn't good for them now. It is only good for the self-satisfaction of ideologues who champion political control over market dynamism.

Today, there are some big players, but there are also many small players. The only way to permanently stifle competition and establish monopolies is to regulate them as monopolies. That is exactly what FCC's version of net nuetrality does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anastrophe
mgilbert said:
As usual, the Republicans voted in favor of big business, and the Democrats voted in favor of everyday working people. It's been that way for decades...
Click to expand...
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans will call you an A-hole, and stab you in the gut. Democrats will smile, shake your hand, and tell you they're on your side, then stab you in back. You're going to get stabbed by politicians, whether Republican or Democrat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: messy
Puiu said:
So you prefer to elect known low IQ politicians who don't know what to do instead of letting experts in the field do their work? Would you prefer to elect every firefighter or doctor personally? Would you prefer to elect every person who works in the country?

FYI, you did elect the FCC head, just not directly.
Click to expand...
A 1 in 60 million vote for President means I elected the FCC head. Are you trying to be sarcastic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: anastrophe
Puiu said:
So you prefer to elect known low IQ politicians who don't know what to do instead of letting experts in the field do their work? Would you prefer to elect every firefighter or doctor personally? Would you prefer to elect every person who works in the country?

FYI, you did elect the FCC head, just not directly.
Click to expand...
They are not experts in market economics, or they wouldn't be pushing what amounts to price controls and monopoly incentives. Maybe they are expert in central planning economics, but I doubt even that. They aren't even technical experts in communications. At best, they are experts in existing regulatory doctrine, but even that plays second fiddle to pleasing their political masters.

No, it isn't an improvement over direct decision-making by politicians. It isn't any different at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anastrophe
hwertz said:
I'll just note, most of these same telecoms that want to avoid treating Internet Service as common carrier status, DO want common carrier status for any tax incentives.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are self-servicing. It just so happens that they gained their current success by conpetitive means in an extremely dynamic market, so that is who thry are. So their acts of self-defence against this FCC assault just happens to coincide promotion of a free and competitive legal atmosphere.

But, if the FCC succeeds in regulating them as 1930's utility monopolies, then that is exactly what they will become. Then if decades later, someone tries to liberate the industry from the few large remaining "utilities", they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their legislated conpetition-killing monopoly status.

Corporate status quo always adjusts to become constituencies of the prevailing legislative regulatory climate. Why you, or Biden, or Trump, for that matter, thinks promoting an anticompetitive corporate mindset is good for the little guy, I have no idea.
 
vikingvista said:
They are not experts in market economics, or they wouldn't be pushing what amounts to price controls and monopoly incentives. Maybe they are expert in central planning economics, but I doubt even that. They aren't even technical experts in communications. At best, they are experts in existing regulatory doctrine, but even that plays second fiddle to pleasing their political masters.

No, it isn't an improvement over direct decision-making by politicians. It isn't any different at all.
Click to expand...
"They are not experts in market economics"- no, their interest is consumer rights, not the economics. Why does everything have to be about profits with you? it's how you end up with the absolute evil companies that you have in the US.

Have you even visited the FCC website? the first few Call to Action buttons are: "File a Consumer Complaint", "File a Public Comment" and "File a Public Safety Report".

The buttons aren't "Screw consumers more", "Hide your real price from consumers" or "Increase profits at all costs"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jeffs0418
vikingvista said:
Yes, they are self-servicing. It just so happens that they gained their current success by conpetitive means in an extremely dynamic market, so that is who thry are. So their acts of self-defence against this FCC assault just happens to coincide promotion of a free and competitive legal atmosphere.

But, if the FCC succeeds in regulating them as 1930's utility monopolies, then that is exactly what they will become. Then if decades later, someone tries to liberate the industry from the few large remaining "utilities", they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their legislated conpetition-killing monopoly status.

Corporate status quo always adjusts to become constituencies of the prevailing legislative regulatory climate. Why you, or Biden, or Trump, for that matter, thinks promoting an anticompetitive corporate mindset is good for the little guy, I have no idea.
Click to expand...
"conpetitive means in an extremely dynamic market" - you do realize that it is a world wide fact that there is no real competition in the US. you have local and federal laws that make it impossible to have competition between ISPs. and major ISPs themselves refuse to compete with each other which is why most people have just 1 or two options for high speed broadband.

you entire argument falls apart by simply not understanding the market or the laws in the US. a well known example which is also easy to understand: many states have laws on the books that thwart or outright prohibit the development of municipal broadband.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jay Watt
If all the stock holders and hedgefunders were killed this would not be an issue or an argument .. everyone would have equal access and no-one would try to build a poor people internet and rich people internet. anyone arguing otherwise is rich C##t trying to be better than poor people
 
  • Like
Reactions: n3o127
Its interesting reading all comments -- For me, my opinion has changed from total distaste, to now, full support, even support more policy defining things more consumer -- Big Corps are not people, to hold them at a level with people for taxes, policy, and rights -- I'm done with that. Sell me 1 gig internet, that's what I get, throttle me, or ad, or whatever, but on speeds and service over the 1 gig (boost it for your own good on or using your service levels, not mine). Then today, I'd also support fiber at every door (just as the power lines are) -- We tend to focus on the cost (and all other ya butts), change that to realizing a more productive future with abilities to interact in more places and able to do more things, improve impacts health devices and even revenue generating (smart) devices.
 
Puiu said:
"They are not experts in market economics"- no, their interest is consumer rights, not the economics. Why does everything have to be about profits with you? it's how you end up with the absolute evil companies that you have in the US.

Have you even visited the FCC website? the first few Call to Action buttons are: "File a Consumer Complaint", "File a Public Comment" and "File a Public Safety Report".

The buttons aren't "Screw consumers more", "Hide your real price from consumers" or "Increase profits at all costs"
Click to expand...

Profits are FOR the people. Regulation is not. If you can't understand that simple concept, then you shouldn't be included in the conversation, because once it gets more advanced you won't be able to keep up. Once you regulate and legislate things, it gets worse. Always.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anastrophe
vikingvista said:
Yes, they are self-servicing. It just so happens that they gained their current success by conpetitive means in an extremely dynamic market, so that is who thry are. So their acts of self-defence against this FCC assault just happens to coincide promotion of a free and competitive legal atmosphere.

But, if the FCC succeeds in regulating them as 1930's utility monopolies, then that is exactly what they will become. Then if decades later, someone tries to liberate the industry from the few large remaining "utilities", they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their legislated conpetition-killing monopoly status.

Corporate status quo always adjusts to become constituencies of the prevailing legislative regulatory climate. Why you, or Biden, or Trump, for that matter, thinks promoting an anticompetitive corporate mindset is good for the little guy, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Everyone is self-servicing and anybody that claims otherwise is a liar, to themselves or to others. Everything we do is in service of self, without exception. It's not that we desire it that way, or our society made it that way... it's biology and reality. To argue against is futile.
 
Puiu said:
"conpetitive means in an extremely dynamic market" - you do realize that it is a world wide fact that there is no real competition in the US. you have local and federal laws that make it impossible to have competition between ISPs. and major ISPs themselves refuse to compete with each other which is why most people have just 1 or two options for high speed broadband.

you entire argument falls apart by simply not understanding the market or the laws in the US. a well known example which is also easy to understand: many states have laws on the books that thwart or outright prohibit the development of municipal broadband.
Click to expand...
Competition in the US is stifled by what the Economists call Oligarchies, which means that a few big guys have control of everything and do whatever they can to crush the small guy and startup competition. I would not be surprised to find that there are conspiracies among the leaders of the Oligarchies and governments to retain control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n3o127
Mark Fuller said:
Competition in the US is stifled by what the Economists call Oligarchies, which means that a few big guys have control of everything and do whatever they can to crush the small guy and startup competition. I would not be surprised to find that there are conspiracies among the leaders of the Oligarchies and governments to retain control.
Click to expand...
There are always big players. It is NOT an oligarchy. An oligarchy will come only when regulations sufficiently restrict competitive innovation. That is always to the benefit of the big players who can afford it and influence politicians. A good example are utilities. Prior to utility regulation, these so-called "natural monopolies" were actually numerous and competitive, particularly along geographical margins. They were turned into de jure permanent nonopolies (with competition made illegal) by the very same type of regulation the FCC wants to use to impose their "net neutrality".
 
  • Like
Reactions: anastrophe
Puiu said:
So you prefer to elect known low IQ politicians who don't know what to do instead of letting experts in the field do their work? Would you prefer to elect every firefighter or doctor personally? Would you prefer to elect every person who works in the country?
Click to expand...
I prefer to leave government control of communications as minimal as possible; you know, that whole annoying first amendment problem.

Puiu said:
FYI, you did elect the FCC head, just not directly.
Click to expand...

The administrative state relies upon their lack of oversight to force horrendous controls on the people without legislative authority.

The only people who argue in favor of unregulated authority are authoritarians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
FCC reinstates Net Neutrality in the US to ensure a level playing field for all internet users
Replies
12
Views
245
Arbie
Arbie
Daniel Sims
FCC ends high-speed internet subsidies as funds expire
Replies
20
Views
199
jeffbert
J
A
The big three cloud providers, Amazon, Microsoft and Google currently make up 67% of the market
Replies
0
Views
174
Alfonso Maruccia
A

Latest posts

Back