Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Sues FCC Over Net Neutrality Rules
The Washington Post reports that Verizon has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission over the net neutrality rules they adopted last month. Quoting:
"Verizon argues that the FCC does not have the legal authority to mandate how Internet service providers treat content on their networks. A legal challenge was widely expected, and the FCC has said it thinks Congress enabled the agency to pursue its rules under several interpretations of telecommunications laws. The FCC's rules are supported by consumer groups and Web giants such as Google and Facebook. Verizon filed its case in the same federal court — the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia — that ruled last April that the FCC overstepped its authority in trying to sanction Comcast for blocking Web traffic. 'We are deeply concerned by the FCC's assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself,' said Michael E. Glover, Verizon's senior vice president and deputy general counsel. 'We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.'"
Verizon asked (nay, demanded!) they get their way. They didn't, so they're crying like little babies. Hmm...the rules are applauded by websites, and pissed on by ISPs. I am jack's complete lack of surprise.
Living With a Nerd
The FCC has authority over the public EM spectrum (as given to them by Congress) such as radio. They have no authority over private cables owned by private companies purchased by private homeowners. Nor do they have authority to censor content on the private cables.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
If I hear the word "uncertainty" one more time...well I'm not sure what I'll do....
'We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.'
Uncertainty of the benefits to the communications industry and it's investors sure... for innovators and consumers it provides certainty that you don't block shit you don't like. The FCC wasn't created to protect ISP's pockets.
All's I know is that I just signed up for Netflix on New Year's, and my monthly download is poised to go up by 4X from all the streaming (25GB -> 100GB). I have Comcast and only buy Internet - no cable. This is a fight that is going to get damn ugly.
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.'"
Because a simple, straightforward, clear and strict rule is less certain than a jungle of individual, impenetrable, constantly changing ISP "innovations" ?
Suuuure...
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I've done a 180 on this recently and this just solidifies it. The FCC is out of control. I used to think my radio hobbyist friends were a little overboard with it when they were saying the same thing a few years ago.
The FCC is outside of its charter, one that needs to be revoked anyway and recast into something very limited, if at all.
Home of The Suki Series
It's sickening that their stance is "The FCC has no right to get between us and our customers' sweet, tight anuses". Maybe they'd prefer the Deparment of Justice. They've been allowed to abuse their monopoly/duopoly in every one of their markets for far too long.
The United States vs. Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner has a nice ring to it.
every time the gov't did something I didn't like.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If they had their way...
They would consider websites to be "channels". And our Internet bill / menu of choices of service will look like cable tv channels:
"The Basic Plan" - $39 (includes wikipedia and most basic websites)
"The Social Networker" $59 - Everything included in the Basic plan but also the Social Networking sites you love: Facebook, Myspace and Friendster
"Big Downloader" $99 - Love Netflix? We do to, with this plan you can access netflix and another movie site as well.
Need to access your corporate intranet from home? (you know so you can work and pay for the bill) we can let you access it for an additional $9.95
Require all cell phones to be unlocked.
Allow any company who can pass certification to sell a phone on any wireless service
that its phone supports, with or without a multi-year contract, without having to pre-load
the wireless services software, without restrictions on what apps are on the phone.
Data plans should not be required if you own a smartphone outright. Why does the voice
service need to be from the same vendor as the data service.. Maybe the data service
uses something other than the cell network. Or maybe the customer only wants to use
wi-fi.
Can you imagine if the phone companies still required you to buy a wired phone from
them. It's like we have gone back to the 60s...
These companies lease the spectrum from the people. They do not own them.
They are also large utilities which supply critical infrastructure. They do not operate
under a competitive business environment which supports fundamental supply/demand
principles (i.e. look at text rates). The government has every right, and should be
in the interest of its people, be ensuring that these utilities balance profitability with
fairness to the people.
If FCC rules dont force net neutrality then Department of Justice might begin Antitrust investigations and
force pipeholders to lease their lines in areas where there is only 1 broadband provider including to municipalities. Also the FTC
could prohibit broadband providers from using terms like "high speed" for 768k connections and "unlimited"
for bandwidth caps and throttled providers.
A telecom telling the gov't that they have "overstepped their authority." That's rich.
The FCC advocating for net neutrality, on it's surface, may appear a genuine effort to sequester corporate control over our networks. I'm inclined to believe the opposite. In other words, this is a bait and switch tactic wherein the FCC invokes the valid concerns of net neutrality advocates to seize regulatory control. And then with their newly acquired purview betray the open internet groups by implementing draconian regulations that will inevitably consolidate control even further.
On the other hand, the idea of an internet controlled almost entirely by only two corporations doesn't exactly evoke warm fuzzies either, at least the FCC is somewhat beholden to elected representatives. Hopefully the court of public opinion can discern the lesser of two evils here.
of intellectual/information world. not only they can monopolize thinking through their endless resources with patents, but apparently now they also think that they can decide who gets access to what information, and at what cost.
Read radical news here
... is that the same companies who are now claiming that the FCC doesn't have the authority to impose net neutrality were singing another tune just a few years ago. Back then, the States were requiring net neutrality from the carriers under their general business regulation authority and the carriers fought for -- and won -- the decision that only the FCC could do that.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
"Verizon argues that the FCC does not have the legal authority to mandate how Internet service providers treat content on their networks.
Well, then I think Verizon should have to pay every time they have to use public lands to access their network cables and cell towers, and they should have to buy all the property their cables run underneath, or they must pay for its use, and they should pay each and every one of us a yearly stipend for using our airwaves.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Verizon has a net income of upwards of $10 billion per year. Upgrade the damn lines already and stop trying to squeeze usage.
Ya know what, lets do this instead.
You turn over your physical wire and glass infrastructure to county wide co-ops who instead will run it.
Then you have have any damned policy you want applied to the packets to the customers you get on said leased network.
And, because we believe in freedom of choice, the customers can choose if they want a different provider with a different policy.
You were allowed right of ways for certain 'concessions'. You don't like the "terms" - how about some new terms - the metal and glass infrastructure becomes the publics for the public co-op to rule as they see fit.
Pray I do not alter your agreements further.
Charge per pixel!
"Vanna, can I buy yellow?"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The FTC may be able to enforce SOME aspects of net neutrality today using truth in advertising rules - It's there job to make sure advertisers deliver what they advertise.
Companies that say they advertise "Internet access" but in fact only give you partial Internet access are by definition lying. If they block Slashdot or MyFavoriteTorrentSite or even outbound port 25 beyond their own mail servers without my permission (which IMHO they SHOULD be doing unless I ask it to be turned back on), they are technically lying.
This means nothing less than not blocking any traffic that rides over IPv4 and after a reasonable transition period IPv6 regardless of content and regardless of source. ISPs should only block traffic where required by law (e.g. court orders, embargoes, etc.).
Unfortunately, I don't think false-advertising can be used to prevent non-neutral activities like throttling or not providing a quality of service that allows real-time services to work well. From a truth-in-advertising perspective, "Internet for $39.99/month" does not necessarily mean "in real time enough to to play games, do live video, or play live music, or have phone conversations."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This lawsuit is exactly what is needed to put Congress and the FCC in their place. They really think that they can regulate anything in their pompous way. Congress does not own Verizon's infrastructure, Verizon does. Just like Congress does not own your house, or your car, or you, they should not be able to infringe on private property at their whim. Of course Google and Facebook don't like Verizon or any other ISP being able to discriminate traffic. So why doesn't Google and/or Facebook open their own ISP operation and compete with Verizon and prove to them that the better business model might be to not discriminate traffic? Please, government is not the answer! It very rarely is. Politicians do not represent us nor do they have god-like knowledge of the best way to do things.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
Congress does not own Verizon's infrastructure, Verizon does.
the infrastructure that was built on PUBLIC land, with PUBLIC subsidies and with PUBLIC permission ?
what are you ? a moron ? people paid for that infrastructure. when did verizon get the right to usurp public land ?
Read radical news here
That's a tricky suggestion. If you break up the monopolies, do we get any chances of "ISP-trolls" grabbing weird little chunks of backbone and operating like the patent trolls are now, by putting tolls everywhere?
P.S. I glanced at your sig-article. The net def. makes people smarter. I'd call it an Ultra Flynn Effect. Any 7 related slashdot items plus the comments gets you past newbie on any subject.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Verizon to the RIAA: "We cant control whats on our networks!"
Verizon to the FCC: "We must be allowed to control whats on our networks!"
I
"Verizon argues that the FCC does not have the legal authority to mandate how Internet service providers treat content on their networks".
When you put it that way, Verizon is right. Their networks are their networks.
Now, when I get Internet service from Verizon, I expect to get the Internet, unless they say otherwise in my contract, and disclaimers like network management or not impacting other users are just weasel-speak.
But this gives me hope. It is the ONLY reason I've had in a decade to get back into the ISP business. If only it didn't take a hundred million to get started. Gone are the days of a T-1 and box of modems. Now you need a GigE uplink and peering and hugely expensive border routers just to serve your half of the city.
But, again, there's opportunity there to get in and provide unfiltered Internet. It just takes enormous capital. So we are probably gonna fail.
I'm beginning to think this is a contract law issue. Make ISPs state in advance what they will or will not provide as part of their service. Vague 'network management' disclaimers should not be allowed.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
As a taxpayer, if they don't want to follow the FCC guidelines, I would like the billions of dollars they got to build their broadband networks back.
It isn't their content either. It's google's. Or mine (the requests to http:.... for example).
So why does Verizon get to say what can be done with MY content on the network I paid for?
I am supposed to be able to change to something that makes sense to me. Spend my money on what I believe in. Can I get out of a 2 year contract if they do something I don't agree with? Without paying the $400 or so? If they change the rules after the contract, then I should be able to. Next, what options do I have to move to? If they have received tax breaks of any type, then they should not be able to limit certain sites based on extortion fees.
Scott Carr
We all know that every large ISP has a hard on for the thought of yet another way for charge their customers more for improving nothing. So of course they're going to be upset when suddenly they're told no.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
I imagine the breakup of the Cable/ISP monopolies would work similar to the ATT Phone breakup in the 1980s.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
They invested their money. Their time.
It's a business.
Those pipes, wires, cables, call them what you want, they didn't just grow by themselves.
If you don't like it, start your own ISP. Build your own pipes. Spend your money.
Verizon argues that the FCC does not have the legal authority to mandate how Internet service providers treat content on their networks.
Seems a simple enough proposition. All the FCC has to do is prove that Verizon's actions inhibit the actions of other network providers and that it inhibits the flow of communications. This would place the whole issue strictly in the FCC's jurisdiction. Granted we won't see that as the whole thing will inevitably turn into a "You hate capitalism!"/"Oh, no I don't!" fight between Verizon and a more-than-willing to comply FCC.
There was a time I had a tiny bit of faith in the FCC on this, but screw it, let the SEC deal with it.
With Great Mod Points comes Great Responsibility!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The FCC has authority over the public EM spectrum (as given to them by Congress) such as radio. They have no authority over private cables owned by private companies purchased by private homeowners.
The actual law giving the FCC authority disagrees with your claim that the FCC's jurisdiction extends to radio communication but not wire communication.
47 U.S.C. Sec. 151:
For the purpose of regulating 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, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the “Federal Communications Commission”, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.
Nor do they have authority to censor content on the private cables.
Incorrect again, for instance 47 U.S.C. Sec. 532(j):
(j) Single channel access to indecent programming
(1) Within 120 days following October 5, 1992, the Commission shall promulgate regulations designed to limit the access of children to indecent programming, as defined by Commission regulations, and which cable operators have not voluntarily prohibited under subsection (h) of this section by—
(A) requiring cable operators to place on a single channel all indecent programs, as identified by program providers, intended for carriage on channels designated for commercial use under this section;
(B) requiring cable operators to block such single channel unless the subscriber requests access to such channel in writing; and
(C) requiring programmers to inform cable operators if the program would be indecent as defined by Commission regulations.
(2) Cable operators shall comply with the regulations promulgated pursuant to paragraph (1).
Typical, " creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.'"
It industry is first, then actually Innovators, makes no sense except from the standpoint of their innovating on a business model, then Investors, and oh yes consumers.
But I can't for the life of me undestand how the certainty of not allowing companies to filter or throttle information on the internet is an UnCertainty. The only uncertainty in their minds is whether they will get a ruling in their favor so they can innovate their new business model to pour more money into the pockets of their investors (which the executives are probably some of the largest investors).
Can anyone locate the document / complaint filed in the federal appeals court? Thanks.