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.'"

Comments

Verizon is correct

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:Verizon is correct

[smooth wombat]

Considering it was the FCC who allowed broadband providers to not be subject to the same rules and regulations that phone providers are, it would seem that the FCC does have the authority. If you tell someone they aren't subject to X rules, then obviously you do have the power to dictate what they can or can't do or you wouldn't be able to tell them what they can or can't do.

Re:Verizon is correct

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

I think you mean "private" cables bought with public money as part of public improvements. Except in those areas where the ISPs basically told the cities that they were only allowed to have one ISP's cables in the city, and that ISP was it.

Public is public, and monopolies are (supposed to be) illegal. So what is their standing again?

Re:Of course they did

[Moryath]

We, as consumers, wholeheartedly support the FCC and net neutrality.

We pay for our bandwidth. We are tired of the shyster games that the ISP's play.

We are tired of being told that it's "in our interest" that 90% or more of us can get only one ISP because decades ago our county or city sold the area off to one fucking cable company as a monopoly.

We are tired of being told that this is "the free market at work" when there is no fucking competition for service.

We are tired of the content cartels playing stupid fucking games like wanting to block or reduce speeds to competing services (youtube, hulu, etc) and then telling us "but it's ok, you can pay $EXTORTION each month for our shitty-quality, pixelated as hell 'on-demand video' service if you also buy our cable package at $MONOPOLYEXTORTION/month prices."

And we heartily invite Verizon, and the rest of the companies like them, to GO FUCK THEMSELVES.

Re:Of course they did

[3vi1]

The FCC should let them have their way.

And then revoke their common carrier status.

And then prosecute them for piracy and every other illegal thing that passes through their links.

Re:Of course they did

[hal2814]

As a consumer I support net neutrality, but what the FCC is implementing isn't it. This is worse than nothing. What is wrong with the world when Al Franken is the voice of reason?

Re:Of course they did

[Red Flayer]

And then revoke their common carrier status.

What common carrier status?!

ISPs are NOT common carriers. Currently, they get most of the advantages, but none of the disadvantages. This is what the argument over net neutrality is all about -- forcing ISPs to abide by some of the restrictions that common carriers have.

The ISPs have been fighting like hell to make sure they aren't common carriers, so that they can discriminate in level of service provided.

I wish we could re-word this debate, and not make it about "net neutrality", but about "common carrier status". I say, force 'em to be common carriers.