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

Of course they did

[Pojut]

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.

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

[Pojut]

/signed

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

[madhatter256]

Weren't we all 'against' this version of FCC's net neutrality??? It wasn't exactly what most people wanted, and it only passed because it appeased to cable lobbyists (ie. ATT, Level 3, etc.).

As the net neutrality rules were about to be passed, this was posted on slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/21/1510232/Obama-FCC-Caves-On-Net-Neutrality which pointed to this article -> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/obama-fcc-caves-on-net-ne_b_799435.html . Sorry I don't know HTML....

What I don't get here is that a lot are praising the net neutrality and are against Verizon, but if you read through that earlier slashdot post, a lot of people were against this version of Net Neutrality because it really didn't give that freedom we wanted, not all of it, and nowhere near it..... I wonder what changed since the rules by FCC have not changed...

Just thought I'd point out this old slashdot article out..

Re:Of course they did

[drunkennewfiemidget]

Same thing here in Canada, only replace Verizon with Rogers, and it's word-for-word applicable.

Fuck them, you're absolutely right. /signed.

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

[oh_my_080980980]

So what happened to tort reform?

Oh that's right, it's a CORPORATION that's suing, not an PERSON.

Maybe we need to get the Supreme Court to declare that people are corporations, that way we can have the same rights.

Re:Of course they did

[operagost]

That's funny, because I support my democratically elected representatives and not unelected bureaucrats who legislate through policy.

Re:Of course they did

[zeroshade]

No one said anything about free. We are completely willing to pay for service, good service. Service that is on par with the service that modern civilized countries outside the US get. We pay over $50/month on average for less than 30mbit/s lines on average. Other countries pay a lot less for a lot more. The difference is the lack of competition between ISPs and possibly public infrastructure.

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.

Re:Of course they did

[DragonWriter]

Weren't we all 'against' this version of FCC's net neutrality???

No, we weren't all against it. Slashdot isn't a hive mind.

It wasn't exactly what most people wanted, and it only passed because it appeased to cable lobbyists (ie. ATT, Level 3, etc.).

Well, no. Cable lobbyists lobbied against it, and the people on the FCC that have been traditionally against net neutrality regulations voted against it, and the members of the FCC that have supported the concept of net neutrality regulations voted for it.

It wasn't everything some people wanted, but its a lot more than nothing. It essentially follows the Google-Verizon proposed framework except:
1. While it applies looser rules to mobile broadband operators than the fixed operators, it doesn't completely exempt mobile operators;
2. The FCC did it themselves citing existing legislation granting regulatory authority rather than Congress imposing the rules directly.

The main complaint proponents of stronger neutrality rules seem to have are:
1. It does give looser rules for mobile broadband, and
2. It allows "reasonable network management" as an exception to some of the provisions, and proponents fear this will open the door to a variety of undesirable practices (despite the fact that the Order specifically addresses some of the practices that these fears are raised abouts and states that they would not constitute reasonable network management.)

What I don't get here is that a lot are praising the net neutrality and are against Verizon, but if you read through that earlier slashdot post, a lot of people were against this version of Net Neutrality because it really didn't give that freedom we wanted, not all of it, and nowhere near it..... I wonder what changed since the rules by FCC have not changed...

 

Yes, Slashdot has lots of people that disagree with each other, and isn't a hive mind. Plus, all the people that object to the rules adopted by the FCC because they don't restrict broadband operators enough are opposed to the rules from the opposite direction that Verizon is opposed to the rules. Verizon is suing to get it so that there are no rules in place, while proponents of stronger net neutrality are opposed to the rules because they want stronger rules in place. While many of those net neutrality proponents may have adopted hyperbolic language (like "worse than nothing") in response to the FCC Report and Order, given a challenge to the order from Verizon -- for whom "worse than nothing" is not a hyperbolic description, since there preference is for the FCC to either impose rules that only affect fixed broadband providers leaving mobile providers completely free, and, failing that, to do nothing at all -- suddenly some of those net neutrality proponents realize that, while imperfect from their perspective, the FCC Report and Order is really closer to what they want than nothing at all.

Re:Of course they did

[s73v3r]

No, but the Government should be setting the ground rules, and then playing referee. Ensuring a level playing field, and all that.

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

[Notquitecajun]

Whether you're for or against net neutrality, the above post is correct. The FCC doesn't have the authority to impose net neutrality by fiat and regulation.

Re:Verizon is correct

[Pojut]

If they're privately owned, why do they bitch at the government for money? Here's just one example.

I'm aware that article covers multiple countries, but it's rare nowadays for an ISP to be truly considered 100% privately owned...or at the very least, privately funded.

Re:Verizon is correct

[dkleinsc]

They have no authority over private cables owned by private companies purchased by private homeowners.

Yes they do, because those same cables rely on poles and underground tunnels on public land, and in some cases were built with public subsidies, and are considered a public resource. The FCC also has authority over land-line phones for similar reasons.

Nor do they have the authority to censor content on the private cables.

They are proposing no such thing. Net neutrality takes away the power of private cable companies to censor content, but it does not give the government authority to do so.

Re:Verizon is correct

[Pojut]

Actually, a better way to look at that article would be "spreading the wealth around"...only with private companies instead of private citizens.

SOCIALISM, OH NOES

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:Verizon is correct

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Net neutrality takes away the power of private cable companies to censor content, but it does not give the government authority to do so.

And further, this is an example of the government doing exactly what it's meant to - stopping private companies walking all over everyone in the pursuit of profit.

Re:Verizon is correct

[Suki I]

Just because the government hires you to plow snow from public roads with your truck does not give them title to your truck.

Re:Verizon is correct

[rtb61]

Those cables run over and under public property and cross state boundaries, they also enter the private properties of citizens whose rights must always be protected.

Net Neutrality, us a neutral digital communications system, no censorship, no prejudicial traffic bias, no communications disruptions to suit profit or political goals, basically it is all about treating the internet as an extension of the private telephone system, exchanging analogue voice communication for digital communications but maintaining the same principles of not monitoring, no censorship, no traffic blocking, no purposeful disruptions of service.

Laws of the land are created by the government based upon the constitution, corporations regardless of their psychopathic greed are bound by those laws. If you want to communications companies the laws will govern how you operate, don't like the laws, well simple go into some other industry.

Re:Verizon is correct

[cpu6502]

Don't know, but obviously the government should say "NO" every time a private company begs for money. The company has no right to raid the taxpayer (our) wallets for cash. I consider that theft.

Re:Verizon is correct

[Pojut]

That's our point, CPU...they HAVEN'T told the ISPs no, and, at least in the USA, ISPs have received billions in direct and indirect subsidies. Arguing that the FCC has no authority here became meaningless the instant ISPs benefited at the expense of taxpayers.

Re:Verizon is correct

[Pojut]

True, but it DOES give them the authority to dictate what equipment you use and how you use it, in the form of vehicle requirements, safety requirements, and manufacturing requirements based on the previously mentioned vehicle/safety stuff.

Re:Verizon is correct

[cpu6502]

private cables rely on poles and underground tunnels on public land

Yes but that public land is owned by the STATE not the FCC. The commission (and the us congress) has zero authority to regulate lands owned by the Member State Government/legislature.

FCC are proposing no such thing as censoring.

Well you're right and I'm wrong. That's true. But the Congress has introduced bills to give the FCC authority to regulate what can/cannot be said on *private* cable channels and private news websites. That shouldn't be allowed (violates amendments 5, 14, 9, and most importantly: 10). But you're right: Has no relevance to net neutrality. It's a separate issue and I shouldn't have mentioned it.

Re:Verizon is correct

[cpu6502]

I think the solution is to use the Sherman Antitrust Act to break-up the local Cable/ISP monopolies. Also the public lands belong to the MEMBER STATES not the Central Union government or the FCC. The FCC has zero authority to regulate lands owned by State Legislatures. Only the local state politicians have that authority.

(Cmon people - this isn't hard. It's called separation of powers between States and the federal.)

Re:Verizon is correct

[Attila Dimedici]

Laws of the land are created by the government based upon the constitution, corporations regardless of their psychopathic greed are bound by those laws.

Except the FCC is not a law making body. In the U.S., only Congress may make a law. The question is, what law gives the FCC the authority to do this? When the judge in the Comcast case asked them that question, the FCC did not have an answer.

Re:Verizon is correct

[drinkypoo]

This is one of those times when the interstate commerce clause actually applies. The internet isn't just interstate, it's international. Clearly this brings it within the purview of the federal government.

Re:Verizon is correct

[Attila Dimedici]

Sorry, nowhere in the Constitution is the Executive Branch given authority to make this kind of rule. So, the question is, what law did Congress pass giving this authority to the FCC?

Re:Verizon is correct

[Fastolfe]

Monopolies are not illegal. Abusing your monopoly to harm (or prevent) competition is illegal.

Re:Verizon is correct

[zeroshade]

Private cables owned by private companies used by private homeowners...you mean phone lines right? The FCC definitely has authority over phone lines.

Oh, you were talking about internet infrastructure. What was the difference again? If the FCC has the authority to regulate telecommunications and enforce the common carrier laws with phone lines, they they have the authority to impose net neutrality. It's illogical for it to be otherwise. Whether the legal system will be logical is a different situation altogether.

Uncertainty

[Atticus83]

If I hear the word "uncertainty" one more time...well I'm not sure what I'll do....

Re:Uncertainty

[nedlohs]

So there's some uncertainty in what you'll do?

Just a sign of a big battle to come

[RoverDaddy]

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.

FUD

[Tom]

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...

Abolish the FCC

[Suki I]

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.

Re:Abolish the FCC

[idiotnot]

This is how an essentially political administrative agency works.

We've seen it other places (see: FDA with nicotine delivery, EPA with carbon emissions).

Verizon will win this case, but the politicians in charge of the FCC probably still won't the the message. They certainly didn't the last time they lost in court.

And Congress could have fixed it, but they didn't. It's not at the top of the list of things they failed to do, but it's up there.

Re:Abolish the FCC

[Suki I]

Nice wordplay. The last communications monopoly, virtual or not, in the USA was the Bell system. It was a monopoly because the government made it one. The "break up" was because they asked really nice to get out and compete.

When localities have only one phone and/or cable provider, it is usually due to the same thing, government only letting one play.

The FCC kills competition and the rent-seeking firms who want a monopoly enforced through the police power of the government use them to that end.

Re:Abolish the FCC

[TheEyes]

Thanks for reminding me I want the EPA abolished too!

Anyone who says this has a very short memory. As late as the 1980s there was a dense orange-yellow smog cloud pretty much permenantly hanging over Los Angeles and many other metropolitan areas, unsurprisingly much like there are today over places like Beijing. The EPA and the Clean Air Act--along with even more aggressive regulation here in CA due to Los Angeles's unique geography--got rid of all those smog clouds, saving us billions in costs from increased health care and lowered lifespans.

Re:Abolish the FCC

[Red Flayer]

The last communications monopoly, virtual or not, in the USA was the Bell system.

That was the last national communication monopoly. There are still plenty of regional and local monopolies.

It was a monopoly because the government made it one.

No, it was a monopoly because any market with significant barriers to entry tends toward monopoly. The government chose to allow it in exchange for regulating it.

When localities have only one phone and/or cable provider, it is usually due to the same thing, government only letting one play.

Bullshit. It's usually due to the same thing -- no one is going to build out competing infrastructure. Hell, if it weren't for the granting of the monopoly, the sole provider wouldn't even have built it out. Something tells me you weren't around for when these networks were built out.

The FCC kills competition and the rent-seeking firms who want a monopoly enforced through the police power of the government use them to that end.

This I agree with in part. But it's an overly simplistic view of the way things work. Would you rather have no FCC and an unregulated monopoly due to market forces?

Re:Abolish the FCC

[fyndor]

Local issue. Leave us in New Jersey out of it.

Lol it is really dumb to think air pollution is a local issue. It is not local to to anything but the Earth itself. You do realize there is no invisible barrier between New Jersey and the rest of the world right? Do you also not realize that you likely have cleaner air because of California regulations? Cali is a giant market, so if they say cars or any product have to meet their standard to be sold there, then manufacturers will make changes to the entire line. So California's air quality regulations actually help the smog in your city directly and indirectly.

I live in Texas, but I am glad they do what they do (if only they could balance a budget :X). Standby power in appliances is the same kind of thing. By Cali regulation, appliances made after 2007 must have less than 0.5 watts of phantom power (power drain when device is off or on standby). What this means is that the people making these appliances can't be lazy and not care how much power the device draws when it is off. An article on the BBC website noted that in HOME STEREOS in the UK cost UK consumers each year $463 million US dollars in electrical charges and create 3.5 billion lbs of CO2 just from phantom power alone. You may not personally care that your stereo / tv / whatever is wasting power and causing pollution, but I do because it affects me. It causes my electrical bill to go up. Because you are unnecessarily increasing demand, this means they have to increase capacity more often (build more plants), which costs a shit ton of money, which is passed on to me in higher electrical prices.

Have you not heard of what Comcast is doing? Their network is maxed out in regards to the link between their customers and the rest of the internet, yet traffic inside their network is allowed a much better connection. Part of this is a technical issue, but you can't deny it is also an issue with their corporate model and how they do business. Comcast refuses balance this out by buying more hardware or any other solution, because the end result is that big name websites that have high bandwidth content (video streaming etc) are having to move part or all their servers to the Comcast network (i.e. pay the blood money) so they don't risk having Comcast customers not able to view their content. Trust me, you do not want this kind of crap to continue. If this doesn't affect you now, it very well could in the future when your ISP follows suit. Content providers couldn't possibly house mirrored copies of their content with every ISP in the US. But that is the direction they would have to head if another big volume ISP does the same thing. I am not sure if the FCC rule will prevent stuff like this, but it needs to and I support any step in the right direction.

Do you see how this works? You are not in your own isolated world. What you do as a consumer or as a corporation affects me in at least a small way because we are all linked. My general mindset is that everyone should be able to live their lives and do what ever the hell they want, as long as it doesn't adversely affect other people. When your habits or practices or w/e affect society in a negative way it is the role of government to step in. If FCC, from a legal standpoint, can't regulate what ISPs can do in regards to equal access, then we are all fucked.

Re:Abolish the FCC

[fyndor]

It is irrelevant as to whether you have a problem or not with something you are doing if it is negatively affecting others, because you are impeding on others' freedom. That is how United States freedom works (in spirit, not practice).

You may have no problem with ISPs reverting the internet back to the good ole' AOL/Prodigy days of fragmented networks where AOL internet =/= Prodigy internet =/= Compuserv internet etc. But the fact is that society has integrated the internet in day to day business operations and personal communication, so if we allow these kind of practices you will hinder businesses (ISPs excluded) and people.

You may have no problem that the electronics you buy that waste power lead to increases in my cost of living even if I choose to own products that waste as little electricity as possible. If you drive a gas guzzler, you may have no problem that it is part of the reason we rely on people we don't like to supply our fuel. You may have no problem that it causes unnecessary amounts of pollution that I have to breath. You may have no problem that it will help accelerate the coming of the next ice age and possibly lead to a situation where the mechanics of the Earth cannot recover as it has in the past. You may not care about this stuff, but it affects me, everyone else on the Earth, and untold countless others who have yet to be born. Though on this topic it is more likely that you can't wrap your simple mind around the big picture and the fact that your air pollution actually has a lasting affect on the Earth. After all, based on your blog you are obviously a right wing Obama birth certificate nut job, so I guess we can't really expect much in the way of intelligent thoughts coming from you when it comes to science. It's too bad you guys aren't big fans that whole science thing, it's pretty cool stuff.

There is nothing busybody about making sure we do what we can to insure that we are not helping accelerate the inevitable next ice age. It would probably be good to have as much time as possible to prepare so our species is certain to survive it. There is nothing busybody about making sure corporations don't have the lock and key to what information you and I are allowed to view. This is VERY important stuff and the fact that you see no reason to fight for stuff like clean air and freedom to communicate really boggles my mind. Regardless you are free to think and say what you like and likely will scream it as loud as possible so as to drown out the opposing views. After all, that is the Republican way.

If the FCC can't save us, how bout the DOJ?

[mykos]

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.

Re:If the FCC can't save us, how bout the DOJ?

[khallow]

Your an idiot, these telecommunications providers have monopolies

Cable and DirectTV are competitors to these "monopolies".

I celebrate this lawsuit!

[jimmy_dean]

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.