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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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: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

[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

[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: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.