Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Net Neutrality Case Rejected
Back in January, we discussed news that Verizon had filed an appeal to the FCC's net neutrality rules, saying the regulatory agency did not have the legal authority to enforce the mandate. Now, reader olsmeister follows up with this quote from PC World:
"An appeals court Monday dismissed Verizon's challenge of the US Federal Communications Commission's December net neutrality ruling, calling it premature. A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia noted in its decision that the FCC's net neutrality order is a rule-making document subject to judicial review once it is published in the Federal Register. The panel said that the appeal's 'prematurity is incurable.'"
...considering that even if it were published, and passed judicial review, the House passed an amendment to a spending bill that would bar any funding to enforcement.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
They need time to draft the bill to make this pesky regulation a shadow of its current form. Don't worry, AT&T is helping!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I know how they must feel. My doctor told me I suffer from premature appeal, and that it's also incurable. It sucks, let me tell ya.
The US Courts have a very strong tendency to take matters of standing seriously -- nearly every opinion will start with the question "Does this court have the jurisdiction (either by the Constitution or by statute) to take up this case?". In most cases, this is a good thing since it grounds the scope of the courts to their intended purpose. (BTW, the notion of limited scope is distinct from curtailing the power of the courts, which is quite wide provided that the matter is within their purview at all -- many seem to forget the distinction).
Since the case is statutory under the APA and the APA provides for judicial review of "final actions" (which makes some sense - Congress wanted the court to have oversight over agency policy not agency procedure), Verizon cannot appeal the decision to adopt net neutrality rules until they become final.
Since the FCC is very likely to go through with publishing the rules, Verizon will get a chance to challenege them on the merits as not being within the power granted to the FCC by Congress. Eventually, anyway.
Exactly - Verizon was 'incurably premature' - and as any woman will tell you, premature is never good!
Ken
Pure buggers, their prematurity is incurable.
Actually you're not so far off from a point under the radar.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture
Take a look at what became of the Regional Bell Operating Companies.
Most of the former split companies are now rolled up into AT&T and Verizon.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I thought they had pills for that sort of thing.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Of course it's premature. What rule are they objecting to? It doesn't exist yet.
Sheesh! Verizon should have been penalized for filing a frivolous suit.
This illustration is more clear.
http://docjones.nodalpoint.net/att_breakup.jpg
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
The decision WAS ultimately left up to people('s elected officials). So whats the problem?
The problem is it was not left up to the people.
Judges are appointed officials, not elected officials. And Verizon is one entity bringing the matter to the court. That is as far from being left up to the people as it gets.
The people are represented by the government regulatory bodies and the elected personnell such as the president, but more specifically, the FCC on behalf of congress on behalf of the people.
The courts do not really represent the people -- they interpret the law, and utilize the law to settle disputes between parties.
Who would have ever dreamed that a lower court would deem itself so arrogant as to "override" a governmental entity granted a regulatory power by congress, on behalf of an organization subject to the regulation, merely because the regulation is considered inconvenient for the corporation so regulated.
No contest.
Twitter: @dainsanefh