Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon Net Neutrality Case Rejected

Posted by Soulskill on from the sit-down-and-shut-up dept.

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.'"

11 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Super pre-mature by proverbialcow · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...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
    1. Re:Super pre-mature by yeshuawatso · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Amazing how Congress will avoid paying for laws that protect consumers and are more than willing to pay for ANY other law that protects the interests of the top 5%. Even more crazy, most of the voters don't care and will vote the same jagoffs back into Congress every time until they're unemployed and can't find work due to lack of education and/or skills, and want someone to blame for their incompetence for voting the very person who gave more precedent to the Fortune 100 than to our public education system.

      I'm glad to see Verizon get the cold shoulder, but we know this isn't going to last long. Face it, net neutrality is a pipe dream for those who are technically competent enough to understand but are far outnumbered by the voters who don't understand it, nor do they want to.

    2. Re:Super pre-mature by WillyWanker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The House has been passing a lot of batshit crazy bills that will never make it out of the Senate. It's what Republicants do instead of actually trying to get something productive done.

    3. Re:Super pre-mature by Barrinmw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ^this. it is posturing at its best...err worst...my main fear is that they attach it to a bill that declares babies not fit for human consumption forcing democrats to have to pass it otherwise be seen as baby cannibals.

    4. Re:Super pre-mature by fnj · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't you get it? For bills of a funding nature, the Senate has no say whatsoever. Funding legislation must originate in the House (unless our Masters in Washington just continue to ignore the Constitution, which makes all bets off). The House has the power of the purse. Say the House does not fund something. The Senate can't up and originate a bill funding it, and even if they try, it would still have to pass the House (AND the President) before it becomes law. It's a C language compound-or statement. The first term that evaluates false terminates the evaluation with false.

      The House has been passing a lot of batshit crazy bills that will never make it out of the Senate.

    5. Re:Super pre-mature by Barrinmw · · Score: 2

      the best part of having multiple parties would be actually having a choice in voting, i would love an actual major liberal party.

    6. Re:Super pre-mature by Barrinmw · · Score: 2

      a common workaround is the senate taking a bill that has passed the house, completely gut it and work from there, it still has to be reconciled with a house version though. The constitution just says "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." so as long as the bill originated in the house its all good.

    7. Re:Super pre-mature by fnj · · Score: 2

      If such a transparent "workaround" (actually a conspiratorial ruse) changes the entire nature of the bill, it is patently a violation of the Constitution and should get the perpetrators removed from office. I.e., if a bill titled "Bill to require all citizens to pay their taxes twice," and with content do accomplish same as its sole content, were completely erased and rewritten from scratch to make possession of gummi bears punishable by a year in prison as its sole content, such a change is patently unconstitutional, whether or not the bill's title is changed.

    8. Re:Super pre-mature by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      It's amazing how a regulation change that is designed to side step a court ruling denying the right to regulate a certain thing that was made without congressional oversight is somehow now being considered a law buy people who had a lot more bitching to do.

      It sort of makes you wonder if you should actually care about what they say when they confuse a regulation with a law, blame congress when the only input congress had was defending the acts of the agency, then go off on a tirade about whatever else they see is wrong.

      I'm glad to see Verizon get the cold shoulder, but we know this isn't going to last long. Face it, net neutrality is a pipe dream for those who are technically competent enough to understand but are far outnumbered by the voters who don't understand it, nor do they want to.

      Your right, it isn't going to last long. That's because this ruling only said that Verizon filed the challenge too soon. It's purely procedural at this point. When the FCC finishes doing it's crap, the thing will be filed again. If Verizon wins, it isn't because they pulled a fast one, it's because the law supports them and not the FCC which congress doesn't even appear to be supporting in this matter right now.

      Just because you want something does not give excuse to ignore the law and do whatever. If we allow that to happen, you will find things like Habeas Corpus, fair trials, indefinite detention, free speech zones, seizures of property without warrant or compensation, and others things off limits whenever others want it to happen. And even if you don't care about that stuff, something one of these days will end up being something you care about. When a government agency acts on it's own to restructure itself in order to get around a court order saying it didn't have the authority to do something and it does impact you, you will be damn glad that others have stood up to it and there is a way out for yourself.

    9. Re:Super pre-mature by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a hold over from the original intent of the senate. The senate was originally supposed to represent the state, not half the people of the state. So even with the legislature being bicameral, the balance between them was between the people who had representatives and states who had senators.

      The concept was about the representatives of the people being the only ones to initiate taxing the people. That's sort of lost now with the senate being voted directly by the people and not appointed by the state legislatures.

  2. Rejected on standing, not on the merits (and why) by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.