Free Press Sues FCC Over Discrepancy In Net Neutrality Rules

hypnosec writes "The Free Press has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission, challenging the net neutrality rules laid out by the regulator. The lawsuit (PDF), which was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, claims the rules are different for fixed line and mobile wireless broadband. According to the rules, mobile wireless carriers are not allowed to block voice and other applications that compete with their own services, but other than that, they are free do to what they want."

Comments

Not a problem

[qbast]

So the only thing they are not allowed is to block competing services? What about detecting them (by packet inspection) and charging premium rates?

Re:Not a problem

[click2005]

Or just lower the QoS... routing data over satellite links instead of terrestrial ones, inserting lag or 'losing' packets.

There are many ways to make a service unusable without blocking it.

Re:Not a problem

[erroneus]

No, instead, they raise rates for everything else and discount their own. That's the "fair" way to do it.

It reminds me of something a particular apartment management company has been doing ( these bastards ). The law says they cannot charge ridiculous late fees to people and has limited what they can charge for various things. But, the law did not prevent them from offering huge discounts for paying rent "on time" and so that's what they did. But now it's worse than it was before! How? Well, first is the very large effective late fee (which is the loss of $100+ discount + the normal late fee) but then here's the fun part -- these 'discounts' accumulate and they can be made to blow up on you like a giant usurious bomb! So, let's say you need to move because your job is relocating you. Well, you can usually give the customary 30 days notice, but they don't subscribe to that policy... they are more like 60 to 90 day notice is required! And then they want to charge you lease breaking fees which is equal to the remainder of the lease + all discounts previously applied or something like that.

Apartment dwellers almost never have enough money to get legal representation and people without money don't have the ear of the government either. So these abuses will continue until something reaches a breaking point.

Seems I went off topic? Well kinda -- the practice of "raising prices + applying discounts" would likely be the approach the wireless carriers would take... you know, just like "friends and family" plans they use to get entire groups of people to move to their service who then become reluctant to change to other services because all of their friends and family are on the one service.

Gotta love the clever ways they use and abuse their customers...

Re:Not a problem

[compro01]

Wireless is a competitive market so carriers are permitted to do what they want with the presumption that if the customer doesn't like it they'll go to another vendor.

Yep, locked phones, multi-year contracts with punitive termination fees, incompatible networks, rampant collusion in pricing and services. Real vicious competition there.

Good

[webheaded]

The FCC needs to grow some balls. I can't believe they put these rules through and harped about needing an open internet and then allowed the wireless providers to do whatever the hell they want. What PRECISELY will hurt your "new" wireless networks so much by not being able to block whatever you want? Precisely what? Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. I'm pretty sure the companies making 100's of millions of dollars like Verizon and AT&T are quite fine having to deal with the new rules. That any wireless company would claim their networks are new and just barely growing is absurd. That they would use that as an excuse to not have net neutrality is insane. I cannot understand why the FCC people would even give a shit unless they are in someone's pocket. Honestly, what a load of horseshit.

Immature, not competitive

[DragonWriter]

Wireless is a competitive market so carriers are permitted to do what they want with the presumption that if the customer doesn't like it they'll go to another vendor.

This is false in three ways:

First, the Open Internet Report and Order distinguishes between fixed and mobile broadband, not wireless and wireline; fixed includes many wireless services.

Second, mobile broadband providers are not "permitted to do what they want", there are several restrictions placed on them (there is a transparency rule, and and non-blocking rules applying to any lawful websites and to any applications which compete with the provider's voice and video telephony services.)

Third, and perhaps most critically to the point you are making, the FCC did not put looser restrictions on mobile broadband providers based on the market being competitive, but did so based on the market being less mature (see, e.g., Report & Order at para. 8: "Mobile broadband is at an earlier stage in its development than fixed broadband and is evolving rapidly. For that and other reasons discussed below, we conclude that it is appropriate at this time to take measured steps in this area.")