FCC Says Net Neutrality Decision Delay Is About Courts, Not Politics

blottsie writes with this news from The Daily Dot: "The Federal Communications Commission's seemingly suspicious timing in delaying its net neutrality decision has absolutely nothing to do with recent politics, according to an FCC official. Instead, it's a matter of some people in the agency insisting they be more prepared before going to court to defend their eventual plan. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., ruled in favor of Verizon, which challenged the FCC's 2010 Open Internet rules, striking down the agency's net neutrality protections. The court found that the FCC did not use the proper legal structure to establish its regulatory authority over broadband service—something that many legal experts say would not be the case if the FCC invokes Title II. The FCC's move to delay the net neutrality decision, which followed President Obama's support of Title II reclassification, was just a coincidence, according to the FCC official:" Before the president weighed in, several of our staff felt like the record was a little thin in areas, and the last thing you want when you go to court for the third time is for a court to say the record was too thin, or you didn't give adequate notice. We are going to be so careful this time that we have crossed every T and dotted every I. Some of the staff felt we're not quite there yet."

Comments

Nov 25 or 26?, or Dec 19, 22, or 23?

[Bob9113]

The best days to announce things like, "We've decided to completely ignore the will of the people and do what the guys with wheelbarrows full of money tell us to" are the days right before Thanksgiving and right before Christmas. My bet is on Nov. 25, leaving a day to get home to family, but Nov 26, or Dec 19, 22, or 23 would not surprise me.

We can also say with some certainty when they won't announce; Dec 2, 9, or 16 -- Tuesdays during full work weeks -- are extremely unlikely.

Re:Nov 25 or 26?, or Dec 19, 22, or 23?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're feds. Why don't they just pass it in the secret courts like they do everything else?

Re:Nov 25 or 26?, or Dec 19, 22, or 23?

[Etherwalk]

These guys don't really think like that, usually.

They'll be aware of it, sure; they will avoid making decisions that tank later opportunities in the private sector. But they are also usually not actively trying to do the wrong thing--they're trying to figure out what a fairly decent policy is that they can get traction on.

The FCC doesn't have big teeth, and it has a lot of people who have industry experience and therefore an industry point-of-view. They are realists, and will probably try to put together a policy that makes things slightly better than they would be otherwise.

If they try to be too active, Congress will whip them around. Communications vendors are major Congressional donors.

As to the will of the people--we're talking net neutrality. People support it because they like the word "Neutral." This is one of those cases where democracy is a really bad basis for decision-making; kinda like asking voters to design a network topology.

Re:Nov 25 or 26?, or Dec 19, 22, or 23?

[strack]

Theres not much democracy in this particular decision making process. Theres the public private revolving door and plenty of lobbyist cash. And while democracy can be a bad basis for decision making, rampant regulatory capture by a industry with a natural monopoly in order to squeeze as much money out of customers as possible, and enact regulations that allow you to funnel customers to the sites of your vertically integrated media production companies, is a worse basis for decision making. People dont support it because they like the word "neutral", they support it cause it dosent take much imagination to figure out how fucked the internet is if net neutrality is not in place.

Re:Nov 25 or 26?, or Dec 19, 22, or 23?

[Bob9113]

As to the will of the people--we're talking net neutrality. People support it because they like the word "Neutral."

There may be some like that, but people like me, who have been working on the Internet since before hypertext, support it because the idea of letting ISPs make deals for fast lanes is about as stupid as allowing the electric company make deals with companies to cut off electricity to their competitors.

Re:It's not about courts or politics

[NotInHere]

Yeah, and politics is never about money.

Re:Pbbbt

[houstonbofh]

Come on... At least this is one thing both sides totally agree on and give bi-partisan support. "Screw the people" is the motto.

Today I realized...

[BringsApples]

Only today, I realized that slashdot is actually over. I've been wondering why I get 15 mod points every time I log in, and only now does it hit me. I'll bet that I'm one of probably 5 people that are moderating, and I'll bet that there's less than 50 people that are actually participating in slashdot at all (commentators and moderators). Looking at the last few stories, it looks like there are less than 30 comments to most stories these days, and I haven't been seeing many posts even getting points, most (that aren't AC) are staying at 1 or 2, depending on karma I'm assuming. The stories are crap, and no one is actually participating.

I'm out. It was fun.

Oh, and to "I kan reed" it was me that modded you flaimbait today. :)

Re:Like we ever believe anything the Gubment says.

[NotSanguine]

Total nonsense. You've been sucked into the false equivalence trap.

Really, AC? What's the real truth? You obviously have the corner on the "way it is," so do tell.

The way I see it is (sorry not a car analogy) that with the Center Right party (the Democrats), it's like walking through an underground access tunnel with a sewer pipe at the ceiling. The pipe is cracked and raw sewage is dripping on your head.

With the Far Right party (the Republicans), it's the same tunnel, but the sewer pipe is ripped wide open and you're choking on the raw sewage instead of getting drenched.

I suppose you could say that one is worse than the other, but I'd rather not be in that tunnel at all.

Re:Full Title II

[Todd Knarr]

Except for the Congressmen and Senators and ISP reps who're saying the FCC doesn't have the authority to change the classification to Title II. What they're probably doing, what I'd be doing, is preparing an iron-clad argument based on the statute and on case law since then that the FCC does indeed have not just the authority to decide the classification (easy, the statute explicitly says they do) but also the authority to change it at a later date (this takes more research to nail down).

Re:Full Title II

[Truekaiser]

And then a month later, the law is changed after it's attached to something that 'must' pass. Then the lawsuits pour in.