Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive

Posted by Soulskill on from the early-bird-gets-to-throttle-the-worm's-bandwidth dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A small ISP based in Texas and an industry trade group have become the first to file lawsuits challenging the FCC's recent net neutrality rules. The trade group, USTelecom, argues that the regulations are not "legally sustainable." Alamo Broadband claims it is facing "onerous requirements" by operating under Title II of the Communications Act. Such legal challenges were expected, and are doubtless the first of many — but few expected them to arrive so soon. While some of the new rules were considered "final" once the FCC released them on March 12, others don't go into effect until they're officially published in the Federal Register, which hasn't happened yet.

23 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. May you choke on your own words by HBI · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Actually, I don't have to wish. I just have to watch. Government will fuck this up - it always does. In its own special way. My bet is on regulatory capture.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:May you choke on your own words by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You mean like how it fucked up creating the internet in the first place? That kind of fucked up?

    2. Re:May you choke on your own words by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I keep seeing people say that and i have to wonder, if they did such a great job, why do they need to fix it. Its like health care and evil HMOs. The government pushed them to drop the cost of Medicare then had to fix that too.

      You may not like what was said, but that just means reality sucks.

    3. Re:May you choke on your own words by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah the government built an interstate so obviously they deserve full credit for my supermarket which depends on having products delivered from all over. Back to Obama's "You didn't build that" huh?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:May you choke on your own words by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not the AC. But of course the government created the internet. To argue otherwise because it has grown since the 80's and 90's is to argue that GM didn't create the first commercial electric car because a Tesla has greater power, range, and 3G.

      You don't have a point, you have a Randian axe to grind. And that makes you a moron.

    5. Re:May you choke on your own words by dywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why is it so hard to accept or comprehend that things build on each other?

      the full statement should be "you didn't build that all by yourself, you had help", and it's absolutely true in modern society.
      all of our various constructs help and reinforce other constructs.

      Gizmo Wonderbrain creates the practical flying car.
      -Gizmos car factory is dependent on shipments from suppliers around the country.
      --those shipments can be shipped quickly and easily because we have a national highway system
      ---that highway system is safe and reliable because we have rules and safety requirements
      -gizmos factory is also dependent on skilled workers
      --workers who are attracted to his company by good wages
      ---wages paid in currency usable around the world because it's backed by the full faith and credit of the government, rather than just in Gizmos Company Town
      -Gizmo himself is a genius
      --a genius whose intellect was brought out by his teachers in his schools as he grew up, reinforcing and challenging him
      ---teachers who taught in public schools because as a society we value education for the benefits it provides society
      --a genius who went to college to learn engineering
      ---with the help of Pell Grants and a GI Bill
      ----paid for by a portion of everyone's taxes

      Really we can go on and on. But the point is this: No one is born without help, raised without help, educated without help, creates a company without help, and all the surrounding and enabling infrastructure. Everything is dependent on everything else. Everything is built on a foundation that consists of everything that came before it. From the computer at your desk, to the clothes on your back, from the education you receives, to the gum in your pocket.

      Look around you: the reason we don't exist in a Dickens novel where basic existence is an uncertainty, life is short and miserable for the overwhelming majority, is because we as a society pulled together and have created a slew of enabling infrastructure. The mechanisms vary, some are through government, others through private enterprise, but all in all, the end result is the same: No, you bloody well did NOT build "that" all by yourself and without any help from the surrounding society.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    6. Re:May you choke on your own words by dywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the same way it mucked up:

      -railroads linking the country

      -the interstate that provided the backbone for industry, so that suppliers no longer had to be next door to factories (which creates a dynamic where every town is its own industrial enclave), but could supply the entire nation

      -the telephone network allowing instantaneous real time voice communication across the country, where before moving from coast to coast typically meant leaving all your family and friends behind essentially forever, other than a couple letters a year

      -creating a currency that fuels and backs our economy

      -creating the rules and regulations that permit businesses to operate in a predictable and profitable manner, along with legal protections for everyone and everything involved (company, employer, employee, consumer, copyright, trademarks, business practices)

      -safe food that doesn't require finding out a supplier is bad by having people die first

      -safe cars that don't require finding out a supplier is bad by having people die first

      -safe homes and buildings (the building code) that doesn't require finding out a construction company is bad by having people die first

      -safe (lots of things) that don't require having people die first

      -a military that ensures the nation is secure from outside threats, rather than having every city state or town see to its own defense, or worse have it provided by rival companies ala The Syndicate (also acts as a unifying force, otherwise cities/states essentially act as their own nation states)

      -public health, particularly including vaccinations

      The list goes on.

      But the point is this: to say government always mucks it up is ignorant. No, government isn't perfect. But in our nation, and other free nations like us, if its not perfect we are able to fix it, and more importantly, fix it without resorting to violence and revolution, which is good for stability and long term growth as a society. And it's because we follow the political theory of a government "by the People, for the People, and of the People". Our government is US, we are the government, represented in the abstract by the representatives we send to D.C. And because of that, our government is more successful than not, and more adequately addresses problems that we as society see than other governmental systems that have come before. Our government is not some abstract Other, separate from us, and unaccountable to us, regardless of the hyperbole you may be told by people and groups who WANT YOU to think that you are powerless. They want you to think that government is a failure, that it is out of control....so that they can control it more than you.

      Ask yourself, why do people fight so hard to get into office in an entity that they not only claim is not only a failure, but also evil, and the source of all problems?
      And further, why do they try so hard to MAKE it fail, to make their claims come true?
      The answer is because it's a sham. They want you to think those things, so that you stop caring, or stop trying, and cede control to them.
      --

      If you ever spend time in the military, you find lots of seemingly braindead warnings and procedures. Things like "caution jet blast", caution tape around bulkheads, particulary the top and bottom, signs near ladders saying "watch step", or "hold handrails". You may think these things are dumb, but going through training you will learn, each of these warning exist because someone, somewhere didn't pay attention, got hurt, screwed up, or hurt others. Someone fell down that ladderwell; someone got sucked into a jet engine; someone cracked his head open going through a hatch, someone knocked someone overboard.

      Government action is very similar: Government and a lot of the functions it has taken on, or regulations it has made, like say in areas of food and car safety, or manufacturing pollution, exist specifically because someone, somewhere, took advantage of society before those rules exist. Companies know how m

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    7. Re:May you choke on your own words by dywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The car couldn't operate without the wheel that came before it.
      So yes, the wheel absolutely gets some credit.
      No, he doesn't get all of it.

      But he does get credit for creating the foundation that enabled further development and invention. That's all the President's statement meant, though folks try to take it out of context, oversimplify it, and ignore the rather obvious meaning behind it.

      It's quite simple: no one exists in a vacuum. Everyone in our society has had help from the rest of society, and we shouldn't ignore that interdependence.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  2. Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2, Insightful

    to not recognize that more government control of the Internet is a good thing.

    To all conservatives, more government regulation is uniformly bad.

    To all liberals, more government regulation is uniformly good.

    And so there we have the two sides, one pressing us to a feudal-style Private Police State run by Corporate Fascists, the other into a Authoritarian Police State Run by Big Government and Corporate Citizens. Either way we are already good and fucked regardless of who you vote for.

  3. Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To all conservatives, more government regulation is uniformly bad.

    To all liberals, more government regulation is uniformly good.

    What a simplistic caricature of the positions.

  4. Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > To all liberals, more government regulation is uniformly good.

    Bullcrap. Sane liberalism says that the government puts in only the regulation that is *needed* and put on the people that can do the most harm. I know of NO liberal that wants regulation for the sake of regulation.

    Your portrayal of conservatives is wrong as well. Most conservatives seem to be fine with regulation as long it is on people they don't like and want to punish. They seem to want the people who can do the most harm have the least regulation (for money purposes) and tend to NOT care about regulation on individuals and small business, the very people who can do the LEAST harm.

    The fact you are parroting these political stereotypes means you listen to a very limited group of people.

  5. Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the irony of you calling out his generalizations by making other generalizations

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  6. Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the governments role should be to

    ensure that the people who belong to this country are safe

    ensure everyone has equal opportunities (not equal outcomes)

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  7. Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To all conservatives...

    Ahem, that should read "To all Republicans..." I'm pretty damn conservative, and I think Republicans are some of a stupidest fucks to walk the planet. We're not one and the same, I can still freely admit when and where the Government does a good job without crapping myself.

  8. Re:Teddy Roosevelt rides again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why is it people who make comments like this never realize those in government are even more greedy? Income tax rate in CA on top incomes is over 50%, but the guy paying it is the greedy one. lol

  9. Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    2. Regulate the behavior of monopolies. Net Neutrality attempts to do #2.

    In which market is Alamo Broadband a monopoly?

    I know of no government granted monopoly status to ISPs. Comcast/TW/etc are defacto (not dejure) monopolies in cable television delivered internet service. Verizon/whatever are dejure monopolies on telephone-company provided ISPs. There exist many ISPs in the same markets as all of the previously mentioned companies. There are even ISPs that can provide ISP service via DSL over those dejure telco monopoly systems.

    Do the FCC net neutrality rules actually limit themselves to places where there are actually defacto or dejure monopolies, or do they apply to every ISP? If they apply to every ISP, then they are not regulating the actions of monopolies, they are regulating many non-monopolies as well.

    I'm fascinated by the FCC response to a filing that had to take place within ten days of their action and only happened close to the end of those ten days: "premature". Sorry FCC, you don't get to tell people they filed too early just because they filed within the very short deadline.

  10. Re:Well, Time to Roll the Dice Again. by KermodeBear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does this bother you as much as it does me?

    given how partisan this issue is [...]

    It is unfortunate that so many of our laws are so poorly written that one's political stance can have such an effect on the interpretation of the law.

    "Well, this is what they wrote, but what did they really mean, and how can I twist it to meet my own personal political views?"

    --
    Love sees no species.
  11. Why net neutrality will become a thing of the past by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Simple, it has become a political thing. Despite my warnings ( as loud as I could make them but OK not that loud ), to keep arguing it as a nonpartisan issue. THe opponents of net neutrality have an advantage that we who support it do not. Once net neutrality is gone, it will be hard to bring back. The ISP cartel knew this and were fighting very hard for politicization to happen.

    Instead of, for example, arguing that this action swaps in one set of regulations for another, ( In fact the old set gave all the power to the ISP cartels, and they took us from #1 internet service to middle of the rtoad. ) some proponents let the ISP cartels make it a political issue. The fact is that some people would rather have Title II as a political argument instead of actually having the ISPs be controlled by Title II.

    So here is what will happen, the ISP cartel will tie up the implementation for the next two years in court. Then who becomes President? Hillary? Seems to be imploding right in front of us. John Kerry? The guy who helped bring back the cold war. and Al Queda in the form of ISIS and who couldn't win before? Joe Biden. The guy whose interactions with women is so creepy he makes BIll Clinton seem normal.

    here is an interesting fact for you , since World War II there has only been one person elected as President that came from the same party as the sitting President-- Bush (41) (following Reagan).

    So we have a Republican, who when the next seat on the FCC comes up names a Republican FCC member who replaces a Democrat. The new Chairman becomes Ajit Pai. Bye bye net neutrality.

  12. Randian Dumbfuckery by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Government will fuck this up - it always does. In its own special way. My bet is on regulatory capture.

    That's as asinine as a communist claiming that if you start your own business, it will be a given that you'll dump toxic waste into the river while sexually harassing your secretary. Because other business owners have done that and the communist has an axe to grind.

    The government passed regulations on seat belts, lead paint, asbestos, DDT, and of course the FCC which has thus far prevented NBC from trying to edge out ABC with more powerful transmitters. It didn't cause civilization to collapse, capitalism to be banned, or Zombie Stalin to come for your stock options.

    Your solution is to let AT&T and Comcast double and triple charge anyone and everyone who connects through their network? GTFO with these Randian clown shoes.

  13. Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Probably an SF Bay Area transplant -- to them anyone not fervently clamoring for a Authoritarian Government to telling everyone what to eat, drink and how to generally live their lives is conservative. I hate the Bay Area and regret moving here -- leaving by this Summer I hope.

  14. I see it's not just Obamabots who revise history by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In it Obama is confronted with his tax policy reducing revenue

    You mean choosing to continue most of the Bush Tax Cuts while arguing for years that the corporate tax rate - already at very low levels after deductions - should be cut some more? Randians should move to an island with the Obots and fight it out over who's revisionist history is more delusional.

  15. Re:Teddy Roosevelt rides again! by fnj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So are you a degenerate liar or just dumber then a box of rocks?

    Calm down and cool it with the name calling. He is neither. He is not even mistaken. You add the top CA rate of 13.3% to the top Federal rate of 39.6% - a CA resident has to pay them both, you know - and, duh, the total is over 50%.

  16. Re:What is Net Neutrality anyhow???? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem there is Comcast double dipping. Their users have already paid for best effort bandwidth. If Comcast has their hand out to Netflix (who is not currently their customer), then necessarily Comcast hasn't given their own customers best effort (if they can't do better, what is Netflix paying for?)

    The worst abuses happen when the ISP itself provides content (for example video on demand) and takes steps to make other offers less attractive by deliberately providing them a poorer quality of service then their own VOD servers get.

    Lets say you own a turnpike. Someone opens a gas station just off the turnpike. Fine and dandy. But you see that they make good money so you build your own gas station on the next exit. But the profits could be better so suddenly the off ramp next to the other guy's station is perpetually 'closed for repairs' yet the repairs never seem to happen. But pumping gas is a lot like work, so you offer the other guy a 'deal' For 10% of his profits, you will 'expidite' the 'repairs' and make sure they aren't 'necessary' again.

    It's just one step up from organized crime offering 'insurance' to local businesses, because "you know, stuff happens, buildings burn down..."

    Network neutrality is the people saying "that's pretty bad behavior for someone who wouldn't even be in business if not for that sweet public grant of right of way. Show some gratitude and cut it out!".