First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive

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.

Comments

Alamo Broadband's complaint

[riverat1]

The Alamo Broadband complaint reads as follows:

Alamo seeks relief on the grounds that the Order: (1) is in excess of the Commission's authority; (2) is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) is contrary to constitutional right; and (4) is otherwise contrary to law.

That's about as generic as it can get. I don't see it going anywhere.

Re:Alamo Broadband's complaint

[Required Snark]

You don't understand our new post-captialist economy. In post-capitalism, entrenched special interest have a right to make money and the basic purpose of government is to enact laws that insure profit. That is the law of the land manifest in the DCMA. So, for example, Kurig is using DRM to eliminate competition on refills for their machines.

Post-capitalism also conveniently eliminates pesky constitutional guarantees enforcing the rule of law. Contractual language can now eliminate search warrants and right of privacy when Stingray cellphone technology is used for mass surveillance. Both government and private enterprise benefit in post-capitalism.

Broadband providers have just as much right as any other business to run an entrenched monopolistic enterprise and make vast amounts of money. I fully expect that the current court system will correct the loopholes that threaten their guaranteed profitability, and give them the same protection under the law that other corrupt special interests enjoy in our post-capitalist system.

Why is this so hard to understand? It's obviously the American Way.

Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough...

[Ichijo]

A government's role should be: (pick one)

1. Break up monopolies, reduce barriers to market entry, and encourage competition, or
2. Regulate the behavior of monopolies.

Net Neutrality attempts to do #2.

Who is this company?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

This sounds like a pre-made lawsuit, something the Kocks would fund. The conspiracy theorist in me says that this suit was just ready to go, probably when the FCC first started talking about net neutrality. This tiny ISP is being used because it's a "small business"...if Comcast / Cox / AT&T filed this it would be even harder to push. And it's no coincidence it's in Texas either. Someone needs to start digging around and find out who is REALLY funding this...as I doubt this ISP is using their own profits to pursue this.

Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough...

[msmonroe]

I'm with you brother. I was a Republican until the core Republican party went batsh*t crazy. Seems like a good idea in theory smaller government, sane spending until you start digging and find out it's all agenda driven BS.
Healthcare should be one of those things that we can agree that should be universal because it is actually the cheapest option available. Look at Switzerland probably one of the most conservative business oriented countries on the planet, they enacted universal healthcare because it was a much cheaper option than the one they had at the time, basically the Healthcare system we had before Obama care.

Re:May you choke on your own words

[dywolf]

Well first off, they aren't fixing it.
They are simply preserving the status quo as a bit of a pre-emptive strike before companies like Comcast can break it.