Slashdot Mirror
FTC Says It May Be Unable To Regulate Comcast, Google, and Verizon (arstechnica.com)
The Federal Trade Commission is worried that it may no longer be able to regulate companies such as Comcast, Google, and Verizon unless a recent court ruling is overturned, ArsTechnica reports. From the article: The FTC on Thursday petitioned the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing in a case involving AT&T's throttling of unlimited data plans. A 9th Circuit panel previously ruled that the FTC cannot punish AT&T, and the decision raises questions about the FTC's ability to regulate any company that operates a common carrier business such as telephone or Internet service. While the FTC's charter from Congress prohibits it from regulating common carriers, the agency has previously exercised authority to regulate these companies when they offer non-common carrier services. But the recent court ruling said that AT&T is immune from FTC oversight entirely, even when it's not acting as a common carrier. It isn't clear whether the ruling sets an ironclad precedent preventing the FTC from regulating any company with a common carrier business.
This was of course not the intent of the law when it was written.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Screw your Courage to the sticking place. Stay with us dear customers!
Our bottomless pit of greed means you no harm. There is no need for nasty government oversight. We will serve you, our loyal subjects. We will always treat you right, compete fairly, and allow new companies to compete with us.
"A 9th Circuit panel previously rule"
Time to investigate the panel's financial records and those of their close friends and family for "improprieties" I'd say....
But the recent court ruling said that AT&T is immune from FTC oversight entirely, even when it's not acting as a common carrier.
Well that's a dumb precedent to set. AT&T might as well start defrauding consumers in any way they can think of. The worst that happens is a few class action lawsuits...maybe.
These companies are wireless phone providers, internet service providers, content creators, and cable television companies. When one company owns the full stack of an entertainment channel and can no longer be regulated by a single government agency, then they need to be broken up into their constituent parts. Just like the Ma Bell days of old.
It's nothing more than a different style of monopoly similar to a mafia-run operation. You will buy only their product, from them, at prices they command. They've already killed all real competition, so you don't have a choice.
For "common carrier" to be a meaningful distinction, some agency needs to be responsible for making sure entities that claim to be common carriers actually behave that way. If it's not the FCC's responsibility, whose is it?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Since when did companies become immune to fraud, collusion and misrepresentation?
Either:
a. These companies become "immune" from the FTC, but lose their franchise/market exclusivity status permanently and pay the government back all of the money they were given to build infrastructure, or
b. They can be sanctioned by the FTC for breach of consumer laws, fraud, misrepresentation and other consumer problems
Between this and the now-mandatory binding arbitration clauses in consumer contracts from these companies, the American consumer is in a really bad spot.
congress was very clear that the FCC regulates common carriers, not the FTC.
And "common carrier" is a hat that a company wears. If they're not wearing that hat, they're not under the FTC. To say otherwise would put the SEC in charge of a day trader's murder trial.
not like there are solid alternatives.
And if there are, all they have to do is collude with the other carriers to fix pricing. After all, the FTC isn't coming after them.
what about unfair metering CAN some regulate over that?
To say otherwise would put the SEC in charge of a day trader's murder trial.
Or put the Post Office in charge of concealed carry policies.
Wait. They do that now.
Have gnu, will travel.
> The mobile side of AT&T's business is clearly not
> "common carrier" and is regulated by the FTC.
Of course FCC regulates common carriers. In the last few years, under Wheeler, the FCC has said:
mobile voice, but not data, is common carrier and subject to FCC regulation.
mobile voice AND data are common carrier and subject to FCC regulation.
Neither mobile voice nor data are common carrier and subject to FCC regulation.
It may be clear to YOU which is common carrier and which isn't, but Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC, can't seem to decide.
Why is the FTC trying to regulate a communications company, Isn't that the FCC's job? I mean unless this is an anti-trust issue it really seems like it would fall outside of the FTC's authority.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
All they did was put out a formal policy to follow federal law. They are not directly arresting or prosecuting.
The FCC regulates communication in America, not just common carriers. The FTC would deal with issues of anti-trust and consumer protection. They are always under the FTC if they do business, but it seems the FTC was trying to do the FCC's job in this situation.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
The FCC only regulates the communication - it doesn't regulate all aspects of their business. The FTC is saying that they may not be allowed to enforce anything on a company that is partially under the FCC at all:
The panel’s ruling creates an enforcement gap that would leave no federal agency able to protect millions of consumers across the country from unfair or deceptive practices or obtain redress on their behalf. Many companies provide both common-carrier and non-common-carrier services—not just telephone companies like AT&T, but also cable companies like Comcast, technology companies like Google, and energy companies like ExxonMobil (which operate common carrier oil pipelines). Companies that are not common carriers today may gain that status by offering new services or through corporate acquisitions. For example, AOL and Yahoo, which are not common carriers, are (or soon will be) owned by Verizon. The panel’s ruling calls into question the FTC’s ability to protect consumers from unlawful practices by such companies in any of their lines of business.
...The US Chamber of Commerce. They have an army of lawyers and keep crafting very complex cases in the Supreme Court to get the laws to suit the interests of large corporations. Think I'm kidding? Do your research? While you're at it, research them holding money in offshore accounts and using buybacks to inflate their stock price instead of reinvesting back in the growth of the corporations. It's become quite corrupt these days. It's going to take a lot to rein in the corruption and I'm not sure how it can be done when they're playing both sides of the aisle.
We'll make great pets
The last thing TLAs need is the ability to reproduce.
But you know, just when I thought it was safe to go back in the internet, Comcast flashed my router. Suddenly, even with wifi explicitly turned "off", there was the XFINITY free hotspot, just advertising that any wardrivers with a valid or hacked Comcast account should park near my place.
Anybody ever see what the built-in (internal) antenna on an Arris cable modem/router looks like? It's just a little green piece of circuit board, and the connector just comes right off without any excess tugging or pulling. I do think Comcast misses me, though - they seem to send hits downstream to my cable modem/router several times a day. It's vaguely frustrating to hit these forty to fifty second network outages from them because they just can't believe nobody is using my free wifi SSID.
But I regulated Comcast.
If thats the game they want to play alright then. In order to avoid regulatory loopholes, businesses operating under common can no longer offer non common carrier services.
I'd be more than happy to have all isp's be just isp's. If all they can compete on is data service, we might start to see some real advancement in isp offerings.
Especially considering how hard they're working to get laws passed to prevent public options from being created.
Laws are not supposed to be enforced according to someone's interpretation of their intent. If the law is not performing as intended, then it can be amended by the lawmakers.
Oh yeah -- the courts are not supposed to interpret intent either; they're supposed to make judgements according to the way laws are written. This, of course, is an area where practice often departs from theory.
Several centuries would like to disagree with your talking point.
Intent is *one* factor in interpreting what a law means. How persuasive a factor it is depends on the circumstances and the jurisdiction in which the law is being interpreted and all of the other factors that suggest a different result. Sometimes it comes in through lenses like "consistent with public policy" or "intent to solely regulate the entire area of law" or "under a statutory scheme designed to" or "the legislative history of the Amendment..." or "the intent of the framers" and in a dozen other ways. Sometimes it is rejected because one or two legislators cite some reason and that's not enough to tell that's what the whole legislature meant.
Real lawyers write in C++
formal policy to follow federal law.
During the Bush administration, the posted regulation at the local Post Office permitted carry by those possessing a valid state CCW. Under the Obama administration, the signs were revised to restrict this to carry by 'officials'. Same law, different interpretations.
Have gnu, will travel.
Don't worry, FTC. CIA has you covered.