FCC Struggles To Convince Judge That Broadband Isn't 'Telecommunications' (arstechnica.com)

A Federal Communications Commission lawyer faced a skeptical panel of judges on Friday as the FCC defended its repeal of net neutrality rules and deregulation of the broadband industry. From a report: FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson struggled to explain why broadband shouldn't be considered a telecommunications service, and struggled to explain the FCC's failure to protect public safety agencies from Internet providers blocking or slowing down content. Oral arguments were held on Friday in the case, which is being decided by a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Throttling of firefighters' data plans played a major role in today's oral arguments.

Of the three judges, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett expressed the most skepticism of Johnson's arguments, repeatedly challenging the FCC's definition of broadband and its disregard for arguments made by public safety agencies. She also questioned the FCC's claim that the net neutrality rules harmed broadband investment. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins also expressed some skepticism of FCC arguments, while Senior Circuit Judge Stephen Williams seemed more amenable to FCC arguments.

Comments

Re:Pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

Competition? In 10 years we've gone from 5 major cellular providers in the US to 4 (soon to be 3 since the Sprint and Verizon merger has been approved). If the government hadn't prevented one other merger, it would likely be 2.

Re:It is time to by pass the ISP's

[idji]

Go and look up the latency from Elon Musk's space internet - you will be pleasantly surprised - is 25ms ok for you? - he is not using geostationary satellites 36,000 km away.

Re: Pass a law

[jbengt]

Telecom's classic definition is phone service.

Really? Neither the dictionary nor the Telecommunications Act have such a narrow defintion:

SEC. 1. [47 U.S.C. 151] PURPOSES OF ACT, CREATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in Communication by wire and radio [emphasis added] so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission,'' which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act.

Re: Pass a law

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Why didn't she do it when Democrats were in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency?

Because the Republicans filibustered everything almost never let anything come to the floor for a vote.

They hated Obama with a passion that went beyond rational thought and fucktards like Mitch McConnell were willing to wreck the legislative process in order to frustrate anything he did.

Mitch McConnell is a genuine impediment to democracy- his bushwacking of the Merrick Garland appointment (for example) is a clear demonstration that he's using his power as a sword instead of a shield.

From Mitch's own mouth: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'"

Is that how government is supposed to work?

Re: Pass a law

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

At some point one of your political parties decided that winning was more important than anything else, and stopped governing in a responsible manner.

Exactly. In the 1960s the Republicans adopted what was called the "Southern Strategy", which "refers to a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans."

Basically the GOP, primarily composed of racist goobers who wanted to live in 1863 rather than 1963, threw in their lot with older white men and religious people, both of whom were on average much more racist than the rest of the country. They hitched their wagon to a dimming star as America inevitably became (becomes) more racially diverse. "Segregation now, segregation forever!" was one of their rallying cries. (Look up "Governor George Wallace" for an example.)

Except their target audience was literally dying off and not being replaced, and the GOP became more and more desperate to hold on to whatever was left of a shrinking base.

Eventually they realized that counting on just white men to vote in sufficient numbers was a losing game- they were going to be a minority as the country matured...and so they threw out their morals, ethics, sense of fair play, and honesty because that was literally the only way they could remain in the game. "Cheat cheat cheat" was the name of the game. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are the province of the GOP/Republicans, and while it occurs on the left, it's a fraction of what occurs on the right. This is a fucking fact although I'm sure many here will dispute it.

So to boil it down, the entire country swerved out from under them, moving toward the left, while at the same time the GOP was veering madly to the right. It's why they're so out of touch with the average American. The GOP became irrelevant in the 1970s and early 80s and have remained so ever since. They've become "The Party of No" because that's about all that they know how to do anymore.