Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
FCC should stick to regulating the very finite radio spectrum as common property. Broadband is essentially unlimited, need to hook up another city? Bury some more cable. It should be telling that when the FCC was initially created, it wasn't created to regulate telegraphs.
The FCC should definitely get out of the business of regulating the content of the airwaves and Internet. Dancing around the 1st Amendment ought to be way outside of their purview.
If a regulatory organization needs to be created to manage the market of Internet service providers, that's certainly something that can be considered separate from what powers the FCC tried to grab. Just because it has the word "communication" in its name, does not mean it is authorized to regulate all forms of communication. Why not have them regulate letters and print, that's communication too? You have to be very careful not to fall into the trap of deriving too much from a name.
Ajit Pai needs to be replaced. Does he know what voice over IP is? That's not a category of telecommunications? Does Pai know what Whatsapp and Skype do?
At one time, we used analog modems at 300 baud over a copper land line. That was telecommunications. Now we use fiber optic cable and much faster digital modems. That's telecommunications using a 7 layer stack.
Hello, Mr. Pai. Maybe people on the other side of the world use smoke signals. Not here. Get with the times.
"Just pass a law" is a lot tougher than "random employee of major telcom makes a decision while taking a poop". We need strict government regulation of Internet connections ASAP. The "free market" doesn't work in this case.
I don't respond to AC's.
the Internet ran over Dial-up phones (telecom) and now phones run over the internet. And I'm communicating with you at a distance electronically. Tele-com.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
No. Your packets are not more important than mine, regardless of what you are doing. Just because you are engaged in something you feel is important does not make it so.
Good-bye
Yes, especially when the choice is laws or Madmax, because that's what you get without laws.
So use the Sherman Act to remove media ownings from Telecom companies.
Laws are government force enforced with violence.
Is this what you really want?
Yes, that is what I want.
Some entity MUST be the "ultimate authority" and have a monopoly on the use of force. That's the way governments work unless you're a libertarian living in la-la land.
Would you rather that your heavily-armed, meth-smoking neighbor to be the decider of who gets to do what?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Is that how government is supposed to work?
No, it's really not, and those of us who don't live in the US are a bit worried how you guys have sunk so low so fast.
At some point one of your political parties decided that winning was more important than anything else, and stopped governing in a responsible manner.
They are supported by a bunch of fools like the A/C above, who think that:
High time for Trump's executive branch to apply Andrew Jackson's words: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
is a reasonable way to run a country.
Be careful to make sure you don't just feel that way because you don't like "the other side" - there's plenty of dirty pool being played by both parties.
Remember that McConnell was able to partially justify that horse shit behind a floor speech made by the Chairman of the Judicial Committee in 1992 - one Senator Joseph Biden from Connecticut.
Remember that the Constitution requires "advise and consent" of the Senate for bench appointments, which was technically fulfilled - the Majority Leader advised that the seat would remain open until after the election, and the Judicial committee did not give their consent.
Was it dirty political hackery? You bet. But the Democrats would have done (and basically did) the exact same thing, and you know it. No, that doesn't excuse it; it's just the world we live in, and have for quite some time. See: John Adams and the "midnight appointments" for examples going back to the very beginning of the Republic.
Stop acting like it's "the other guys" who are the problem, because it's your guys too.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.