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.
Honestly, I can get pretty pissy about government overreach, but this isn't that.
The war on drugs was doomed to failure from inception because they were trying to legislate a morality that most Americans are ambivalent about or are actively in disagreement with. Over half of all Americans are (or were willing to be temporarily) on the illegal side of that war: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publ...
Consequently, the LEAs wound up in a game of whack-a-mole, where they arrest a dealer and a new one pops up in his place before he gets arraigned. And, as an ex-con, I'm here to tell you that they are good at arresting dealers. I met a lot of drug dealers inside. Of course, for a lot of cops, this is just job security, so they don't really mind.
NN is different because the number of offenders is vastly smaller and the violations are exponentially harder to hide (this is the problem with crimes that actually have victims). Additionally, because the network operators' money is actually already in the banking system, they have much more to lose.
As to whether we fare better behind NN regulation or NN law, I don't know. Legislation is probably less prone to abuse, but it is also much slower to respond to changing market conditions.
This is a young country, but it's not THAT young. The classic definition is long-distance communication.
The Constitution of 1776 put all the known channels of telecommunication (post offices, post roads, and navigable waterways) firmly in federal control, so that states and local for-profit enterprises couldn't interfere.
The office of Postmaster General pre-dates those of Chief Justice, President, Senator, and Representative. Communication was too important, back then, to be delayed; it still is.