Verizon sues FCC, says "net neutrality lite" rules illegal

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...es-illegal.ars

Verizon dropped a bomb on the FCC's net neutrality plans today, asking a
federal appeals court to "vacate, enjoin, and set aside" the signature
accomplishment of FCC Chair Julius Genachowski.

The company loves the open Internet, it says, just so long as no one can,
well, enforce that openness. Verizon's deputy general counsel said in a
statement today that "Verizon has long been committed to preserving an open
Internet and meeting the needs of our customers... [But] we are deeply
concerned by the FCC's assertion of broad authority for sweeping new
regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself. We believe this
assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress,
and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators,
investors and consumers."

The lead attorney on the case is Helgi Walker of major DC tech law firm
Wiley Rein. If the name sounds familiar, it should; Walker previously worked
on the Comcast lawsuit against the FCC, the one in which the cable giant
argued that even the FCC attempt to have it stop mucking about with P2P
transfers was illegal.

Comcast famously won that case in early 2010, throwing into confusion the
FCC's entire legal argument for net neutrality. Walker is now making the
same arguments to the court, but this time for Verizon.

"In Comcast," she points out, "this Court previously held that the FCC had
failed to justify its exercise of authority over the broadband Internet
access service at issue in that case." Now the FCC "again attempts to
justify its assertion of regulatory authority" with a new set of open
Internet rules approved on December 23-but Walker says they suffer from the
same lack of authority that doomed the FCC in the Comcast case.

Verizon wants the entire net neutrality order tossed by the appellate court.

On 1/20/2011 7:58 PM, NotMe wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...es-illegal.ars
>
> Verizon dropped a bomb on the FCC's net neutrality plans today, asking a
> federal appeals court to "vacate, enjoin, and set aside" the signature
> accomplishment of FCC Chair Julius Genachowski.
>
> The company loves the open Internet, it says, just so long as no one can,
> well, enforce that openness. Verizon's deputy general counsel said in a
> statement today that "Verizon has long been committed to preserving an open
> Internet and meeting the needs of our customers... [But] we are deeply
> concerned by the FCC's assertion of broad authority for sweeping new
> regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself. We believe this
> assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress,
> and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators,
> investors and consumers."
>
> The lead attorney on the case is Helgi Walker of major DC tech law firm
> Wiley Rein. If the name sounds familiar, it should; Walker previously worked
> on the Comcast lawsuit against the FCC, the one in which the cable giant
> argued that even the FCC attempt to have it stop mucking about with P2P
> transfers was illegal.
>
> Comcast famously won that case in early 2010, throwing into confusion the
> FCC's entire legal argument for net neutrality. Walker is now making the
> same arguments to the court, but this time for Verizon.
>
> "In Comcast," she points out, "this Court previously held that the FCC had
> failed to justify its exercise of authority over the broadband Internet
> access service at issue in that case." Now the FCC "again attempts to
> justify its assertion of regulatory authority" with a new set of open
> Internet rules approved on December 23-but Walker says they suffer from the
> same lack of authority that doomed the FCC in the Comcast case.
>
> Verizon wants the entire net neutrality order tossed by the appellate court.
>
>
>
It is about time some one did that the FCC is out of its mind.

--

Rick Holbrook
Fargo, ND
N 46°53'15.097"
W 96°48'18.284"


Remember the USS Liberty
http://www.ussliberty.org/

Reply to: fholbrook(at)cableone.net

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:32:11 -0600, Rick
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 1/20/2011 7:58 PM, NotMe wrote:
>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...es-illegal.ars
>>
>> Verizon dropped a bomb on the FCC's net neutrality plans today, asking a
>> federal appeals court to "vacate, enjoin, and set aside" the signature
>> accomplishment of FCC Chair Julius Genachowski.
>>
>> The company loves the open Internet, it says, just so long as no one can,
>> well, enforce that openness. Verizon's deputy general counsel said in a
>> statement today that "Verizon has long been committed to preserving an open
>> Internet and meeting the needs of our customers... [But] we are deeply
>> concerned by the FCC's assertion of broad authority for sweeping new
>> regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself. We believe this
>> assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress,
>> and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators,
>> investors and consumers."
>>
>> The lead attorney on the case is Helgi Walker of major DC tech law firm
>> Wiley Rein. If the name sounds familiar, it should; Walker previously worked
>> on the Comcast lawsuit against the FCC, the one in which the cable giant
>> argued that even the FCC attempt to have it stop mucking about with P2P
>> transfers was illegal.
>>
>> Comcast famously won that case in early 2010, throwing into confusion the
>> FCC's entire legal argument for net neutrality. Walker is now making the
>> same arguments to the court, but this time for Verizon.
>>
>> "In Comcast," she points out, "this Court previously held that the FCC had
>> failed to justify its exercise of authority over the broadband Internet
>> access service at issue in that case." Now the FCC "again attempts to
>> justify its assertion of regulatory authority" with a new set of open
>> Internet rules approved on December 23-but Walker says they suffer from the
>> same lack of authority that doomed the FCC in the Comcast case.
>>
>> Verizon wants the entire net neutrality order tossed by the appellate court.
>>
>>
>>
>It is about time some one did that the FCC is out of its mind.

Looks to me like Congress needs to step up and actually give the FCC
the powers that it thinks it already has. If the FCC can't stop what's
going on, then no one can.

In news:(E-Mail Removed) Char Jackson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> If the FCC can't stop what's going on, then no one can.

What's "going on" that needs to be stopped by police power of The State?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN (E-Mail Removed)

On 21 Jan 2011 14:18:47 GMT, Bert Hyman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In news:(E-Mail Removed) Char Jackson
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> If the FCC can't stop what's going on, then no one can.
>
>What's "going on" that needs to be stopped by police power of The State?

Net neutrality, or the potential lack thereof.

I'm not sure I can boil it down to a sentence, but essentially it's
about a few entities that control a lot of the Internet trying to
position themselves in a way that benefits themselves but harms
consumers.

In news:(E-Mail Removed) Char Jackson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 21 Jan 2011 14:18:47 GMT, Bert Hyman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In news:(E-Mail Removed) Char Jackson
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> If the FCC can't stop what's going on, then no one can.
>>
>>What's "going on" that needs to be stopped by police power of The
>>State?
>
> Net neutrality, or the potential lack thereof.
>
> I'm not sure I can boil it down to a sentence, but essentially it's
> about a few entities that control a lot of the Internet

They "control" the Internet because they own the hardware over which
your traffic travels.

> trying to position themselves in a way that benefits themselves

And what's wrong with that, exactly?

> but harms consumers.

By "harms," do you mean "requires them to pay for the services they
receive?"

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN (E-Mail Removed)

On 21 Jan 2011 17:42:56 GMT, Bert Hyman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In news:(E-Mail Removed) Char Jackson
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 21 Jan 2011 14:18:47 GMT, Bert Hyman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>In news:(E-Mail Removed) Char Jackson
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the FCC can't stop what's going on, then no one can.
>>>
>>>What's "going on" that needs to be stopped by police power of The
>>>State?
>>
>> Net neutrality, or the potential lack thereof.
>>
>> I'm not sure I can boil it down to a sentence, but essentially it's
>> about a few entities that control a lot of the Internet
>
>They "control" the Internet because they own the hardware over which
>your traffic travels.
>
>> trying to position themselves in a way that benefits themselves
>
>And what's wrong with that, exactly?
>
>> but harms consumers.
>
>By "harms," do you mean "requires them to pay for the services they
>receive?"

No, that's not what I mean. I guess it depends on how you feel about
net neutrality.

In news:(E-Mail Removed) Char Jackson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 21 Jan 2011 17:42:56 GMT, Bert Hyman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In news:(E-Mail Removed) Char Jackson
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21 Jan 2011 14:18:47 GMT, Bert Hyman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In news:(E-Mail Removed) Char Jackson
>>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If the FCC can't stop what's going on, then no one can.
>>>>
>>>>What's "going on" that needs to be stopped by police power of The
>>>>State?
>>>
>>> Net neutrality, or the potential lack thereof.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I can boil it down to a sentence, but essentially it's
>>> about a few entities that control a lot of the Internet
>>
>>They "control" the Internet because they own the hardware over which
>>your traffic travels.
>>
>>> trying to position themselves in a way that benefits themselves
>>
>>And what's wrong with that, exactly?
>>
>>> but harms consumers.
>>
>>By "harms," do you mean "requires them to pay for the services they
>>receive?"
>
> No, that's not what I mean.

Then what did you mean?

> I guess it depends on how you feel about net neutrality.

Net neutrality means having the government force the owners and
operators of the networks to operate them in a way other than the way
they, as the owners and operators, might choose to.

Why is it the role of The State to force these carriers to operate their
systems in ways that don't benefit them?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN (E-Mail Removed)

"Bert Hyman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9E74772DE5832VeebleFetzer@216.250.188.140. ..
> In news:(E-Mail Removed) Char Jackson
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 21 Jan 2011 14:18:47 GMT, Bert Hyman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>In news:(E-Mail Removed) Char Jackson
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the FCC can't stop what's going on, then no one can.
>>>
>>>What's "going on" that needs to be stopped by police power of The
>>>State?
>>
>> Net neutrality, or the potential lack thereof.
>>
>> I'm not sure I can boil it down to a sentence, but essentially it's
>> about a few entities that control a lot of the Internet
>
> They "control" the Internet because they own the hardware over which
> your traffic travels.
>
>> trying to position themselves in a way that benefits themselves
>
> And what's wrong with that, exactly?
>
>> but harms consumers.
>
> By "harms," do you mean "requires them to pay for the services they
> receive?"

I see the problem as monetizing the service. And it's already in place.
Some have had problem with alternative VoIP services where the ISP gives
preference to their service and places blocks in the way of services by
other providers.

I have, personally, had important emails blocked (actually bit bucketed) as
the provider has an application that decides what is and is not spam. In
the case of several ISPs there is NO adult supervision of the program. It
is what it is and it does what it does and there is no way for anyone (say a
reasonable adult) to fix the errors.

In article <Xns9E74998A26E3FVeebleFetzer@216.250.188.140>,
Bert Hyman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> Net neutrality means having the government force the owners and
> operators of the networks to operate them in a way other than the way
> they, as the owners and operators, might choose to.
>
> Why is it the role of The State to force these carriers to operate their
> systems in ways that don't benefit them?

Actually it is worse because it also means that if I want to spend some
of my OWN money for faster or more expedited access I can't because
someone else may not be able to afford it.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke