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

Discussion in 'Wireless Internet' started by NotMe, Jan 21, 2011.

  1. NotMe

    NotMe Guest

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...cc-says-net-neutrality-lite-rules-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.
     
    NotMe, Jan 21, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. NotMe

    Rick Guest

    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
     
    Rick, Jan 21, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. NotMe

    Char Jackson Guest

    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.
     
    Char Jackson, Jan 21, 2011
    #3
  4. NotMe

    Bert Hyman Guest

    In Char Jackson
    What's "going on" that needs to be stopped by police power of The State?
     
    Bert Hyman, Jan 21, 2011
    #4
  5. NotMe

    Char Jackson Guest

    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.
     
    Char Jackson, Jan 21, 2011
    #5
  6. NotMe

    Bert Hyman Guest

    In Char Jackson
    They "control" the Internet because they own the hardware over which
    your traffic travels.
    And what's wrong with that, exactly?
    By "harms," do you mean "requires them to pay for the services they
    receive?"
     
    Bert Hyman, Jan 21, 2011
    #6
  7. NotMe

    Char Jackson Guest

    No, that's not what I mean. I guess it depends on how you feel about
    net neutrality.
     
    Char Jackson, Jan 21, 2011
    #7
  8. NotMe

    Bert Hyman Guest

    In Char Jackson
    Then what did you mean?
    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, Jan 21, 2011
    #8
  9. NotMe

    NotMe Guest

    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.
     
    NotMe, Jan 21, 2011
    #9
  10. NotMe

    Kurt Ullman Guest

    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.
     
    Kurt Ullman, Jan 21, 2011
    #10
  11. NotMe

    Kurt Ullman Guest

    The latter of which NN doesn't address.
     
    Kurt Ullman, Jan 21, 2011
    #11
  12. NotMe

    Char Jackson Guest

    Your use of "The State" throws me, but I assume you're just being cute
    and referring to the Federal Government. Anyway, if not the Federal
    Government, then who? I'd certainly prefer a national policy versus a
    hodgepodge of state policies, but either would seem to be preferable
    to letting the owners do as they please, right?
     
    Char Jackson, Jan 21, 2011
    #12
  13. NotMe

    Char Jackson Guest

    I don't think it means that at all, but of course you didn't define
    what you mean by faster or more expedited access, so there's plenty of
    wiggle room.
     
    Char Jackson, Jan 21, 2011
    #13
  14. NotMe

    Rick Guest

    That is the exact problem that the FCC ruling caused.

    --

    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
     
    Rick, Jan 21, 2011
    #14
  15. NotMe

    Rick Guest

    No there is no wiggle room if the FCC allows companies to limit bandwidth.

    --

    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
     
    Rick, Jan 21, 2011
    #15
  16. NotMe

    Char Jackson Guest

    Please elaborate.
     
    Char Jackson, Jan 22, 2011
    #16
  17. NotMe

    Bert Hyman Guest

    In Char Jackson
    So it's the role of the Federal government to force the carriers to
    operate against their own interests?

    When they figure this out, do you think they might stop building or
    maintaining their networks?
    You prefer a central planned economy over a free society?

    There are examples of that all over the world, throughout history; why
    repeat that failed experiment again?
     
    Bert Hyman, Jan 22, 2011
    #17
  18. NotMe

    Char Jackson Guest

    The wiggle room was that he didn't explain what he meant by faster or
    more expedited access. Access to what, specifically?

    Also, I have no idea what you mean by "if the FCC allows companies to
    limit bandwidth". If Net Neutrality dies, companies will be free to
    limit bandwidth as they see fit. The FCC is trying to prevent that,
    not allow it, or have you switched sides?
     
    Char Jackson, Jan 22, 2011
    #18
  19. NotMe

    Char Jackson Guest

    In cases like this, yes.
    Of course not.
    Double huh?
     
    Char Jackson, Jan 22, 2011
    #19
  20. NotMe

    Kurt Ullman Guest

    The wiggle room was that he didn't explain what he meant by faster or
    more expedited access. Access to what, specifically?
    [/QUOTE]
    It should be self-explanatory, especially in this context. Net
    neutrality means if I pay $40 a month, I get the same bandwidth and
    usage as someone paying $80 (to use completely made up number of
    course).
     
    Kurt Ullman, Jan 22, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.