FCC Tells Court It Has No "Legal Authority" to Impose Net Neutrality Rules

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
In response to multiple lawsuits filed by more than three dozen entities over the repeal of net neutrality, the FCC has begun its defense by telling the court “it has no authority to keep the net neutrality rules in place.” The agency is arguing that broadband is not a telecommunications service, but an information service, which is not subject to common carrier regulations such as net neutrality rules.

Broadband is an information service in part because it "inextricably intertwines high-speed transmission with the information processing capabilities provided by Domain Name Service (DNS) and caching," the FCC said. "Broadband providers do not make a stand-alone offering of telecommunications," the FCC also said. "Broadband providers generally market and provide information processing capabilities and transmission together as a single service, and consumers perceive that service to include more than mere transmission."
 
You don't often see government agencies fighting to prove they "don't" have the authority to do something. It's usually the opposite.

And this quote, "FCC tells court it has no “legal authority” to impose net neutrality rules."

Then let the states do it.
 
So if I have a DSL connection which is over telephone copper, is that not telecommunications?
 
I am not sure the FCC has fully thought this argument out. If broadband isn't a telecommunications service, then folks using broadband to access other systems without permission or to distribute illegal content can't be guilty of violating several of the existing laws relating to improper use of telecommunications systems. The bad folks may still be in trouble, there are a LOT of different laws but I suspect several defense attorneys are closely watching how this one plays out.
 
"Broadband providers do not make a stand-alone offering of telecommunications,"

They are really setting themselves up for a big failure. Last I checked, Charter internet telephone service is marketed, exactly, as a stand-alone offering of telecommunication over broadband. What about the voicemail service that every landline phone service comes with now? How are they gonna explain that? This is gonna backfire on Pai. He's too stupid to understand the ramifications of the Pandora's box that he opened.
 
I think their argument makes sense; they're talking about internet access specifically, and they're using definitions for these things that are codified, not popular definitions.

You can get telecommunications routed over the internet, or delivered through the same pipe, i.e. getting your landline from your cable/DSL/fiber company, and these services should not be limited and any limits that might be placed should run afoul of existing codes.

And the better part is this: the courts can decide yay or nay here, and further if they decide the FCC is right, then the issue gets punted to the legislature, where it belongs.
 
Ski said:
No kidding, on one hand they're arguing not to have authority to impose net neutrality rules rules, but on the other if the states do it they have the legal authority to stop STATES from imposing net neutrality rules.

Da fuck!?
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that might come back to bite them.
I don't doubt it won't be at least brought up in the CA lawsuit.

I'd laugh so hard if the CA lawsuit was thrown out for that very reason.

IdiotInCharge said:
I think their argument makes sense; they're talking about internet access specifically, and they're using definitions for these things that are codified, not popular definitions.


You can get telecommunications routed over the internet, or delivered through the same pipe, i.e. getting your landline from your cable/DSL/fiber company, and these services should not be limited and any limits that might be placed should run afoul of existing codes.


And the better part is this: the courts can decide yay or nay here, and further if they decide the FCC is right, then the issue gets punted to the legislature, where it belongs.
Click to expand...

What's funny is that they did have powers, Ajit just overturned them. They reclassified ISPs as Title II and that was upheld in the court system, that granted them the ability to regulate ISPs with net neutrality.

Ajit's argument that "we can't regulate them because they're Title I" is only because he forced them back to being Title I during his obviously corrupt policy change a year ago. He's literally playing this like a five year old that is intentionally being difficult.
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
they're talking about internet access specifically, and they're using definitions for these things that are codified
Click to expand...
No he isn't. The common legal definitions that already exist don't fit the BS he is spewing.

IdiotInCharge said:
And the better part is this: the courts can decide yay or nay here
Click to expand...
The courts already did in 2016 and they agreed with the then FCC leadership that the FCC can implement NN rules.

IdiotInCharge said:
then the issue gets punted to the legislature, where it belongs.
Click to expand...
Congress delegated regulation to the FCC already though.

And Congress can already decide to pass new laws that change how the internet is regulated or just change the FCC's charter at will too.

The case is a joke and the arguments and actions of Pai's FCC are some of the most blatant cases of regulatory capture and corruption we've ever seen in modern times.
 
Spidey329 said:
"we can't regulate them because they're Title I" is only because he forced them back to being Title I
Click to expand...

Is this not in the FCC's power?

mesyn191 said:
No he isn't. The common legal definitions that already exist don't fit the BS he is spewing.
Click to expand...

We'll probably just disagree here, because I'm referencing 'popular' definitions.

mesyn191 said:
The courts already did in 2016 and they agreed with the then FCC leadership that the FCC can implement NN rules.
Click to expand...

Based on the current Title classification, which has changed.

mesyn191 said:
Congress delegated regulation to the FCC already though.
Click to expand...

Sure, but regulatory power is a fluid thing.

mesyn191 said:
And Congress can already decide to pass new laws that change how the internet is regulated or just change the FCC's charter at will too.
Click to expand...

I'll clarify that I'm talking about the issue itself, it's clear that Congress has retained the power to make adjustments. My point is that the 'ball is in their court', so to speak, with respect to making adjustments here.

mesyn191 said:
The case is a joke and the arguments and actions of Pai's FCC are some of the most blatant cases of regulatory capture and corruption we've ever seen in modern times.
Click to expand...

It might be, but for that to be true it needs to be provable; till then, it's a matter of opinion. If it is true, let Mr. Pai hang I say, but do prove it.
 
Well then I guess if the FCC says they have no jurisdiction over "broadband" or internet access in general, then its up to the states to hash this all out seeing as how there is no federal authority to regulate "broadband" across all 50 states.

So the FCC can't keep people from using dirty language over the radio, can't keep the Kardashians from exposing themselves on live TV, and can't keep US companies from using anti-competitive practices over the internet within the 48 contiguous states... what good is the FCC then? Why do I pay taxes to support a non-functioning regulatory committee?

...they should go and FCC themselves...

Freaking Clown Convention.

Edit: Communications is an exchange of information. Its the whole basis for language and speech. The internet and computer coding is an evolution and extension of that. Don't be too depressed over this though... at one point in time judges on the supreme court openly and vehemently believed races should be segregated and upheld such legislation because some congressman was offended because he saw 2 people of different races hugging. That was only 100 years ago. Give it another 100 and maybe they will get this "Net Neutrality" right...
 
Last edited:
What everyone seems to keep missing is that Net Neutrality actually only meant that you, the end user, must pay for and subsidize the excessive usage of other companies.
Since Net Neutrality has been repealed, my local ISP not only halved the price for the 100mbs service but also introduced a 150 mbs plan at a reasonable price.
On top of that AT&T have again introduced an unlimited data plan that is actually affordable, which they have not had since Net Neutrality was introduced.

I understand that the marketing of "fair and free" got a lot of you to think that it applied to you, but it was always Amazon, Google and Netflix who benefited from your subsidizing them via Net Neutrality.
 
mygreeneggsandham said:
What everyone seems to keep missing is that Net Neutrality actually only meant that you, the end user, must pay for and subsidize the excessive usage of other companies.
Since Net Neutrality has been repealed, my local ISP not only halved the price for the 100mbs service but also introduced a 150 mbs plan at a reasonable price.
On top of that AT&T have again introduced an unlimited data plan that is actually affordable, which they have not had since Net Neutrality was introduced.

I understand that the marketing of "fair and free" got a lot of you to think that it applied to you, but it was always Amazon, Google and Netflix who benefited from your subsidizing them via Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point of what net neutrality is all about. Lower pricing by ISPs can be a result of many other causes.

We have strong net neutrality in India, and we also have some of the cheapest broadband pricing globally.
 
mygreeneggsandham said:
What everyone seems to keep missing is that Net Neutrality actually only meant that you, the end user, must pay for and subsidize the excessive usage of other companies.
Since Net Neutrality has been repealed, my local ISP not only halved the price for the 100mbs service but also introduced a 150 mbs plan at a reasonable price.
On top of that AT&T have again introduced an unlimited data plan that is actually affordable, which they have not had since Net Neutrality was introduced.

I understand that the marketing of "fair and free" got a lot of you to think that it applied to you, but it was always Amazon, Google and Netflix who benefited from your subsidizing them via Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...


In what way are we subsidizing the excessive use of other companies? Please explain.
 
NWRMidnight said:
In what way are we subsidizing the excessive use of other companies? Please explain.
Click to expand...

"Excessive use" is a new term meaning "using the service you paid for", if you work for one of the ISPs.

The ISPs hate the big guys, because they, unlike the household consumer, actually DO have options. Thus the mindshare campaign to brand them as the bad guy, and blame them for the ISP gouging of individuals. "We have to screw you, because we couldn't screw them - they have competitive options!"

It's cute, in a way.
 
Boy, Ajit Pai really likes being the most hated man in America, doesn't he?
 
that's classic, was a scant few months ago that THEY threw "old rulings" in the trash because they had authority to do so and ISP rejoiced and prices shot up overnight (even though of course those ISP said net neutrality kills pricing and by removing it it will enforce even fairer pricing)

they threw them in the trash (like ISP wanted) closed the door off for many "3rd party potential players" and now they say "we do not have the authority" so few months ago you DID but now thta it may actually benefit other than ISP you no longer have authority to do the same thing.

*facepalm*
 
"All is lies, Nothing is forbidden."

It's all bullshit, they just have to justify how they're fucking us.

It's all <insert name> fault, somehow.
 
I think he's trying to check mate the public by saying no regulatory agency has legal authority to regulate broadband, but since it is interstate it has to fall under federal authority and can't be under the regulation of states.

Then they can push it to legislature and make Democrats look like they are keeping net neutrality from the public while in fact both sides will just be fighting over what kind of pork and loop holes they will add to what used to be net neutrality rules.
 
mygreeneggsandham said:
What everyone seems to keep missing is that Net Neutrality actually only meant that you, the end user, must pay for and subsidize the excessive usage of other companies.
Since Net Neutrality has been repealed, my local ISP not only halved the price for the 100mbs service but also introduced a 150 mbs plan at a reasonable price.
On top of that AT&T have again introduced an unlimited data plan that is actually affordable, which they have not had since Net Neutrality was introduced.

I understand that the marketing of "fair and free" got a lot of you to think that it applied to you, but it was always Amazon, Google and Netflix who benefited from your subsidizing them via Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...

The only reason AT&T offered an unlimited plan again was because TMobile was actually starting to take enough customers away from them.

As for your local ISP be happy they like you but it wasn't because of the repeal of NN. My local ISP has only raised the rates and while rumors of faster speeds have been heard nothing has changed.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
We'll probably just disagree here, because I'm referencing 'popular' definitions.
Click to expand...
This is a legal case though and Pai is trying to make legal arguments in a court of law with already known legal definitions that precedent.

You're going to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation if you go by popular definitions.

IdiotInCharge said:
Based on the current Title classification, which has changed.
Click to expand...
Sure. Cuz' Pai and the other 2 Repubs on the FCC board changed it. Which he wouldn't be able to do if the FCC if Pai's current arguments were correct. So stop being facetious here about what is going on.

IdiotInCharge said:
Sure, but regulatory power is a fluid thing.
Click to expand...
Not really. Not if its been encoded into law. Particularly not if its a case that has been tried in court already and there are legal precedents established.

IdiotInCharge said:
I'll clarify that I'm talking about the issue itself
Click to expand...
That still doesn't make sense.

On this issue Congress can still change the law or the FCC's charter whenever they want to and will still be able to even if Pai loses this case. The case will have no bearing at all on that fact.
IdiotInCharge said:
It might be, but for that to be true it needs to be provable; till then, it's a matter of opinion. If it is true, let Mr. Pai hang I say, but do prove it.
Click to expand...
*rolls eyes*

Its trivial to judge based on his actions that the guy is in the bag for the ISP industry. No honest regulator would act the way he does.
 
This guy is so obviously a big business shill. He should be forced to wear a jacket that says "property of Verizon" at every press conference.
 
"The States" have always regulated areas where the FCC lacks off. What do you think was happening during the 50's- early 90's when landlines were still a major player?The FCC handled a lot of the regulating but the states put their own in if the FCC took no action.
 
And congress and the executive branch also bare a lot of responsibility as well. The last major Telco act was 1996. These types of the pieces of legislation always have to be updated every 10 years or so. If not, it is left to the alphabet agencies (FCC, FTC Et cerera...) to come up with "regulations" out of thin air that never tilt troward the center with moderation that should always happen. They veer way to far off in one direction or another.
 
commodore said:
I think you're missing the point of what net neutrality is all about. Lower pricing by ISPs can be a result of many other causes.

We have strong net neutrality in India, and we also have some of the cheapest broadband pricing globally.
Click to expand...

Net Neutrality here in the US means that we are applying a law from the 1930s that was designed for the early telephone and utility era and forcing it on the Internet. That same law is what prevented us from having Cell Phones in the 1950s eventhough the technology existed. It includes a list of taxes and also requires government permission for future investment. This is why for the two years that Net Neutrality existed, investment in broadband infrastructure actually declined. This type of regulation and taxation is why we generally pay more for services here than do other countries. It is only deregulation and competition that leads to better service and lower prices. Government interference never has, can, or will offer anything better than a free market can. That is just basic economics.
Here are some oppinions that are hard to find on google due to its pro net neutrality algorithms.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/net-neutralitys-demise-would-not-be-internets-well/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-neutrality-idiotic-aaron-bandler
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshst...y-techie-against-net-neutrality/#368071c870d5
If you have read those and understand their arguments for a free internet and still decide that you prefer Net Neutrality, then at least you are working with an educated opinion and that is respectable.
If you think I am joking about the Cell Phones, read the following and remember that this is the same government you want to control the internet.
https://reason.com/archives/2017/06/11/we-could-have-had-cellphones-f
 
mygreeneggsandham said:
Net Neutrality here in the US means that we are applying a law from the 1930s that was designed for the early telephone and utility era and forcing it on the Internet.
Click to expand...
This isn't accurate or at least is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

While there are regs from that era the FCC continuously changes how they're impelemented to adapt to changes in the market place as well as tech.

mygreeneggsandham said:
That same law is what prevented us from having Cell Phones in the 1950s eventhough the technology existed.
Click to expand...
Uhh even the article mentions the tech of the time would result in a "cell phone" that barely fit in the trunk of a car and cost a huge amount of money. It also apparently wasn't used much via the MTS which was the "cellular phone network" of its time.

Even the 80's tech cell phones were huge, expensive, and heavy. It wasn't the FCC limiting access to the radio spectrum that was the issue. It was the tech of the time. Which is why cell phones didn't really start to get popular and common place until the very late 90's/early 2000's. Which is also right about the time they got smaller, lighter, and less expensive to own and operate.

But then you're linking to Reason, which is about as bad as Brietbart these days.
 
mygreeneggsandham said:
What everyone seems to keep missing is that Net Neutrality actually only meant that you, the end user, must pay for and subsidize the excessive usage of other companies.
Click to expand...

That's 100% pure BS. We've never subsidized the costs of companies like netflix. They already paid their fair share. Anyone trying to spin this BS argument needs to check their information sources cause they are useless.
 
mygreeneggsandham said:
Net Neutrality here in the US means that we are applying a law from the 1930s that was designed for the early telephone and utility era and forcing it on the Internet. That same law is what prevented us from having Cell Phones in the 1950s eventhough the technology existed. It includes a list of taxes and also requires government permission for future investment. This is why for the two years that Net Neutrality existed, investment in broadband infrastructure actually declined. This type of regulation and taxation is why we generally pay more for services here than do other countries. It is only deregulation and competition that leads to better service and lower prices. Government interference never has, can, or will offer anything better than a free market can. That is just basic economics.
Click to expand...

Actually it was designed for communications and received a comprehensive update in 1996. No it doesn't include a list of taxes nor require government permission for future investment.

We pay more here than other countries because other countries have much more strict telecommunication regulations, not less.

Here are some oppinions that are hard to find on google due to its pro net neutrality algorithms.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/net-neutralitys-demise-would-not-be-internets-well/
Click to expand...

BS article full of lies and at best half truths.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-neutrality-idiotic-aaron-bandler
Click to expand...

oh look another article full of bs lies and half truths

If the FCC wants to tax a service, it doesn't matter its classification as they can reclassify at the same time. Being Title II doesn't make it any easier to do anything except implement NN. That is all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top