Net Neutrality FCC Vote Today December 14, 2017

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by hmscott, Dec 14, 2017.

  1. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,925
    Messages:
    17,320
    Likes Received:
    21,270
    Trophy Points:
    931
    That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
    from the oops dept

    Mike Masnick, Thu, Aug 30th 2018 9:43am
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ng-to-shift-blame-to-internet-companies.shtml

    "It's not every day that big telco lobbyists email me their internal documents about how they're going to try to shift all the negative press about themselves and try to flip it onto internet companies.

    But it did happen yesterday.

    In what was clearly a mistake a top exec at the telco's largest lobbying organization, USTelecom, emailed a 12 page document of talking points yesterday, asking the recipients to "review the document for accuracy and other thoughts" in order to help USTelecom President Jonathan Spalter for when he goes on C-SPAN next week.

    I found it a bit odd that I would be on the distribution list for such an email -- especially when 13 of the 15 recipients of the email were US Telecom employees. And me. The one other non-US Telecom person works at a firm that provides "subject matter experts" and "in-depth legal analysis."

    The talking points are not all that surprising, if you're at all familiar with the telco industry, so there aren't really any huge smoking guns here, but they do cover a huge range of issues, from net neutrality, competition, privacy, cybersecurity, and more.

    Amusingly, on the net neutrality front, there's a section on "Verizon Throttling Fire Responders."

    Tragically, that appears to be one of the few sections in the document that they hadn't yet filled in yet -- perhaps because the industry still doesn't have a good response to Verizon throttling fire fighters in California as they were battling wildfires.

    One thing that's clear, however, is that the big telcos really want to play up the recent attacks on social media companies ("edge providers," as they like to say), and throughout the document there are statements about taking advantage of the current political attacks on those companies.

    For example, in the "Privacy" section, the talking points for Salter appear to be for him to try to pivot to making it about Facebook and Google as quickly as possible, saying they are the bigger risks: [check out the site]"
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2018
  2. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,925
    Messages:
    17,320
    Likes Received:
    21,270
    Trophy Points:
    931
  3. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,925
    Messages:
    17,320
    Likes Received:
    21,270
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Major Telecom Urges Employees to Protest Net Neutrality Bill, Claiming It Threatens Workers
    Dell Cameron, Friday 7:00pm
    https://gizmodo.com/major-telecom-urges-employees-to-protest-net-neutrality-1828896674

    "Employees at one of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies are being urged by their bosses to sign a petition opposing net neutrality legislationpassed one week ago by the California legislature.

    In an email Thursday to employees at Frontier Communications—a leading provider of internet, TV, and phone services in 29 states—West Region Senior Vice President Joe Gamble painted California’s Senate Bill 822 as a threat to Frontier and the people who work there.

    “We are asking Governor Brown to veto a law that is bad for Frontier’s business, our partners and our employees,” wrote Gamble, according to a copy of the email leaked to Gizmodo.

    S.B. 822, which seeks to reenact net neutrality protections stripped away by the Trump administration this year, must be signed or vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown by September 30..."
     
  4. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,925
    Messages:
    17,320
    Likes Received:
    21,270
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Senator claps back after Ajit Pai calls California’s net neutrality bill ‘radical’ and ‘illegal’
    Devin Coldewey@techcrunch / 3 hours ago
    https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/14/s...nias-net-neutrality-bill-radical-and-illegal/

    "FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has provoked a biting senatorial response from California after calling the “nanny state’s” new net neutrality legislation “radical,” “anti-consumer,” “illegal” and “burdensome.” Senator Scott Wiener (D-CA), in response, said Pai has “abdicated his responsibility to ensure an open internet” and that the FCC lacks the authority to intervene.

    The political flame war was kicked off this morning in Pai’s remarks at the Maine Heritage Policy Center, a free market think tank. You can read them in full here, but I’ve quoted the relevant part below:

    Of course, those who demand greater government control of the Internet haven’t given up. Their latest tactic is pushing state governments to regulate the Internet. The most egregious example of this comes from California. Last month, the California state legislature passed a radical, anti-consumer Internet regulation bill that would impose restrictions even more burdensome than those adopted by the FCC in 2015.

    If this law is signed by the Governor, what would it do? Among other things, it would prevent Californian consumers from buying many free-data plans. These plans allow consumers to stream video, music, and the like exempt from any data limits. They have proven enormously popular in the marketplace, especially among lower-income Americans. But nanny-state California legislators apparently want to ban their constituents from having this choice. They have met the enemy, and it is free data.

    The broader problem is that California’s micromanagement poses a risk to the rest of the country. After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn’t recognize state lines. It follows that only the federal government can set regulatory policy in this area. For if individual states like California regulate the Internet, this will directly impact citizens in other states.

    Among other reasons, this is why efforts like California’s are illegal.

    The bogeyman of banning zero rating plans has been raised again and again, but everyone should understand now that the whole thing is a sham — just another ploy by telecoms to parcel out data the way they choose.
    ..."
    ...much more on the site, check it out :)
     
  5. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,925
    Messages:
    17,320
    Likes Received:
    21,270
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Court Orders FCC To Hand Over Data On Bogus Net Neutrality Comments
    from the sunlight-makes-the-best-disinfectant dept
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-bogus-net-neutrality-comments.shtml#comments
    by Karl Bode, Thu, Sep 20th 2018 6:22am

    "You might recall that when the Trump FCC killed net neutrality, the public comment period (the only chance consumers had to actually offer their opinion) was plagued with all manner of identity theft and bogus comments.

    Oddly, the FCC didn't seem too concerned that dead people were filing comments to the FCC website supporting their extremely unpopular decision, and even actively blocked law enforcement investigations into what happened.

    It's worth noting that similar campaigns to generate bogus support for unpopular policies have plagued other government agencies in the post-truth era.

    Annoyed by the FCC's lack of transparency and its refusal to respond to FOIA requests for additional data, journalist Jason Prechtel sued the FCC in late 2017. This week, a ruling (pdf) by Christopher Cooper of US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the FCC to hand over at least some of the data.

    The ruling requires that the FCC hand over email addresses that were used to submit .CSV files, which in turn contained the bulk comments. The order did not, however, grant Prechtel's request for server logs, which could help detail who used specific APIs.

    In his ruling, Cooper stated that understanding what went wrong would help prevent fraud in other proceedings moving forward (something, again, the FCC has shown it's really not too concerned about):

    "In addition to enabling scrutiny of how the Commission handled dubious comments during the rulemaking, disclosure would illuminate the Commission's forward-looking efforts to prevent fraud in future processes...It is surely in the public interest to further the oversight of agency action to protect the very means by which Americans make their voices heard in regulatory processes."

    Yes, go figure.
    The FCC argued it couldn't disclose this e-mail data because it would violate consumer privacy, but consumers were told by the FCC when they made these comments that their e-mail addresses would likely be made public, "mitigating any expectation of privacy," the Judge declared.

    Again, the FCC's disinterest in getting to the bottom of this issue can't be over-stated, the agency ignored nine inquiries over a period of five months by New York State investigators looking for more data on the problem, and (like that DDOS the agency was caught fabricating) refused to seriously respond to journalists' inquiries.

    In a blog post, Prechtel stated that he's not sure when he'll actually get access to the data, but was pleased that the court saw the importance for transparency surrounding the FCC's historically-unpopular policy:

    "Regardless of how the rest of the case plays out, this is already a huge victory for transparency over an issue that has gone unanswered by the FCC and its current leadership for too long. Of course, it may be a matter of months before we actually get to see the records I won (or may still win), and learn who else was submitting bulk comments to the FCC that we don’t already know about. Even then, the full scope of the records I asked for only goes through early June 2017, and doesn’t encompass several more months of millions of comments the FCC went ahead and let flood into their system in spite of all the high-profile controversy."
    A big source of the bogus comments appear to have originated with GQ Roll Call, on behalf of an "anonymous client" (which most assume is either a major broadband provider like AT&T or Comcast, or some other proxy partisan organization they covertly fund). Hopefully the data, whenever it arrives, helps shine a little more light on precisely what it is the FCC pretty clearly doesn't want exposed to the light of day."
     
  6. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,925
    Messages:
    17,320
    Likes Received:
    21,270
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Gov. Brown signs California Net Neutrality Bill SB 822
    https://www.reddit.com/r/technology...rown_signs_california_net_neutrality_bill_sb/

    Governor Brown Issues Legislative Update
    Published: Sep 30, 2018
    https://www.gov.ca.gov/2018/09/30/governor-brown-issues-legislative-update-22/

    "SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills:
    https://www.gov.ca.gov/2018/09/30/governor-brown-issues-legislative-update-22/
    • SB 822 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Communications: broadband Internet access service.
    • AB 686 by Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) – Housing discrimination: affirmatively further fair housing.
    • AB 734 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) – California Environmental Quality Act: Oakland Sports and Mixed-Use Project.
    • AB 748 by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) – Peace officers: video and audio recordings: disclosure.
    • AB 987 by Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) – California Environmental Quality Act: sports and entertainment project. A signing message can be found here.
    • AB 1746 by Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) – Criminal procedure: jurisdiction of public offenses.
    • AB 1771 by Assemblymember Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica) – Planning and zoning: regional housing needs assessment.
    • AB 1999 by Assemblymember Ed Chau (D-Arcadia) – Local government: public broadband services.
    • AB 2055 by Assemblymember Marc Levine (D-Marin County) – Legislative ethics: harassment: education: lobbying.
    • AB 2133 by Assemblymember Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) – Criminal justice: state summary criminal history records.
    • AB 2238 by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) – Local agency formation: regional housing need allocation: fire hazards: local health emergencies: hazardous and medical waste.
    • AB 2327 by Assemblymember Bill Quirk (D-Hayward) – Peace officers: misconduct: employment.
    • AB 2338 by Assemblymember Marc Levine (D-Marin County) – Talent agencies: education and training.
    • AB 2425 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Palo Alto) – Property taxation: property records: transmission by mail or electronic format.
    • AB 2504 by Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) – Peace officer training: sexual orientation and gender identity.
    • AB 2598 by Assemblymember Bill Quirk (D-Hayward) – Cities and counties: ordinances: violations.
    • AB 2799 by Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) – Adult-use cannabis and medicinal cannabis: license application: OSHA training.
    • AB 2988 by Assemblymember Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) – Criminal procedure: disposition of evidence.
    • AB 2992 by Assemblymember Tom Daly (D-Anaheim) – Peace officer training: commercial sexual exploitation of children.
    • SB 134 by Senator Ed Hernandez (D-Azusa) – Regional center contracts.
    • SB 822 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Communications: broadband Internet access service.
    • SB 828 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Land use: housing element.
    • SB 923 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Criminal investigations: eyewitness identification.
    • SB 978 by Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Law enforcement agencies: public records.
    • SB 1050 by Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) – Exonerated inmates.
    • SB 1054 by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-Los Angeles) – Pretrial release and detention: pretrial services.
    • SB 1078 by the Committee on Transportation and Housing – Housing.
    • SB 1152 by Senator Ed Hernandez (D-Azusa) – Hospital patient discharge process: homeless patients.
    • SB 1215 by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-Los Angeles) – Provision of sewer service: disadvantaged communities.
    • SB 1232 by Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Victims of crime: application for compensation.
    • SB 1236 by Senator Bill Monning (D-Carmel) – Commercial driver’s license: education.
    • SB 1309 by Senator Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) – Fishing: Fisheries Omnibus Bill of 2018.
    • SB 1409 by Senator Scott Wilk (R-Santa Clarita) – Industrial hemp.
    • SB 1412 by Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Applicants for employment: criminal history.
    • SB 1421 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Peace officers: release of records.

    The Governor also announced that he has vetoed the following bills:
    • AB 60 by Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) – Subsidized child care and development services: stages of child care: CalWORKs. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 1231 by Assemblymember Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) – Public postsecondary education: California State University: support staff employees: merit salary adjustments. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 1511 by Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) – Sentencing enhancements: property loss. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 1857 by Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian (D-North Hollywood) – Building codes: earthquake safety: immediate occupancy standard. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 1867 by Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-Grand Terrace) – Employment discrimination: sexual harassment: records. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 1909 by Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian (D-North Hollywood) – In-home supportive services: written content translation. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 1916 by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) – Civil service: Personnel Classification Plan: salary equalization. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 1939 by Assemblymember Marc Steinorth (R-Rancho Cucamonga) – Crime victims: compensation: relocation costs: pets. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 2153 by Assemblymember Tony Thurmond (D-Richmond) – Teachers: in-service training: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning pupil resources. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 2255 by Assemblymember Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) – Cannabis: distribution: deliveries: violations. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 2361 by Assemblymember Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) – University of California: outsource contracts. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 2447 by Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-Grand Terrace) – California Environmental Quality Act: land use: environmental justice. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 2713 by Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez (D-Pomona) – Public employment: sexual harassment tracking. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 2772 by Assemblymember Jose Medina (D-Riverside) – Pupil instruction: ethnic studies: grant program. A veto message can be found here.
    • AB 2908 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Palo Alto) – Tire recycling: California tire regulatory fee and waste tire program. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 320 by Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) – Public university student health centers: medication abortion readiness: abortion by medication techniques: College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 452 by Senator Steven Glazer (D-Orinda) – The California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 607 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Pupil discipline: suspensions and expulsions: willful defiance. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 656 by Senator John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) – Judges’ Retirement System II: deferred retirement. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 715 by Senator Vanessa Delgado (D-Montebello) – Vehicular air pollution: regulations: exemption. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 829 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Cannabis: donations. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 937 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Lactation accommodation. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 1124 by Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) – Public Employees’ Retirement System: collective bargaining agreements: disallowed compensation. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 1128 by Senator Richard Roth (D-Riverside) – Common interest developments: governance. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 1156 by Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) – Health care service plans and health insurance: 3rd-party payments. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 1223 by Senator Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) – Construction industry: discrimination and harassment prevention policy. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 1265 by Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Common interest developments: elections. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 1288 by Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) – Health and care facilities: inspections. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 1415 by Senator Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) – Housing. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 1449 by Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) – Rape kits: testing. A veto message can be found here.
    • SB 1487 by Senator Henry Stern (D-Canoga Park) – Iconic African Species Protection Act. A veto message can be found here.
    For full text of the bills, visit: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov "

    California enacts strongest net neutrality protections in the country as Trump administration files suit
    By JAZMINE ULLOA, SEP 30, 2018 | 7:10 PM | SACRAMENTO
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...gned-governor-jerry-brown-20180930-story.html
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2018
  7. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,925
    Messages:
    17,320
    Likes Received:
    21,270
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Internet providers sue California over net neutrality law
    BY HARPER NEIDIG - 10/03/18 01:19 PM EDT
    https://thehill.com/policy/technolo...viders-sue-california-over-net-neutrality-law

    "Internet, cable and wireless providers are suing California over its tough new net neutrality law following a separate lawsuit from the Justice Department seeking to block the state from implementing such rules.

    Four industry groups representing internet providers such as AT&T and Comcast filed a lawsuit on Wednesday in federal court in California that accuses lawmakers there of “unconstitutional state regulation.”

    USTelecom, the American Cable Association, the wireless group CTIA and NCTA - The Internet & Television Association all argue that the state's attempt to replace recently repealed federal rules could hurt consumers.

    “We oppose California’s action to regulate internet access because it threatens to negatively affect services for millions of consumers and harm new investment and economic growth,” the four groups said in a joint statement.

    “Republican and Democratic administrations, time and again, have embraced the notion that actions like this are preempted by federal law. We believe the courts will continue to uphold that fundamental principle.”

    California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Sunday signed the net neutrality legislation S.B. 822 into law, requiring internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally. The move came after the Republican-led Federal Communications Commission (FCC) caused a nationwide uproar by repealing the Obama-era open internet regulations, which went away in June.

    Just hours after Brown signed the bill, the Justice Department sued the state, arguing that California was illegally defying the FCC’s order that expressly barred states from implementing their own regulations on internet service providers.

    “We disagree with the legal validity of the US DOJ arguments and look forward to making our case in court," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in an emailed statement to The Hill this week. "California has the right to exercise its sovereign powers under the Constitution. We’re prepared to demonstrate that when it comes to protecting 40 million consumers and their right to access information.”

    In addition to the latest lawsuits over the state law, a group of state attorneys general and consumer groups sued the FCC earlier this year in an effort to block the net neutrality repeal."

    — Updated at 1:40 p.m.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchForNe...8/internet_providers_sue_california_over_net/
    https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchForNetNeutrality/

    Showing They Will 'Stop at Nothing to Destroy' Open Internet, Telecom Giants Sue to Block California's New Net Neutrality Law
    "Big telecom companies hate the California net neutrality bill because it prevents them from screwing over their customers more than they already do."
    by Jake Johnson, staff writer
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...estroy-open-internet-telecom-giants-sue-block
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2018
  8. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,925
    Messages:
    17,320
    Likes Received:
    21,270
    Trophy Points:
    931
  9. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,925
    Messages:
    17,320
    Likes Received:
    21,270
    Trophy Points:
    931
    NET NEUTRALITY
    "99.7 Percent of Unique FCC Comments Favored Net Neutrality
    A new report from Stanford University shows that most commenters were knowledgeable about the issue and very much in favor of keeping the protections.
    "
    By Kaleigh Rogers, Oct 15 2018, 7:51pm
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...of-unique-fcc-comments-favored-net-neutrality

    "After removing all duplicate and fake comments filed with the Federal Communications Commission last year, a Stanford researcher has found that 99.7 percent of public comments—about 800,000 in all—were pro-net neutrality.

    “With the fog of fraud and spam lifted from the comment corpus, lawmakers and their staff, journalists, interested citizens and policymakers can use these reports to better understand what Americans actually said about the repeal of net neutrality protections and why 800,000 Americans went further than just signing a petition for a redress of grievances by actually putting their concerns in their own words,” Ryan Singel, a media and strategy fellow at Stanford University, wrote in a blog post Monday.

    Singel released a report Monday that analyzed the unique comments—as in, they weren’t a copypasta of one or dozens of other letters—filed last year ahead of the FCC’s decision to repeal federal net neutrality protections. That’s from the 22 million total comments filed, meaning that more than 21 million comments were fake, bots, or organized campaigns.

    “This is not to say that all non-unique comments filed to the FCC via online campaigns are fake,” the report says, since many commenters used form letters to share their support for net neutrality. “However, due to the large amount of noise created by fake comments, it remains very difficult to locate the real signals in the non-unique comments.”

    Before voting to repeal federal net neutrality protections last year, the FCC opened up an online form to collect comments from the public. If you recall, it was a ****show, with millions of fake comments sent in by bots under phony names, stolen identities, and even names of dead people. It led to multiple lawsuits filed, including one by 23 state attorney general. Despite acknowledging the failures, the FCC refused to investigate or really reconsider the comments at all, though a judge recently ruled that the agency must release records related to the phony comments to the public.

    With the help of his colleague Jeff Kao, Singel used machine learning models to identify more than 800,000 unique comments and analyze them, showing that commenters were firmly against repealing the rules, and these commenters spanned the country geographically and politically.

    Singel found that “while there were more comments on average from House districts represented by Democrats, a substantial number of unique comments were filed in Republican districts,” the report reads. The average number of comments filed in each district was 1,489, with Republican districts having an average of 1,202.

    He also found that unique commenters had a more nuanced understanding of net neutrality law than lawmakers may have assumed, including regularly mentioning the decision to reclassify broadband as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act of 1996.

    The report also suggests that net neutrality could play a role in the upcoming midterm elections, with many of the so-called “toss up” states having significant representation from pro-net neutrality commenters. For example, California's 45th District is currently held by Republican Representative Mimi Walters, and a tight battle is expected there. In that district, the report found more than 2,300 unique comments filed, the majority of which were opposed to repealing net neutrality.

    If this report is any indication, candidates in tight races might want to reexamine their stance on net neutrality."
     
  10. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    4,925
    Messages:
    17,320
    Likes Received:
    21,270
    Trophy Points:
    931
    FCC VS. NET NEUTRALITY —
    FCC tells court it has no “legal authority” to impose net neutrality rules
    FCC defends repeal in court, claims broadband isn't "telecommunications."

    JON BRODKIN - OCT 12, 2018 5:22 PM UTC
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...court-that-net-neutrality-rules-were-illegal/

    "The Federal Communications Commission opened its defense of its net neutrality repeal yesterday, telling a court that it has no authority to keep the net neutrality rules in place.

    Chairman Ajit Pai's FCC argued that broadband is not a "telecommunications service" as defined in federal law, and therefore it must be classified as an information service instead. As an information service, broadband cannot be subject to common carrier regulations such as net neutrality rules, Pai's FCC said. The FCC is only allowed to impose common carrier regulations on telecommunications services.

    "Given these classification decisions, the Commission determined that the Communications Act does not endow it with legal authority to retain the former conduct rules," the FCC said in asummary of its defense filed yesterday in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    The FCC is defending the net neutrality repeal against a lawsuit filed by more than 20 state attorneys general, consumer advocacy groups, and tech companies. The FCC's opponents in the case will file reply briefs next month, and oral arguments are scheduled for February.
    ..."
     
Loading...

Share This Page