Comcast, FCC Head To Court Over Net Neutrality

said by John McClane:

i'm curious why it has to be in DC?

The court is given the responsibility of directly reviewing the decisions and rulemaking of many federal independent agencies of the United States government based in the national capital, often without prior hearing by a district court.

said by ThrowDemsOut:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has regularly ruled against the FCC. I don't see this time being any different.

Of course a win by Comcast will just result in a new court case in a couple of years from now when the officially drawn FCC Net Neutrality rules(as opposed to amorphous principles) are drug in to court.

said by jchambers28:

I have a good feeling comcast will lose the court battle you cant sue the government and win.

U.S. judges put the Federal Communications Commission in the hot seat on Friday, questioning whether the communications regulator acted properly when it sanctioned Comcast Corp for blocking file-sharing services on its broadband network.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeared unsatisfied with FCC arguments and was probing to determine whether the FCC acted based on established rules or direct authority from Congress involving broadband network management issues .

It appears the FCC acted based on policy statements that are "aspirational, not operational," Judge A. Raymond Randolph told FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick in a packed courtroom.

FCC's Schlick and Marvin Ammori, an attorney representing public interest groups such as Free Press and Consumers Union, argued that, if the FCC lost the case, it was better for it to lose based on the agency's procedures rather than on the grounds the FCC lacks broad authority. They urged the judges to provide guidance to help the FCC with future actions. "We don't give guidance. We decide cases," Judge Randolph said.

said by ThrowDemsOut:

Seems the judges might not agree with you:

The Obama administration and its allies at the Federal Communications Commission are retreating from a militant version of Net neutrality regulations first outlined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in September.

That's my reading of a number of recent developments, underscored by comments made by government speakers on a panel on the first day of a Tech Policy Summit at CES in Las Vegas.

Last fall, Genachowski proposed six Net neutrality rules and asked the full commission to approve them. The proposed rules could be adopted as early as spring.

But even as the commission concludes its collection of public comments next week, both the White House and the FCC appear to be dialing back their expectations.

Signs of more modest Net neutrality regulations include resignation in late October of Susan Crawford, who took part in Thursday's panel discussion and who was previously a key adviser to the president on technology and communications. Crawford's version of Net neutrality was too radical for White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers, contributing to her early departure.

On the same panel, White House deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin reminded the audience that the FCC had yet to determine whether Net neutrality is needed to preserve the open Internet. He and Crawford both characterized the proposing of the rules as simply opening a dialogue on the subject to allow the FCC to collect data.

Fried pointed to recent filings by the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice as part of the FCC's preparation of a national broadband plan. The DOJ's letter, for example, found no evidence of market failure in broadband today and warned the commission against premature regulation.

The administration is clearly backtracking. But why?

Part of the reason is some unexpected political pressure, including a letter signed by 72 congressional Democrats opposing the FCC's proposed rules soon after they were announced.

But the bigger explanation is the growing priority within the administration for nationwide, affordable broadband service.

the communications industry had already invested $60 billion toward that effort. By contrast, the stimulus bill allocated only $7 billion for broadband projects. Clearly, Fried noted, satisfying the goals of the national broadband plan will require significant private investment.

The major carriers are making the investments, and have every business reason to make more. But the Net neutrality rules, depending on how the FCC defines key terms, could hamstring their efforts to make their money back. Net neutrality is making Wall Street uncomfortable about financing broadband deployment. That in turn is making the White House nervous.

Net neutrality is turning out to be a noisy side show and a growing distraction from the real priority for both the White House and the FCC: getting the country wired for recovery.