dslreports logo
 story category
Verizon Challenges Neutrality Rules In DC Court
'Deeply Concerned' By FCC's 'Assertion Of Broad Authority'
When the FCC's new neutrality rules were unveiled we noted they were paper thin, didn't ask ISPs to do anything they weren't doing voluntarily, didn't cover wireless networks, and quite possibly might not be enforceable anyway. Verizon appears to be the first mega-ISP to throw their deep coffers and ocean of lawyers at testing the FCC's authority, today filing an appeal of the rules in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a statement by Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel Michael E. Glover, the company insists that trying to strike down the rules is part of their "commitment to preserving an open Internet":
quote:
"Verizon has long been committed to preserving an open Internet and meeting the needs of our customers. We have worked extensively with all players in the Internet and communications space to shape policies that ensure an open Internet and encourage investment, innovation and collaboration with content providers and others to meet the needs of consumers. Today's filing is the result of a careful review of the FCC's order. 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."
With the rules being fairly weak already (and in fact largely mirroring rules proposed by Verizon and Google), Verizon isn't really concerned with the existing rules as much as they are future FCC's making tougher ones. Consumer Groups like the Media Access Project quickly responded to Verizon's filing, noting in particular that it was a curious legal strategy that tries to bypass the traditional appeals process:
quote:
Under this bizarre legal theory, virtually every FCC decision would wind up in one court. Verizon has made a blatant attempt to locate its challenge in a favorable appeals court forum. The company's theory assumes that all agency actions changing rules are 'modifications' to hundreds of thousands of licenses. This would insure the case remains in the District of Columbia Circuit, and keeps others from seeking review in different courts."
Public Knowledge meanwhile called Verizon's legal approach "too cute":
quote:
We are disappointed that Verizon is trying to play legal games with an issue as important as an open Internet. On one hand, they jumped the gun and filed an appeal in the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. circuit based on the idea that they are a wireless company and that their license is affected by the Net Neutrality rules. The D.C. Circuit is the only court designated to hear license challenges. Normally, license challenges relate to an individual company’s operation, not to a rulemaking that affects everyone. Challenges to rulemakings can be heard in any federal appellate circuit. Verizon also filed a motion to have the same group of judges which decided the Comcast case hear their challenge to the Net Neutrality rules. However, the Comcast case was a cable case – not a wireless case. Verizon can’t have it both ways.
The FCC claims they have the right to promote and protect service competition over networks under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 -- and as expected it appears we'll get to see if the courts agree -- possibly even The Supreme Court.

Most recommended from 31 comments


OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium Member
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

2 recommendations

OwlSaver

Premium Member

It may just be me, but...

Net neutrality seems like the wrong argument to have. I think the right approach is to not allow vertical integration. That is, a company that provides voice, data, or TV service needs to be treated as a common carrier. They must provide the 'dumb pipe' and let others provide the service over that pipe. This will spawn innovation and deliver on the communications promise. As it is, each vendor is spending scarce resources on not being a 'dumb pipe'.

I do not see how Net Neutrality can deliver this. Vertically integrated companies (say Comcast/NBC) can be forced to treat all sources equally. But, they have no incentive to innovate. Just look at the STBs that TV providers produce compared to any other consumer electronic device.
Thatgeekinit
join:2002-05-01
Washington, DC

2 recommendations

Thatgeekinit

Member

Actually the FCC has the weapon!

It's really simple. Rather than bend over backwards trying to give carriers 90% of what they want by avoiding fully using the Communications Act for what it was meant for, just use it fully. Define Verizon and AT&T and Comcast etc as common carriers complete with full regulation and line-sharing requirements for copper, coax, fiber, and wireless!

Its not regulation, its simply the law. The challenges that the FCC keeps losing are because the FCC tries to find a middle way between regulating them as common carriers which the law was written to do and not regulating them at all which is what the monopolists want. The FCC should completely implement the Comm Act and then lets see if the Corporatist DC Circuit Court can try to figure out a way to rule in Verizon/Comcast's favor again given that the FCC took the law exactly as intended and implemented it like they used to do.
Afterall if a baby bell is not a common carrier, then nothing is a common carrier.