ISPs Will Try En Banc Route to Try And Kill Net Neutrality Back in June the FCC defeated the broadband industry's legal assault against net neutrality rules. The landmark victory upheld not only the agency's net neutrality rules, but Tom Wheeler's decision to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Ever since, ISPs have prompted loyal politicians to hold a series of show pony hearings intended to scold the agency for standing up to large ISPs, while also trying to kill FCC funding and authority using sneaky budget bill riders.

quote: The industry's latest attack on the net-neutrality rules is not technically an appeal. Instead, it is a request for the case to be argued again before all of the court's judges. Legal analysts on either side of the issue say the attempt is a long shot, one that may be more about trying to create the impression of uncertainty as the FCC attempts to put its rules into practice. AT&T has promised a But now these ISPs are headed back to court once again to try and challenge the rules. Or so they hope. The wireless industry's policy and lobbying group, the CTIA, is leaking word to several news outlets that the group will request an en banc review from the full 9-member DC Circuit Court of Appeals. They will also be likely joined by AT&T, even though most telecom legal experts expect the attempt to go nowhere:AT&T has promised a Supreme Court appeal of the ruling, though telecom policy wonks argue that avenue is even less likely to see success, because the FCC's legal victory was fairly comprehensive, and the Supreme Court simply doesn't hear all that many cases. ISPs aren't willing to let the issue rest in large part because the FCC intends to take its restored authority under Title II to craft new broadband consumer privacy protections . That upsets AT&T, Verizon and Comcast -- all of which are expending (at various speeds) more deeply into Internet media and advertising.







News Jump Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 15 comments



Simba7

I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24

Fromberg, MT 28 recommendations Simba7 Member Waste You think with all that wasted time and money they could..



..actually improve their customer service and services? shmerl

join:2013-10-21 16 recommendations shmerl Member These crooks have money on lawyers but they can't spend any money on upgrading their networks.

TIGERON

join:2008-03-11

Boston, MA 12 recommendations TIGERON Member One thing I hope Is that data caps on fixed last mile wireline is put up for debate by the FCC-the public which overwhelmingly HATES caps-needs to get on board to have this form of extortion eliminated.

Anon2a894

@teksavvy.com 4 recommendations Anon2a894 Anon Don't see this going anywhere More of a PR salvo than anything. Judges normally as a rule do not overturn other judges, unless there are obvious flaws in the judgements given. And I don't think they can overturn the other ruling anyway. More likely make a statement of opinion, that gets ignored.



I think this was done for the shareholders, to make it look like they are attempting to do all they can to overturn a ruling that is so pro-consumer and anti-corporate. If they don't shareholders start demanding boardroom heads on the chopping block. So ultimately it's designed to protect some suit from losing his incredibly overpaid entitlement. Costs them nothing to 'leak' this. Even if they never act on it. Pretty basic from companies that don't spend money if they don't have to.