Judges Skeptical of FCC's Neutrality Arguments Based on yesterday's oral arguments, things may not be going particularly well for the FCC in their battle versus Verizon over network neutrality rules. Two of the three judges on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel expressed clear skepticism over whether the FCC has the authority to prohibit ISPs from discriminating against websites.

The Judges didn't appear to question whether the FCC had the authority to regulate broadband, seemingly acknowledging the agency has some power to regulate broadband under often ambiguous Congressional rules. Verizon's First Amendment claims also didn't see much traction (Verizon argues that blocking whatever services or websites they see fit is a protected First Amendment right) in court discussions. However, the FCC's 2002 decision to deregulate the industry, and Genachowski's refusal to classify ISPs as common carriers, has left the agency on shaky ground (this is all quite by industry design, as they obviously prefer their regulators to be powerless). Two of the three Judges voiced skepticism that the agency specifically has the authority under our current framework to prevent ISPs from treating websites and service traffic differently. The Communications Act prohibits treating services that are not regulated under Title II as common carriers. After much carrier lobbying, broadband providers were classified as "information services" under Title 1 of the Act. Telephone service is regulated under Title II of the Act, while wireless service is regulated under Title III of the Act as a "radio transmission." At first glimpse it appears that the Judges are ready to throw out most of the rules with the exception of those prohibiting ISPs from blocking websites entirely, something none of them have been stupid enough to do anyway. Things obviously can go any direction from here, depending on how persuasive each Judge can be over the other two. As noted yesterday, healthy competition in the broadband market would effectively make rules unnecessary, since ISPs would be punished by consumers for anti-consumer behavior. Unfortunately, the FCC has repeatedly shown they're completely uninterested in doing anything more than pay lip service to this industry's biggest problem. Should the rules be discarded entirely by the court, it will be up to incoming FCC Boss (and Should the rules be discarded entirely by the court, it will be up to incoming FCC Boss (and thirty-year cable and wireless industry lobbyist ) Tom Wheeler to either stand up to industry and enter what will be an ugly battle to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II, or sit on his hands and just hope everything works out well for U.S. consumers, most of whom live in uncompetitive markets.







News Jump 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 Cogeco Rejects Altice USA's Atlantic Broadband Bid; AT&T Is Astroturfing The FCC In Support Of Trump Attack; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed view:

topics flat nest

fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX fg8578 Member FCC brought this upon themselves Back in the early 2000s, the FCC refused to consider cable modem service a telecom service, simply because the cablecos had never previously offered any telecom service. That was a bogus argument that now comes back to haunt the FCC.



Having classified cable modem as information service, the FCC could hardly continue to call DSL a "telecom" service even though it clearly was. But since DSL was functionally no different than cable modem service (i.e., in the eye of the consumer, both were simply broadband Internet access service), the FCC could not sustain differential treatment for the two services.



Had they not reclassified DSL to be similar to cable modem service, they likely would have been sued into submission by the telcos. So here we are.

elios

join:2005-11-15

Springfield, MO elios Member Re: FCC brought this upon themselves congress should just make a new law that makes ALL ISPs wireless as well common carriers and get rid of this 1 2 3 crap



simple one page

all ISPs are common carriers regardless of what that transport medium is

IowaCowboy

Supermarket Hero

Premium Member

join:2010-10-16

Springfield, MA ARRIS SB6183

Netgear R8000

IowaCowboy Premium Member Re: FCC brought this upon themselves said by elios: simple one page

all ISPs are common carriers regardless of what that transport medium is



Simple one page

Broadband Internet Service Providers shall be considered a public utility and shall be subjected to the public utility consumer protections and answer to state departments of public utilities. No.Simple one pageBroadband Internet Service Providers shall be considered a public utility and shall be subjected to the public utility consumer protections and answer to state departments of public utilities. TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: FCC brought this upon themselves And we all know how well the PUCs work for consumers right?



ISPs should be an information service and just get rid of all the BS. Make them equal and get rid of all the courts with them. The FCC screwed up not the ISPs. jjeffeory

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04

Bullhead City, AZ jjeffeory Member Re: FCC brought this upon themselves ..but ISPs just move bits. They don't provide "information" or "knowledge", they just provide "data". TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: FCC brought this upon themselves But the great FCC ruled them as an Information Service. They may not provide it directly but they move information. But according to the MSOs they only provide you access to their network.

tmh

@verizon.net tmh to elios

Anon to elios

Ever notice that Congress isn't doing anything much besides sitting on their thumbs these days? TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: FCC brought this upon themselves It's not the job of Congress to make sure your Internet works. They have other issues at hand that need to be taken care of- like making sure the gov't doesn't shut down on the 1st.

Amun

@comcast.net Amun Anon Re: FCC brought this upon themselves The job of the congress is to make laws that reflect the will of the people, isn't it? You might think that internet service is a frivolous thing to spend time on now, but a hundred years ago, you probably would have said that about electricity, or public airports, or interstate highways, or a space program. TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: FCC brought this upon themselves The Internet is not required to live. It's a want more than a need. And thus- we do not need the gov't to interfere and change the laws and rules. If you can't live without it then you have some serious issues. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: FCC brought this upon themselves That is not your call.



Congress created the FCC to pass off their responsibilities. They alone can fix this by giving them full authority to do EVERYTHING they need to do to address the industry.



Problem is, they dont want to do that because that would require them to give up control which in turn gives up bribe money. TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband to fg8578

Member to fg8578

Very true! Remember Brand X? axus

join:2001-06-18

Washington, DC axus to fg8578

Member to fg8578

And we have ex-chairman Powell to thank for that, if I remember correctly. His argument was that cable and phone companies would compete with each other. With telcos getting out of the fixed line business, that argument no longer flies, but the rules are already in place. TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: FCC brought this upon themselves they are still in the landline business and even when they're out; someone will be there to pick up the slack to compete. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: FCC brought this upon themselves Right... that is working out so well.

IowaCowboy

Supermarket Hero

Premium Member

join:2010-10-16

Springfield, MA ARRIS SB6183

Netgear R8000

IowaCowboy Premium Member States rights I think regulation of broadband ISPs should be left to local state DPUs. As we've seen time and time again that the federal government is the most incompetent regulator.



My opinion is the company that owns the lines should be restricted to transmission, the ISP side of things should be left to third party companies like it was in the '90s so you would get a bill from two companies, one from your cable company (regulated rate base on rates filed with state DPU) for transmission) and one from the ISP of your choice.



The same model was used to break up the electric industry, by separating generation from transmission but I think it would be much more practical in the ISP business since data is routable, electric is not. TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: States rights And your model has yet to be proven to work for the electric and gas companies. The only thing those companies would have to do is set up another company to be the ISP- the same as power and gas companies do to be "deregulated" and under cut themselves while still making out a killing and laughing at everyone who thinks they're saving money. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: States rights And that is perfectly fine. Let them setup an ISP and compete with other ISP's.



When this little internet thing started that is EXACTLY how it worked when you dialed in. You paid your phone bill which allowed you to use a modem to connect to the ISP of YOUR choice to connect to the internet.



That is exactly how it should be going now. We should have for all practical purposes 1 network that any ISP can get it's consumers from. Being that the only thing you truly need from an ISP is a public IP address it doesn't matter whom it comes from as long as it is routeable on the public internet.



The way it is now, many are lucky to have both cable and telco to pick as the connection. Some very lucky ones even have multiples of those to chose from. So let the states regulate them as the connection with regulated rate charges and then let us subscribe to whom we want for actual internet services whether that be their subsidiary ISP or some other company they are competing with. TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: States rights The thing is - they're not competing at that point. They still have the power to under cut- They have a full network provider behind them giving money.



Deregulation as the power/gas companies doesn't work, and wouldn't work for ISPs.



And you are free to select your ISPs. AT&T allows reselling/wholesaling of U-Verse, TWC, COX, BrightHouse, and all others allow reselling of cable.



It's the fact that everyone wants the gov't to but in and take control when it's not needed. Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks to Skippy25

Member to Skippy25

said by Skippy25: You paid your phone bill which allowed you to use a modem to connect to the ISP of YOUR choice to connect to the internet.



Your choices were limited to those ISPs who had a local access number, unless you intended to pay per minute long distance rates to be online.



Maybe that doesn't mean anything to an urbanite, but out in the sticks we were lucky to have one or two ISPs with a local number. Many locations had no local access number until the end of the 90s. Not exactly.Your choices were limited to those ISPs who had a local access number, unless you intended to pay per minute long distance rates to be online.Maybe that doesn't mean anything to an urbanite, but out in the sticks we were lucky to have one or two ISPs with a local number. Many locations had no local access number until the end of the 90s. TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: States rights Not totally companies such as MCI/UUTNet and others created massive dial-in banks for ISPs to "rent" to those ISPs that wanted local numbers. How do you think AOL became national so quick. Also Juno/NetZero still use those databanks. Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks Member Re: States rights AOL never got a local access number for the town I grew up in. To the best of my knowledge Juno/NetZero still don't have one. We had no toll free online option until a local company got off the ground in 1996. Sidney New York (population 5,700) is not on MCI's radar, not then, nor now. That area is still served by Frontier for dial-up (and DSL) services, but that's it.



Incidentally, back in the day Frontier found a way to bone all the local ISPs when they decided to get into the business. They had been allowing them to use call forwarding to artificially expand their footprints, i.e., you call forward from 607-334 (Norwich) to 607-967 (Bainbridge) where your modems are actually located.



Once Frontier decided to get into the ISP business they filed a rate change request with the PSC, turning this type of call forwarding service into a per-minute charge. Nobody caught it in time, the rate change was approved, and most of the local ISPs were bankrupted in short order. Business is cruel.... TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: States rights If that area was not covered by MCI as a POP then there was more of an issue. As MCI now VZ Business as POPs in villages of maybe 20-100 people. Level3 does as well.



And that issue with Call forwarding was always billed like that in most areas and was billed like that from Ameritech in early 2000s. Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks to IowaCowboy

Member to IowaCowboy

said by IowaCowboy: The same model was used to break up the electric industry, by separating generation from transmission but I think it would be much more practical in the ISP business since data is routable, electric is not.



In theory we can now "choose" our electricity and gas providers, but the choice is meaningless. The price between providers is virtually the same, never more than a few percentage points off, which any economist worth his salt could have told you would have happened, since electricity and gas are commodities.



Transmission rates also went up, because the utilities lost access to the revenue they made from the exportation of excess generation capacity to other locales.



I'd love to go back to the regulated vertical monopoly of yesteryear for my electricity. So would all of the people who got laid off on both ends of the business (transmission and generation) during the shake up. That model has been an unmitigated disaster, here in New York, and in other locales. The locally owned utilities were compelled to sell all of their generating assets, which were all snapped up by out of state interests who proceeded to fire many of the local workers and then jack up the rates, while idling excess capacity to generate an artificial shortage that would justify further rate increases.In theory we can now "choose" our electricity and gas providers, but the choice is meaningless. The price between providers is virtually the same, never more than a few percentage points off, which any economist worth his salt could have told you would have happened, since electricity and gas are commodities.Transmission rates also went up, because the utilities lost access to the revenue they made from the exportation of excess generation capacity to other locales.I'd love to go back to the regulated vertical monopoly of yesteryear for my electricity. So would all of the people who got laid off on both ends of the business (transmission and generation) during the shake up. TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: States rights Same here. First Energy Corp owns countless suppliers plus their massive brands, and everything in between, prices are about the same and any that are less- are all the ones that FE STILL owns. OwlSaver

OwlSaver

Premium Member

join:2005-01-30

Berwyn, PA OwlSaver to Crookshanks

Premium Member to Crookshanks

Just because NY and CA got it wrong does not mean it is a bad idea. Other states have implemented the separation fairly well. As far as I can tell in PA, it is working. I am opposed to vertical integration - either in a monopoly or not. It cuts down choice and creates huge barriers to entry. Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks Member Re: States rights It works in PA? Is that why my per kWh rate in PA was virtually identical to New York? tanzam75

join:2012-07-19 3 edits tanzam75 Member Re: States rights said by Crookshanks: It works in PA? Is that why my per kWh rate in PA was virtually identical to New York?



Edit: New York is not part of the PJM. However, if any power generators are connected to both NY and PA, then they can bid to supply both New York and in Pennsylvania. This would tend to drive prices towards equality -- assuming adequate transmission capacity.



You would expect to see a major divergence in price only if the transmission lines are maxed out. In that case, the power would be "trapped" in the surplus region, which will see lower prices than the deficit region. This tends to happen only a few days each year. It is visible to industrial and institutional customers who pay spot pricing, but not to residential or small-business customers who pay a regulated tariff that averages out the differences.



The other part of your electric bill is the infrastructure charge. That would be the part that would differ, depending on the utility and on the regulators. Pennsylvania is part of the PJM Interconnection. You would expect Pennsylvania pricing to equalize to its neighbors -- assuming adequate transmission capacity.Edit: New York is not part of the PJM. However, if any power generators are connected to both NY and PA, then they can bid to supply both New York and in Pennsylvania. This would tend to drive prices towards equality -- assuming adequate transmission capacity.You would expect to see a major divergence in price only if the transmission lines are maxed out. In that case, the power would be "trapped" in the surplus region, which will see lower prices than the deficit region. This tends to happen only a few days each year. It is visible to industrial and institutional customers who pay spot pricing, but not to residential or small-business customers who pay a regulated tariff that averages out the differences.The other part of your electric bill is the infrastructure charge. That would be the part that would differ, depending on the utility and on the regulators. TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: States rights Actually PJM does NOT manage the auction of First Energy Corp in PA. they set their own pricing with the PUCs. tanzam75

join:2012-07-19 tanzam75 Member Re: States rights If the PUC is still involved in setting the price, then you can't exactly blame deregulation for Pennsylvania power prices ... TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: States rights Actually you can when First Energy Corp OWNS most of PA. First Energy's main and only goal is to return a profit on for their shareholders. www.firstenergycorp.com Look at their map of how large they are in PA. They are the core problem of why dereg on power companies do NOT work. Between them and DOM they control the market. TBBroadband TBBroadband to OwlSaver

Member to OwlSaver

It actually has been proved not to work period. If it worked companies like Dominion and First Energy Corp. would not control the markets as they do.

ieolus

Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19

Danbury, CT ieolus to IowaCowboy

Member to IowaCowboy

That would be ideal. I wish it could happen, and soon.

•••• show 4 replies

linicx

Caveat Emptor

Premium Member

join:2002-12-03

United State linicx Premium Member Every state is different In my state phone, gas and lights are public utilities. Cable and Internet are not, and as such they are not regulated by my state PUC. .



Transmission fees are clearly spelled out on lights, gas, and cable bills. Often the transmission fee is greater than usage.



From my perspective my idea of net neutrality would be a fair rate for all, by region, particularly in areas where fiber is in the office and being used by telco to deliver phone and web services the last mile. I pay three times more than residents in cities 50-miles away for a fraction of the speed. I should not be paying $100/mo for 10/1 anywhere.

••• show 3 replies Rekrul

join:2007-04-21

Milford, CT Rekrul Member Don't worry... The courts will throw out the net neutrality rules, ISPs will start giving preferential treatment to companies that pay. Internet service quality will take a nosedive and the FCC will do absolutely nothing. TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: Don't worry... As they should. There is no threat of any NN issue. It's a cry wolf from bloggers and the "media". It only came of one comment made by former AT&T/SBC CEO. It was blown overboard and still is. Until there is an issue it needs to be put to rest. Rekrul

join:2007-04-21

Milford, CT Rekrul Member Re: Don't worry... said by TBBroadband: As they should. There is no threat of any NN issue. It's a cry wolf from bloggers and the "media". already pay for bandwidth? How about the proposal by some ISPs to make traffic from certain sources, Like NetFlix, exempt from their monthly usage caps if the company and/or subscribers pay extra each month?



None of these sound like net neutrality issues to you?



Arguing that there shouldn't be any net neutrality laws to force ISPs to treat all net traffice equally is like saying that there shouldn't be any law against companies discriminating against employees based on race since most people won't discriminate and if they do, the bad publicity will be enough to shame them into changing their mind.



So how about it? Do you think we should get rid of the laws against racial discrimination and just let public opinion handle such issues? Did you miss the whole "Comcast throttles BitTorrent" incident that lead to the net neutrality debate in the first place? How about the part where all the ISPs say that companies like NetFlix should be paying more for using their network, even though theypay for bandwidth? How about the proposal by some ISPs to make traffic from certain sources, Like NetFlix, exempt from their monthly usage caps if the company and/or subscribers pay extra each month?None of these sound like net neutrality issues to you?Arguing that there shouldn't be any net neutrality laws to force ISPs to treat all net traffice equally is like saying that there shouldn't be any law against companies discriminating against employees based on race since most people won't discriminate and if they do, the bad publicity will be enough to shame them into changing their mind.So how about it? Do you think we should get rid of the laws against racial discrimination and just let public opinion handle such issues? your comment..

