Experts: Chances Neutrality Case Reaches Supreme Court Very Slim Legal experts say that the chance of the net neutrality court even making it to the Supreme Court are slim to none, and given the current makeup of the court -- an ISP win may be even less likely. Yesterday we noted how AT&T said it would appeal yesterday's landmark court decision that upheld the FCC's net neutrality rules. In a 2-1 vote, the court upheld both the rules, and the FCC's decision to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II, which is good news for an FCC looking to further protect consumers with new broadband privacy rules.

quote: Net neutrality opponents’ chances for reversal would be “much higher if they wait until it’s a nine-member court,” University of Richmond law professor James Gibson said in a telephone interview. Even then, their odds remain long, Boston College law professor Daniel Lyons said separately. “The Supreme Court denies far more cases than it accepts.” If ISPs want to prevail, their best chance for victory consists of an en banc review before a larger appellate court, notes the lawyers: quote: The challengers’ best hope for victory could rest with that interim step, which could delay a high court showdown for years, Gibson said. “Even as a delaying tactic, en banc review would help,” the University of Richmond professor said. Lyons agreed. “I think en banc review is certainly the first step,” the BC law professor said, adding the chance of high court review is so narrow that “it would be silly to forgo any alternative.” Keep in mind that one of the lawyers Bloomberg consulted, Daniel Lyons, can often be found good thing, solely because they forced Netflix to offer tools to manage bandwidth usage), meaning he may be over-stating the chances of an en banc hearing success. But there's certainly no guarantee that route would be successful either, given yesterday's result. Meanwhile, who that ninth Supreme Court Justice is is important as well, something obviously to be determined by the next President.At some point, ISPs have to weigh the benefits of spending millions on striking down rules that simply ask them to behave marginally fairly, against the massive ill will accumulated by giving a giant middle finger repeatedly to the customers they profess to value. But lawyers consulted by Bloomberg note that the Supreme Court rejects far more cases that it accepts. And with Republicans blocking a replacement for Antonin Scalia, the potential for a loss or split on the current 8 member court could be problematic:If ISPs want to prevail, their best chance for victory consists of an en banc review before a larger appellate court, notes the lawyers:Keep in mind that one of the lawyers Bloomberg consulted, Daniel Lyons, can often be found writing puff pieces at the industry's behest (he once tried to claim usage caps were a, solely because they forced Netflix to offer tools to manage bandwidth usage), meaning he may be over-stating the chances of an en banc hearing success. But there's certainly no guarantee that route would be successful either, given yesterday's result. Meanwhile,is important as well, something obviously to be determined by the next President.At some point, ISPs have to weigh the benefits of spending millions on striking down rules that simply ask them to behave marginally fairly, against the massive ill will accumulated by giving a giant middle finger repeatedly to the customers they profess to value.







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

TechyDad

Premium Member

join:2001-07-13

USA TechyDad Premium Member ISP's Next Move While they'll almost certainly try to appeal to the Supreme Court, I think the ISPs' next move is in Congress and in the current Presidential election. They'll try getting legislation passed which strips the FCC of any enforcement ability - so even if Net Neutrality is the law enforcing it would be impossible - and will try to get a President elected who will work to dismantle everything that Wheeler has set up.

Anonaad08

@2607:fcc8.x -14 recommendations Anonaad08 Anon Re: ISP's Next Move It will be Congress and more court. The FCC and the Courts have agreed before under BrandX that the Internet is NOT a communications service and is an information service. If the FCC wants to treat it as a communications service then it needs to be totally treated as one and note a half baked idea. Congress already isn't a fan of Wheeler with him going to them and asking for permission to regulate pricing but claims he wont do it even if given the power. NN also wasn't an issue and never was. It was an issue regarding Settlement Free Peering (and always is when Cogent is involved). If anyone takes the time and reads the "rules" they can see that it was a clear attack against Comcast and was written by and fully for Netflix. Those are the only two names that are mentioned over and over again, countless times. And what's even more entertaining with Netflix, they're against paying for their share of transit in the United States, but in other countries they are perfectly fine with paying to avoid usage allotments. Google and Facebook are the same. Double Standards and that needs to be brought up. Until Netflix and alike can show NN is a real threat and is a such a thing it needs to be killed and Wheeler needs to be tossed out on his ass along with being required to pay for the legal bills he racks up getting the country sued.



If anything Comcast needs to sue the federal government on all cases for it. They singled them out in rules which is flat our wrong. Especially when they allow some other company to draft the rule against them.



And if one want to really test the FCC, providers do NOT sell nor promote, Broadband Access. They sell and market High Speed INTERNET. They also and it is in writing, they do not sell access to the Internet. They sell/lease access to their private Intranet network.

TechyDad

Premium Member

join:2001-07-13

USA 11 recommendations TechyDad Premium Member Re: ISP's Next Move Net Neutrality was an issue because the ISPs MADE it an issue. They were the ones who started saying that Netflix, Google, and others would need to pay the ISPs extra to be guaranteed "fast lane" access and who complained loudly about content providers getting "free acess" to the ISPs' networks - despite the fact that the content providers paid their own ISPs for bandwidth.



Combine this with the fact that most ISPs are monopolies or duopolies in their areas and it's a broken market in which customers can't vote with their wallet. The government needed to step in to set ground rules.



As for not selling "broadband access," that's mere marketing speak. They can't call much of their Internet access "broadband" because that's legally defined as 25 Mbps or higher. If you try to sell 10 Mbps access as "broadband", you can wind up in legal hot water. So, instead, the ISPs bill their internet access as "high speed Internet." That term isn't legally defined so they could sell 1 Mbps access as "high speed" and wouldn't be sued.



As far as ISPs only selling access to "their private Intranet network"... This is complete garbage. Maybe back in the old AOL dial-up days, but not anymore. ISPs sell access to the Internet, not their own walled garden of content. If an ISP tried to tell users that they couldn't get to Netflix, YouTube, Google, etc because those weren't in the ISP's "private Intranet network", the users would cancel their service. (Regardless of whether there was an alternative.) ISPs sell access to the public Internet and customers use this access to reach third party sites and content. shmerl

join:2013-10-21 930.5 953.2

7 recommendations shmerl to Anonaad08

Member to Anonaad08

Internet itself is clearly a communication service. Anything that runs through the Internet (same Netflix for instance) is already information service. If FCC thinks this needs fixing, they should clarify formal definitions.



Comcast (and Co.) can blame themselves for being regulated more now. They shouldn't have been acting as monopolistic jerks. Now they are getting the taste of the medicine that they deserve. Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23

Mineral Wells, TX Cobra11M to Anonaad08

Member to Anonaad08

its funny you don't ever once mention AT&T or Verizon.. those two also contributed to the issue.. they wanted "fast lanes" as you call it and the ability to have companies pay for data (zero access)

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop to TechyDad

Member to TechyDad

Yep, Like I was saying yesterday this is not over..

buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20

Biddeford, ME buzz_4_20 Member If the TPP Passes... If the TPP Passes, they can just sue the government for enacting legislation that hurts their business. SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17

Laramie, WY -20 recommendations SuperWISP Member ISPs can, should, and WILL petition for an en banc rehearing. As usual, Karl maintains his bias against hard working ISPs (including mine, which has been unable to raise outside capital during this proceeding due to the threat of FCC overregulation and micromanagement). The facts: The decision was partisan, flippant and poorly drafted and prevailed only by the vote of one biased judge (an Obama appointee). The dissent was excellent, making the chances of reversal in an en banc rehearing excellent (especially due to the recusal of Merrick Garland, who is biased toward giving power to unelected bureaucrats -- that's why Google pushed the White House to nominate him for SCOTUS).



In short, there is still hope for the Internet. If the decision stands, the Net will be mired in the same red tape that kept the Bell System from innovating for 50 years. You will see no new entrants, little expansion, little investment. Monopolists such as Google and Netflix will foreclose consumer choice and kill innovation and competition in the crib. It would be a bad day for consumers and the Net, so it's a good thing the decision will be reconsidered. shmerl

join:2013-10-21 930.5 953.2

5 recommendations shmerl Member Re: ISPs can, should, and WILL petition for an en banc rehearing. quote: The dissent was excellent You mean dissenting judge thinks that unregulated monopoly is the bright future that will serve the public well, right? Where is this "partisan" idea comes from, that Republicans are anti-free market now? You mean dissenting judge thinks that unregulated monopoly is the bright future that will serve the public well, right? Where is this "partisan" idea comes from, that Republicans are anti-free market now? SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17

Laramie, WY -6 recommendations SuperWISP Member Re: ISPs can, should, and WILL petition for an en banc rehearing. The ultimate irony of the Commissions unreasoned

patchwork is that, refusing to inquire into competitive

conditions, it shunts broadband service onto the legal track

suited to natural monopolies. Because that track provides

little economic space for new firms seeking market entry or

relatively small firms seeking expansion through innovations

in business models or in technology, the Commissions

decision has a decent chance of bringing about the conditions

under which some (but by no means all) of its actions could

be groundedthe prevalence of incurable monopoly.



I would vacate the Order.

The dissenting judge -- who is anything but "mean" -- correctly notes that if the decision stands it will lead to monopoly. He writes: Martijn0

join:2015-06-26

Parrottsville, TN 2 recommendations Martijn0 Member Re: ISPs can, should, and WILL petition for an en banc rehearing. First of all respect for starting up a business to I assume areas without much broadband choices.



Might be missing something, but how does the net neutrality regulation harm the market?



The regulations are the same for all players in this market so they all play by the same rules.



You can offer 1 Mbps or 10Mbps service, with or without cap and the same goes for every other broadband supplier in the US, I don't see how net neutrality regulation would be a negative factor in this.

KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK KrK Premium Member Re: ISPs can, should, and WILL petition for an en banc rehearing. Most likely his business plan involves having a protected market of captive consumers where he is free to charge them whatever he wants. He's just scared of the word "regulation" because if he steps out of line he might face consequences. shmerl

join:2013-10-21 930.5 953.2

4 recommendations shmerl to SuperWISP

Member to SuperWISP

quote: it shunts broadband service onto the legal track

suited to natural monopolies. Indeed, because it is a natural monopoly. It sounds like the judge just discovered this "revelation".



Cost of entry is high not because of FCC, but because it's naturally very hard. That's what natural monopoly is. So dissenting judge would prefer this natural monopoly to remain unregulated, and monopolistic crooks to fleece end users and stagnate progress. That's a "great" idea... Indeed, because it is a natural monopoly. It sounds like the judge just discovered this "revelation".Cost of entry is high not because of FCC, but because it's naturally very hard. That's what natural monopoly is. So dissenting judge would prefer this natural monopoly to remain unregulated, and monopolistic crooks to fleece end users and stagnate progress. That's a "great" idea... Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23

Mineral Wells, TX Cobra11M to SuperWISP

Member to SuperWISP

again as if we didn't have monopolies already.. oh wait we did and still do there will never be a choice even with out net neutrality..

KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2

Zoom 5341J

KrK to SuperWISP

Premium Member to SuperWISP

The FCC tried to force competition. Your heroes quickly stopped that from happening. The FCC needs to actually be stronger and bring the hammer, forcing the Korean system onto the U.S. market. Never going to happen, not with the amount of money our oligopolists pay our corrupt politicians to make sure consumers can't have choices. Chuck_IV

join:2003-11-18

Connecticut 14 recommendations Chuck_IV to SuperWISP

Member to SuperWISP

said by SuperWISP: In short, there is still hope for the Internet. If the decision stands, the Net will be mired in the same red tape that kept the Bell System from innovating for 50 years. You will see no new entrants, little expansion, little investment. Monopolists such as Google and Netflix will foreclose consumer choice and kill innovation and competition in the crib. It would be a bad day for consumers and the Net, so it's a good thing the decision will be reconsidered.



The only new entrants that you see now are from multi-billion dollar companies like Google because they are the only ones that can AFFORD to fight the monopolies and create some type of competition.



As I've said before, competition is good, monopolies are not. An unregulated monopoly is letting the inmates run the asylum. This last paragraph is just laughable because it is EXACTLY what is happening now, without regulation. There is very little to no incentive to expand/enhance their services nor invest in upgrading their network. Since there isn't competition, they just raise rates and reap the rewards. This is the reason we are at this point today.The only new entrants that you see now are from multi-billion dollar companies like Google because they are the only ones that can AFFORD to fight the monopolies and create some type of competition.As I've said before, competition is good, monopolies are not. An unregulated monopoly is letting the inmates run the asylum.

KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK KrK Premium Member Re: ISPs can, should, and WILL petition for an en banc rehearing. They actively block competition. Look what happens every time fed up citizens try to create a muni. Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23

Mineral Wells, TX -1 recommendation Cobra11M to SuperWISP

Member to SuperWISP

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? wow, as if we already weren't having new entrants, little expansion, and little investment before.. oh wait we had all that before net neutrality.. Monopolies in power are those that control the gates (Comcast, att, Verizon, so on so forth)

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

join:2005-12-09

49985 3 recommendations Jim Kirk to SuperWISP

Premium Member to SuperWISP

said by SuperWISP: As usual, Karl maintains his bias against hard working ISPs (including mine, which has been unable to raise outside capital during this proceeding due to the threat of FCC overregulation and micromanagement). The facts: The decision was partisan, flippant and poorly drafted and prevailed only by the vote of one biased judge (an Obama appointee). The dissent was excellent, making the chances of reversal in an en banc rehearing excellent (especially due to the recusal of Merrick Garland, who is biased toward giving power to unelected bureaucrats -- that's why Google pushed the White House to nominate him for SCOTUS).



In short, there is still hope for the Internet. If the decision stands, the Net will be mired in the same red tape that kept the Bell System from innovating for 50 years. You will see no new entrants, little expansion, little investment. Monopolists such as Google and Netflix will foreclose consumer choice and kill innovation and competition in the crib. It would be a bad day for consumers and the Net, so it's a good thing the decision will be reconsidered. Gee, an ISP pissed off about net neutrality. Go figure. I'd wager that your problem getting outside capital has more to do with your business practices than FCC policy. Of course, it's a convenient excuse. ohreally

join:2014-11-21 7 recommendations ohreally to SuperWISP

Member to SuperWISP

said by SuperWISP: that kept the Bell System from innovating



The same Bell System whose R&D department is responsible for countless life-changing innovations? Like the transistor? Or the numerous products that were designed to lower operating cost and increase quality of service? (e.g. electronic/digital switching - though Canada was first with digital).



Not to mention the fact that the Bell System went from nothing at all to connecting almost all of the US in the space of a few decades - so equipment and processes had to be invented from scratch. No innovation, yeah right



If anything, the innovation slowed down and stopped after divestiture



You sound like some pro big telecom shill. Were you trying to charge for Netflix access on your podunk wireless ISP? Are you one of those ones that charges like $100 a month for 1Mbps? w....t....f?The same Bell System whose R&D department is responsible for countless life-changing innovations? Like the transistor? Or the numerous products that were designed to lower operating cost and increase quality of service? (e.g. electronic/digital switching - though Canada was first with digital).Not to mention the fact that the Bell System went from nothing at all to connecting almost all of the US in the space of a few decades - so equipment and processes had to be invented from scratch. No innovation, yeah rightIf anything, the innovation slowed down and stopped after divestitureYou sound like some pro big telecom shill. Were you trying to charge for Netflix access on your podunk wireless ISP? Are you one of those ones that charges like $100 a month for 1Mbps? SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17

Laramie, WY -2 recommendations SuperWISP Member Re: ISPs can, should, and WILL petition for an en banc rehearing. You're the one who's lauding the Bell System. Are you a big telecom shill? You sure sound like one. ohreally

join:2014-11-21 1 recommendation ohreally Member Re: ISPs can, should, and WILL petition for an en banc rehearing. said by SuperWISP: You're the one who's lauding the Bell System. Are you a big telecom shill? You sure sound like one.



I don't even live in the US, so if I'm shilling for anyone it's not Big US Telecom. What I stated was fact - it's undeniable that inventions like the transistor were of monumental significance



But it would seem that you're toeing the party line I appreciate this robust and well written rebuttal.I don't even live in the US, so if I'm shilling for anyone it's not Big US Telecom. What I stated was fact - it's undeniable that inventions like the transistor were of monumental significanceBut it would seem that you're toeing the party line

woody7

Premium Member

join:2000-10-13

Torrance, CA 2 recommendations woody7 to SuperWISP

Premium Member to SuperWISP

you are delusional........................

KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2

Zoom 5341J

KrK to SuperWISP

Premium Member to SuperWISP

Complete nonsense, Mr. "I want a protected market". "Working ISP's" like Comcast and at&t, what a joke. You can't raise capital not because of the FCC's light touch approach but because any investors don't believe your business can survive given the future of total market domination by the MegaCorps. Fact. KrK KrK Premium Member "Current make up of the Court" Court is deadlocked. It's been pro-corporation to a fault with Scalia. Remember the GOP vowed not to seat the moderate Obama proposed and are banking on Trump winning and another Corporate spokesjudge getting on the court. So, that'll change if Trump wins, and at&t knows it.

Anonc3638

@zscaler.com Anonc3638 Anon One presidency away In my lifetime I've experienced one FCC Chairman that actually does his job. Mr. Tom Wheeler. A genuine Consumer Advocate. Seriously, do you know of another in the media spotlight currently?! Any FTC members you'd like to reference? When you have "your" state politicians vying against the only consumer advocate you have in keeping the internet fair/open, tell people. Shine a light on it because the majority out there still don't have a clue what Net Neutrality is and how it affects them. And yes, there is a difference in profit vs. constantly trying to screw your "current" customers/constituents...hard. Lawsuit hard. You know what the FCC has put in place. If you agree with the FCC, are you saying you're cool with your state senator, that you voted for, basically siding with telecom suing the FCC? Blatantly giving you the finger. That's your representation. You good?



Politicians that aren't ignorant of the tech. are purposely corn-holing you because your vote just doesn't mean a thing to the dood. At this point we here on this site know what Net Neutrality means. Your state politician only knows what ATT, Verizon, etc. has told them is the truth. And they don't give a shit one way or the other who or how it affects you. Basically because he's troglodyte. Is that too condescending? Ask a politician what a byte is, much less a nibble. Ask him to define basic IT terms. This guy cares about how he's flying into your town next campaign season. First class or peasant. So, unless you represent a substantial group, Big biz is his constituency. But as long as he can fool your ass into thinking that he represents you That IS the job description today. That is the ART. I believe that things would be much better if people actually knew this to be true instead of being smitten by a hand shake and faux news.



Personally, I hold a grudge over all these players. I will not buy their products or services. Not even if it were half the price as the others. They are literally destroying our futures. It may not be the intent but the direct result is just that. All these telecom corps should realize that this younger generation is pissed. The telecomm industry is relentlessly screwing the public. They know that the FCC is doing the right thing and they say to YOU, "Screw national opinion, mo money bitches. It's the American way. Caps for all cuz we don't have an innovative thought in our collective heads. Fast lanes cuz we can make a shit ton and blame it on congestion. And don't touch our STB cuz well, we don't innovate here and we don't need you lookin at the code that sends all your viewing habits to google and our other, ahem...partners. Do you know we get mega bucks knowing that you buy tampax. But oops, sry, your modem just went up $3/mo. BCBS are a little concerned with your child having cancer. It's cool though, they're a partner. Calm down. It's all legal. They'll be monitoring your web surfing closer now that you have that smart tv. The API needs work but we're getting there."



I'm in the market to buy a new house. Comcast, ATT and Verizon may be in the neighborhood where I plan to buy but they will never receive money from me. If they are the only choice in a particular neighborhood I will not buy. If money and the stock price is your only metric, you will fail. I'll do my part to make sure it happens and I'll preach it loudly till I start seeing a nationwide carpet bagger conversion. These telecom corps are screwing with an ever-growing portion of the American dream and we are one president away from 1984. Do you doubt it? SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17

Laramie, WY -2 recommendations SuperWISP Member As usual, the hateful anti-ISP trolls come out. Never mind that our customers love us or that we work our butts off for razor thin margins. Guess that's what we can expect from a Web site that receives most of its revenue from Google advertising. your comment..

