Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Sunday October 14 2018, @10:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the ♫♪I-want-my-FTC♪♫ dept.

FCC Tells Court it has no "Legal Authority" to Impose Net Neutrality Rules:

FCC defends repeal in court, claims broadband isn't "telecommunications."

The Federal Communications Commission opened its defense of its net neutrality repeal yesterday, telling a court that it has no authority to keep the net neutrality rules in place.

Chairman Ajit Pai's FCC argued that broadband is not a "telecommunications service" as defined in federal law, and therefore it must be classified as an information service instead. As an information service, broadband cannot be subject to common carrier regulations such as net neutrality rules, Pai's FCC said. The FCC is only allowed to impose common carrier regulations on telecommunications services.

"Given these classification decisions, the Commission determined that the Communications Act does not endow it with legal authority to retain the former conduct rules," the FCC said in a summary of its defense [pdf] filed yesterday in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The FCC is defending the net neutrality repeal against a lawsuit filed by more than 20 state attorneys general, consumer advocacy groups, and tech companies. The FCC's opponents in the case will file reply briefs next month, and oral arguments are scheduled for February.

Then why not let the states implement it?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday October 15 2018, @06:44AM (1 child)

    by deimtee (3272) on Monday October 15 2018, @06:44AM (#748858) Journal

    I quite admire the US constitution, and I think you are misreading it.

    ...
    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
    ...
    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
    ...

    When they meant exclusive power, they said so. In other cases, constitutional Federal law trumps State law, but only if they actually pass them.
    If Idjit Pai revokes the Federal regulations by disclaiming the power to pass them, the states are free to pass their own.

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 15 2018, @02:48PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday October 15 2018, @02:48PM (#749066) Homepage Journal

    Good luck with that argument. It hasn't held up thus far. Mind you, I'm not saying what's right or wrong in interpreting the constitution, just what is going to happen.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.