SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday October 15 2018, @05:40PM (1 child)
How about we fix the law instead of redefining words so that the law now means what we want it to?
Defining the words used by the law is an important part of the law itself.
Here's all the definitions. [cornell.edu]
This one sounds an awful lot like the internet to me:
Telecommunications:"the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received."
Telecommunications Service: "the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 15 2018, @08:04PM
Adding to an existing definition is still changing the law without congress getting its constitutionally mandated say in the matter. I don't particularly agree that congress even has the authority to regulate communications in any way but if it's going to be done it needs to be done in the least unethical manner possible, which precludes legislating from the bench.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.