Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

FCC Struggles to Convince Judge That Broadband Isn't “Telecommunications”

posted by Fnord666 on Monday February 04 2019, @11:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the what-is-it-this-week dept.

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

A Federal Communications Commission lawyer faced a skeptical panel of judges today as the FCC defended its repeal of net neutrality rules and deregulation of the broadband industry.

FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson struggled to explain why broadband shouldn't be considered a telecommunications service, and struggled to explain the FCC's failure to protect public safety agencies from Internet providers blocking or slowing down content.

Oral arguments were held today in the case, which is being decided by a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (Audio of the four-hour-plus oral arguments is available here.) Throttling of firefighters' data plans played a major role in today's oral arguments.

[...] The lawsuit seeking to overturn the net neutrality repeal was filed by more than three dozen entities, including state attorneys general, consumer advocacy groups, and tech companies such as Mozilla and Vimeo.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/02/throttling-of-firefighters-hurts-fcc-case-as-it-defends-net-neutrality-repeal/

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
FCC Struggles to Convince Judge That Broadband Isn't “Telecommunications” | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 33 comments | Search Discussion
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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04 2019, @06:24PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04 2019, @06:24PM (#796209)

    This is something the bad boys of the legal industry know very well: If the status quo is good for you but you will eventually lose the case, stall, even if you're doing stuff that is legally absolutely bonkers and often unethical to do so.

    Yes, I can see what you are getting at. Question: How do we stop such unethical behavior? I would really like to see this kind of behavior punished in such a way that future would-be miscreants take note and decide that it is just absolutely a non-starter. Any thoughts?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday February 04 2019, @07:14PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Monday February 04 2019, @07:14PM (#796231)

    Some changes that would make a difference:
    1. Expanding the number of courts and the people (including judges) to staff them. This would enable courts to both handle cases more quickly and give more time and attention to each case, which reduces the advantage to doing this.
    2. More liberal use of what courts sometimes do now, which is known as a "preliminary injunction". That is when the judge gives an order that says "You have to stop doing the thing that the plaintiff says is a problem until we've sorted out the case."
    3. Changes to legal ethical rules that would make frivolous motions and specious arguments grounds for disbarment or other sanctions against the lawyer making them.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.