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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @11:59AM (11 children)
Since ALL phone traffic ends up being data at some point ( even if you dont have a VoIP endpoint like many of us do ) that means it is all telecommunications too.
Actually, it has been for a long while now.
But, its 2018, time for a legal redefinition of what the term 'telecommunications' means.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 14 2018, @03:33PM (8 children)
How about we fix the law instead of redefining words so that the law now means what we want it to?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DrkShadow on Sunday October 14 2018, @07:10PM (5 children)
-- because words change meanings with time.
Are you suggesting that using a data-backed thing to communicate via voice and image with a family member is not communications?
How about requesting data from a plethora of different servers to render you images?
If you call a librarian and ask for some information, and they provide it over the phone, is this a data service or a communication service?
The words all mean the same thing. The transport medium scarcely matters. Only if you're batch-processing huge amounts of information, perhaps, is it "data service" -- such as Walmart transferring databases between datacenters. Still, Netflix transferring 4GB to your TV is much more of a communication service, right?
The meanings of words change. Further, the meanings of words are not absolute, they're relative to whatever need the person had when they were created, and then they're slotted into a legal program for which they were never created. (Then that legal program also defines the term. How is "telecommunication" defined in the legal program/document in which it's being used?)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 15 2018, @12:03AM (4 children)
Mostly I'm suggesting that you redefining a word so that a law means what you want it to mean is some extremely unethical bullshit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Monday October 15 2018, @03:07PM (3 children)
Or it's more ethical by making the law actually reflect reality. Depends how it's done. The definition of the word as it is used in that law is probably also part of the law. Most laws contain a glossary of terms -- any ambiguity in the definition means ambiguity in the law, so lawyers usually like to clear that up by providing their own legally precise definition. If the definition given in the law begins to drift from the common usage (ie, if the definition in law actually states that internet is not telecommunications) then the law should be fixed by correcting that definition.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 15 2018, @03:20PM (2 children)
No, it's not ethical to bypass congress's constitutionally granted exclusive authority. Not ever. Not for any reason.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday October 15 2018, @03:55PM (1 child)
The only way to change the definition is to have Congress amend the law. Changing the definition does not mean bypassing Congress' authority.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 15 2018, @04:34PM
FTFY. That's specifically my beef; courts and executive institutions going ahead and doing it anyway.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @03:37PM (1 child)
But then that means involving the congress critters, of which there are likely only one or two out of 535 total (house + senate) who even have an understanding of broadband beyond this: "it is this magical pipe that brings these sweet things named bits to my computer".
The result being that whatever definition of "telecom" resulted from those incompetents working on it would likely either resemble a definition created by a committee of inebriated fools, or would so clearly be a carefully crated paragraph direct from Pai's masters that contains enough Swiss cheese holes that nothing, not even POTS copper, could be considered telecom. services anymore.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday October 14 2018, @08:32PM
"But then that means involving the congress critters, of which there are likely only one or two out of 535 total (house + senate) who even have an understanding of broadband beyond this: "it is this magical pipe that brings these sweet things named bits to my computer". "
That seems a tad optimistic...
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.