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: 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.