Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Computing
  3. News

Verizon sues FCC over net neutrality regulation it helped draft

Jeffrey Van Camp
By
verizon-wireless-moneybag

Though Verizon practically co-drafted the FCC’s new Net Neutrality regulation, it now plans to sue the agency for overstepping its bounds. The broadband and mobile operator argues that the FCC doesn’t actually have the authority to require Internet service providers to regulate how traffic flows on their networks.

“We are deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself,” said Michael E. Glover, Verizon’s senior vice president and deputy counsel in a press release. “We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.”

Recommended Videos

Humorously, it was Verizon and Google’s net neutrality proposal that appears to have formed the basis for the recently passed FCC regulation. The enacted legislation prohibits Internet service providers (ISPs) from block Websites or competing services. ISPs also cannot speed up or slow down certain types or sources of Internet traffic–in other words, it plans to keep the net neutral. It even treats mobile Internet different from broadband Internet and has several of the loopholes present in the Google/Verizon proposal.

The question is: does the FCC have the authority to regulate the Internet? PC World points out that it does. According to the FCC’s site, it was “established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC’s jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.” There was no Internet in the 1930s, but if there were, it certainly seems like the FCC would have been put in charge. Still, if you don’t want to obey the rules, it never hurts to claim they don’t exist.

Verizon isn’t just rolling the dice either. The company has filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia–the same court that ruled against the FCC in April 2010. In that case, Comcast challenged an FCC ruling that banned it from slowing down or stopping peer-to-peer filesharing traffic on its broadband networks. The court ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to mandate ISPs to treat Internet traffic equally. The FCC refuted this claim and enacted net neutrality regulation anyway.

Editors' Recommendations

Topics
Jeffrey Van Camp
Jeffrey Van Camp
Former Digital Trends Contributor
As DT's Deputy Editor, Jeff helps oversee editorial operations at Digital Trends. Previously, he ran the site's…
Oregon is the latest state to jump on the net neutrality bandwagon
net neutrality rules fraud

Oregon is pushing to become another state enforcing its own protection against internet service providers in the wake of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) discontinuing its net neutrality rules. The state's proposal to create a local net neutrality policy passed the House on Monday, February 26 by a large margin, and now heads to the Senate. 
Similar to what New York state now enforces, Oregon's plan is to block state agencies from conducting business with internet service providers (ISPs) that don't abide by net neutrality principles. Even though the FCC's rules will officially go offline in April, state governments still expect ISPs to abide by those rules and treat all content and connections equally. 
The big fear with the elimination of net neutrality is that unregulated ISPs will prioritize content. For instance, an ISP could offer its own media streaming service and throttle Netflix streaming speeds. In order for Netflix to have the same flow of data, the ISP could charge Netflix additional fees which would trickle down to subscribers. 
While ISPs already provide multiple speed tiers to meet the budgets of all web surfers, blocking and/or prioritizing specific apps and content could lead to dividing the internet into "performance" tiers. Many ISPs already pledge to abide by net neutrality, but so far there is no written guarantee these companies won't backtrack on their promise.  
That is where the states come in. The governors in five states already have net neutrality rules in place including Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont. Eight other states are still working on finalizing their net neutrality rules the old-fashioned way: Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin. 
In most cases, these states aren't regulating internet connections in the home. Instead, they're making sure state-owned agencies and services aren't dealing with mischievous content-throttling ISPs. These include educational institutions, offices spread out across the state, and public internet access. Anyone jumping on the internet from these access points is guaranteed a free and open web. 
The FCC's net neutrality rules officially come to a close on April 23 but ISPs won't be let loose without some sort of a leash. These companies are required to publicly provide their commercial terms of service and must keep the public informed about their network management practices along with performance characteristics. The FCC believes this is a better option than forcing "costly" rules. 
But lawmakers feel that pulling business away from ISPs not honoring net neutrality may be influential but won't change their business practices. Others fear that overreaching state-owned agencies could regulate internet content on their own.  
Oregon's move to force net neutrality follows Washington's recent bill landing a majority approval in the state House on February 9, which is now facing a vote in the Senate. But like all the other states enforcing their own net neutrality rules, Washington could face a legal battle. The FCC clearly stated that it will block any state-enforced ruleset that contradicts what it already has in place. 

Read more
Internet Association pressures Senate to reverse FCC’s net neutrality repeal
net neutrality rules fraud

The Internet Association (IA), an American political lobbying group that includes such internet giants as Facebook, Google, Amazon, and eBay, has continued to pile the pressure on the United States Senate to reverse the FCC's controversial vote on net neutrality repeal, back in December 2017. In an open letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,and Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., the IA argues that a free and open internet is to the benefit of all users, and that the net neutrality rules need to stay in place to combat the ruthless monopoly held by broadband providers in many areas.

"Americans rely on and deserve the lasting certainty of an open internet enshrined in the U.S. Code. Strong net neutrality rules are necessitated by, among other factors, the lack of competition in the broadband service market," said Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the IA. "More than half of all Americans have no choice in their provider, and 87 percent of rural Americans have no choice. The CRA [Congressional Review Act] is an important step in solidifying open internet protections."

Read more
U.S. government will investigate fraudulent net neutrality comments
net neutrality rules fraud

The furor surrounding the net neutrality repeal that took place in December 2017 is continuing to be a strong political punching ground. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) will investigate claims that millions of comments provided to the Federal Communications Commission in support of the repeal were in fact made by bots impersonating real people.

The investigation comes after weeks of pushback against the FCC's ruling, with challenges coming from the attorneys general of multiple states, Firefox creator Mozilla, and the Internet Association. Political strength has also been leveraged in this fight, with many congressional Democrats backing net neutrality regulations, which ensured internet access was treated as a utility and could not be exploited by internet providers. Supporters believe such regulation is needed to ensure a free, open internet for everyone.

Read more