New net neutrality rules face first legal battle

Two telecom groups filed petitions against the FCC's 'net neutrality' ruling, setting the tone for telecoms' fight against the decision.

|
Reuters/Yuri Gripas
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler speaks at the FCC Net Neutrality hearing in Washington February 26, 2015.

Spurned telecoms don’t take long to enact their revenge.

Two weeks to be exact.

Telecom trade group USTelecom and Texas-based broadband provider Alamo Broadband separately filed petitions against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Tuesday, each claiming the FCC overstepped its authority by establishing "net neutrality." The response is so quick – the FCC ruling came down just two weeks ago – it may not actually hold up in a legal sense. But the lawsuits do warn of impending legal battles to come over the controversial net neutrality rulings.

USTelecom includes behemoths AT&T and Verizon, while Alamo Broadband covers wireless service in the San Antonio, Texas area. The two groups filed their complaints in different districts, but both had the same basic complaint: the FCC does not have the power to regulate Internet speeds.

"We do not believe the Federal Communications Commission’s move to utility-style regulation invoking Title II authority is legally sustainable," says USTelecom president Walter McCormick in a statement, according to the Washington Post. "Therefore, we are filing a petition to protect our procedural rights in challenging the recently adopted open Internet order.”

In February, the FCC ruled to reinstate net neutrality rules, which essentially protect online companies from having to pay for “Internet fast lanes” by ruling the Internet is a public utility. Before the FCC examined the need for these rules, companies such as Netflix complained telecoms forced them to pay extra for quality streaming. Telecoms on the other hand, say that sites such as these take up more bandwidth, and therefore should pay more. Not to mention, since telecoms laid most of the cable the public uses for Internet today, they have the right to enact tolls to maintain that service. <<>><<>>

Though legal action was readily threatened before the ruling by nearly all major telecoms, few expected the lawsuits to be filed so quickly. The rules aren’t subject to legal action until they have been in the Federal Registrar for 60 days. So far, the rules haven’t even been put in the Federal Registrar.

However, some parts of the ruling are classified as “declaratory rulings” that can be appealed up to 10 days after a decision. The petitions were filed within hours of that deadline, the Washington Post points out.

The FCC called the petitions "premature and subject to dismissal” in a statement. Telecom lawyers don’t anticipate the lawsuits will hold up. Even USTelecom and Alamo Broadband include statements in their petitions that acknowledge the appeals are coming early, but were filed “out of an abundance of caution.”

If nothing else, the petitions foreshadow a determined and powerful telecom lobby won’t go down without a fight.

"These companies have threatened all along to sue over the FCC's decision, even though that decision is supported by millions of people and absolutely essential for our economy," points out Matt Wood, policy director for Free Press in a statement to USA Today. "Apparently some of them couldn't wait to make good on that threat."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to New net neutrality rules face first legal battle
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2015/0324/New-net-neutrality-rules-face-first-legal-battle
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe