A panel of federal judges on Friday grilled lawyers for the Federal Communications Commission over the implications of the agency's decision to repeal its net neutrality rules in 2017.
The judges had pointed questions for both net neutrality supporters and the FCC, and it's unclear how the three-judge panel might rule.
At least two of the judges seemed concerned about the repeal's effect on public safety and how the industry might behave in the absence of FCC oversight.
ADVERTISEMENT. The legal battle centers in part on questions of whether the FCC overstepped its authority in reclassifying internet service providers and in preempting states from substituting their own net neutrality rules, and whether it followed administrative procedure law in carrying out the order.
FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson told the court that the commission believed the regulations had a "Chilling effect" on the industry's ability to innovate and invest in expanding access to broadband to underserved areas.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has already affirmed the FCC's authority to classify broadband as a Title I information service, and after today's argument we continue to believe that the judiciary will uphold the FCC's decision to return to that regulatory framework under which the Internet flourished prior to 2015 and is continuing to thrive today," Matthew Berry, chief of staff for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, said in a statement.
The case is only the latest high-profile legal fight over net neutrality and could reach the Supreme Court.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/428119-judges-grill-fcc-lawyers-over-net-neutrality-repeal
The Internet is "The greatest free-market success story in history," Pai wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Tuesday.
Proponents of the 2015 regulations say Pai is merely clearing the way for Internet service companies to charge users more to see certain content and to curb access to some websites-a "Fast lane" and "Slow lane" for the Internet.
Rescinding the 2015 regulations makes it possible for telecom companies to force consumer Internet companies to pay for faster connections, they argue-something only the largest companies could afford.
"We are disappointed that the proposal announced today by the FCC fails to maintain the strong net neutrality protections that will ensure the Internet remains open for everyone," Facebook said in a statement this week following the release of Pai's plan.
"In fact not we nor any other ISP are asking them to kill the open Internet rules. All they're doing is looking to put the open Internet rules in an enforceable way on a different legal footing."
Should the FCC regulate broadband Internet, or leave market players to do it? Are existing common carrier provisions the best way forward, or is new and different regulation the answer? It's as political a battle as it gets.
http://fortune.com/2017/11/23/net-neutrality-explained-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters/
The judges had pointed questions for both net neutrality supporters and the FCC, and it's unclear how the three-judge panel might rule.
At least two of the judges seemed concerned about the repeal's effect on public safety and how the industry might behave in the absence of FCC oversight.
ADVERTISEMENT. The legal battle centers in part on questions of whether the FCC overstepped its authority in reclassifying internet service providers and in preempting states from substituting their own net neutrality rules, and whether it followed administrative procedure law in carrying out the order.
FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson told the court that the commission believed the regulations had a "Chilling effect" on the industry's ability to innovate and invest in expanding access to broadband to underserved areas.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has already affirmed the FCC's authority to classify broadband as a Title I information service, and after today's argument we continue to believe that the judiciary will uphold the FCC's decision to return to that regulatory framework under which the Internet flourished prior to 2015 and is continuing to thrive today," Matthew Berry, chief of staff for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, said in a statement.
The case is only the latest high-profile legal fight over net neutrality and could reach the Supreme Court.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/428119-judges-grill-fcc-lawyers-over-net-neutrality-repeal
Net Neutrality Explained: Its Meaning
The regulations classify broadband access as a telecommunications service, which subjects it to "Common carrier" provisions that bar Internet service providers from discriminating against how broadband is used.The Internet is "The greatest free-market success story in history," Pai wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Tuesday.
Proponents of the 2015 regulations say Pai is merely clearing the way for Internet service companies to charge users more to see certain content and to curb access to some websites-a "Fast lane" and "Slow lane" for the Internet.
Rescinding the 2015 regulations makes it possible for telecom companies to force consumer Internet companies to pay for faster connections, they argue-something only the largest companies could afford.
"We are disappointed that the proposal announced today by the FCC fails to maintain the strong net neutrality protections that will ensure the Internet remains open for everyone," Facebook said in a statement this week following the release of Pai's plan.
"In fact not we nor any other ISP are asking them to kill the open Internet rules. All they're doing is looking to put the open Internet rules in an enforceable way on a different legal footing."
Should the FCC regulate broadband Internet, or leave market players to do it? Are existing common carrier provisions the best way forward, or is new and different regulation the answer? It's as political a battle as it gets.
http://fortune.com/2017/11/23/net-neutrality-explained-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters/
No comments:
Post a Comment