iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Verizon Challenges FCC's Net Neutrality Rules

JOELLE TESSLER   01/20/11 06:58 PM ET   AP

Verizon Challenges Fcc

WASHINGTON — Verizon Communications Inc. on Thursday filed a legal challenge to new federal regulations that prohibit broadband providers from interfering with Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

In a filing in federal appeals court in the District of Columbia, Verizon argues that the Federal Communications Commission overstepped its authority in adopting the new "network neutrality" rules last month.

The rules prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services – including online calling services such as Skype and Internet video services such as Netflix, which in many cases compete with services sold by companies like Verizon.

The FCC's three Democrats voted to adopt the rules over the opposition of the agency's two Republicans just before Christmas. Republicans in Congress, who now control the House, have vowed to try to block the rules from taking effect. They argue that they amount to unnecessary regulation that will discourage phone and cable companies from investing in their networks.

Several key House Republicans, including House Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton of Michigan, welcomed Verizon's actions Thursday as "a check on an FCC that is acting beyond the authority granted to it by Congress." The court challenge had been widely expected.

In a statement, Verizon said that while it is "committed to preserving an open Internet," it remains "deeply concerned by the FCC's assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself."

The company is taking the case to the same federal court that ruled last year that the FCC had exceeded its legal authority in sanctioning cable giant Comcast Corp. The agency had cited Comcast for discriminating against online file-sharing traffic on its network – violating broad net neutrality principles first established by the agency in 2005. Those principles served as a foundation for the formal rules adopted by the commission last month.

Last year's court ruling forced the FCC to look for a new framework for regulating broadband to ensure the commission would be on solid legal ground in adopting net neutrality and other rules. The agency currently treats broadband as a lightly regulated "information service," as opposed to phone service, which is more heavily regulated as a so-called "common carrier."

At one point, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed redefining broadband as a telecommunications service subject to common carrier obligations to treat all traffic equally. But he later backed down in the face of fierce opposition from the phone and cable companies, as well as many Congressional Republicans.

And he now argues that the agency has ample authority to mandate net neutrality under the existing regulatory framework for broadband – an assumption that will be tested in the Verizon challenge.

A senior FCC official said Thursday that the agency is confident that its new net neutrality rules are legally sound and is prepared to defend them.

The rules represented an attempt to craft a compromise on an issue that has divided the telecommunications and technology industries. On one side, Internet companies such as Skype, as well as public interest groups, argue that strong rules are needed to prevent broadband providers from becoming online gatekeepers that can dictate where people go and what they do online.

But the big phone and cable companies insist that they need flexibility to manage Internet traffic to keep their networks running smoothly and preventing bandwidth-hogging applications from slowing down their systems. They also maintain that they should be able to charge extra for special services over their broadband lines and earn a healthy return on the billions of dollars they have spent on network upgrades.

New York-based Verizon is the country's fourth-largest fixed-line Internet service provider, with 8.3 million subscribers. It's investing more in home broadband than any other company, since it's upgrading about two-thirds of its local-phone network with optical fiber for ultra-fast Internet access.

The regulations adopted last month try to find a middle ground. The rules require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content, applications and services over their wired networks. But they give providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with network congestion and unwanted traffic, including spam, as long as they publicly disclose how they manage the network.

The new rules do prohibit unreasonable network discrimination – a category that would likely include "paid prioritization," which favors the broadband providers' own traffic or the traffic of business partners that can pay extra – but they do not explicitly bar the practice.

The regulations also prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing services such as Internet calling applications on mobile devices, and they require carriers to disclose their network management practices, too. But they give wireless companies more flexibility to manage data traffic because wireless systems have less network bandwidth and can become overwhelmed with traffic more easily than wired lines.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

WASHINGTON — Verizon Communications Inc. on Thursday filed a legal challenge to new federal regulations that prohibit broadband providers from interfering with Internet traffic flowing over thei...
WASHINGTON — Verizon Communications Inc. on Thursday filed a legal challenge to new federal regulations that prohibit broadband providers from interfering with Internet traffic flowing over thei...
Filed by Catharine Smith  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 175
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
04:18 PM on 01/23/2011
Cripes ANOTHER out of control, corrupt, unaccountable communications monopoly that's trying to control information. Another proud day for Gooper America.
photo
toxicshock
Sassy, snarky, smart
10:41 AM on 01/23/2011
I just want to be able to access any website that I want without hassle (aka how the internet is now). Period. I don't want to change my carrier just because my current carrier has decided to block craigslist.

Plus, there are many carriers who charge a penalty for breaking contract early. That's not something everyone is reasonably able to afford. What if Verizon offered 4 websites that AT&T does not, but the 10 sites I frequent are only offered through AT&T?

It's just far too complex, unnecessary, and can spiral into a slippery slope. Leave the internet alone! That's what makes it great.
11:12 PM on 01/22/2011
Boycott Verizon for fighting against Net Neutrality by supporting the petition at the following page.

http://www.boycottowl.com/Verizon+Wireless/297

Verizon has filed a suit against the Net Neutrality rule by FCC. Net Neutrality Law requires that landline internet providers should not to discriminate the content based upon the origin. As per Net Neutrality rules, customer has the right to browse, read, listen and watch whatever he or she wants without hindrance from the phone companies.

Boycott Verizon for fighting Net Neutrality which has been the corner stone of internet ever since it's invention. Net neutrality gives the choice to see what they want on the internet to the customers so that phone companies do not restrict access to any particular web site.

T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T and other phone companies follow and support Net Neutrality for landlines.
Verizon is not the only game in town! Protect your rights and freedom to browse what you want.
Without Net Neutrality, phone companies can essentially block or slow contents, and customers will lose their choices and the internet, as we know it, will end for all.

Boycott Verizon and switch over to Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T or other companies which support Net Neutrality until Verizon changes its policies and withdraw the case against Net Neutrality.

Verizon should withdraw their case against Net Neutrality Rule and support Net Neutrality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oftenon
cartoons are the best explanation
05:46 PM on 01/22/2011
Verizon's "commitment to an open internet" expressed itself years ago when its corporate might squashed several municipal initiatives for citywide free WiFi zones.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hopeforchangenow
03:11 PM on 01/22/2011
Cancel your Verizon account and go with Credo.
08:56 PM on 01/22/2011
FANNED!
photo
spytheweb
Black Democrat
03:01 PM on 01/22/2011
"Verizon turned over data on customers at the request of the government 720 times without court orders or warrants in the past two years, the company admitted yesterday.
When court orders were provided, the company turned over customer data 94,000 times between January 2005 and September 2007."

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/10/verizon_surveillance.html
08:56 PM on 01/22/2011
Thanks for the info.
10:26 AM on 01/22/2011
Well, you know since corporations "...are people too..." (thanks SCOTUS... : / ) they should be allowed to grow into obesity like all the rest of the fine Americans you see on "Hoarders."

We need an American Zaibatsu to run our lives anyway...
photo
thinkb4uleapII
My micro-bio is no longer empty.
03:25 PM on 01/21/2011
Republicans seem to always be on the "wrong side" of progressive legislation, no matter how weak. Can they not see that Verizon and Comcast have inherent conflict of interest in serving as both content and broadband providers?
03:53 PM on 01/21/2011
Verizon and comcast have a reasonable expectation of profits. It is like the hot dog vendor on the street who argues that people have the right to park in the parking lot of the established restaurant's private parking lot without compensation. Of course YOU don't own that restaurant so what do you care? You think that government owns all money and you just let us keep a little of it. You think that you can spend our money as you wish. I'll bet you don't even pay any taxes except maybe for payroll taxes. Well "thinkingstupid", I own stock in that company, and you don't have the right to tell me that I have to let the street vendors park in my personal parking lot. You may think that you do, but the courts will decide otherwise. The TEA party ain't going anywhere but up.
05:37 PM on 01/21/2011
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't my paying for Verizon or Comcast the equivalent of parking in the restaurant parking lot? So they can dictate what's on your menu? Your logic escapes me. Because you own stock in the company means you are OK with them potentially limiting your access? This is OK with you, as long as your making a profit? You will sacrifice access for dollars. I'm sure the Tea Party is on the way up, if there's money in it.
photo
thinkb4uleapII
My micro-bio is no longer empty.
05:54 PM on 01/21/2011
A reasonable expectation of profits is one thing, a federally backed guarantee of those profits is another. These companies should be like any other -- succeed or fail based on their marketplace value. By seeking to stifle competition, Verizon and Comcast are acting like the quasi-monopolies they are. FCC rules are in place to ensure a fair playing field in this important market and ensure the public's access to the internet is not governed by a few, primarily to benefit a few financially.

You may argue that Verizon, Comcast, et al. have the right to manage their networks as they see fit. I agree to the extent that they are not afforded privileges that ensure other competitors or would be providers are not. Personally, I would like to see the FCC grant Internet provider distribution rights to a wider array of companies -- like AOL before them, Verizon and Comcast would have to modify their practices or risk, like AOL, going the way of the dinosaur.

BTW, Verizon does not own the internet, they are simply access providers.
11:35 PM on 01/21/2011
"Progressive" is one of the words that sends many people running 180 degrees from the person who uses/used it. I'm one of them. "Fair,"in the public interest,"market neutral" -- I can think of perhaps a handful more.I signed several petitions and wrote my senators and congressman urging them to support net neutrality. But that word "progressive" is a real turn-off.

If you have never done so or have not recently read "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass," I urge to do so. For one thing they are most enjoyable books for adults; for another I can't for the life of me remember in which is the telling conversation between Alice and Humpty Dumpty. That's the episode I truly want you to read. Perhaps after having read it, you'll think twice about the word "progressive."
photo
thinkb4uleapII
My micro-bio is no longer empty.
12:10 AM on 01/22/2011
I'm sorry my use of the word progressive sent you into such a tailspin -- perhaps (very likely), you misunderstood my simple use of the term. Instead of reading "Alice in Wonderland", you may be better served reading this book: http://amzn.to/gw6pAj.
09:01 PM on 01/22/2011
Alice meets Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass"
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pepimartinez
02:38 PM on 01/21/2011
This is why we need regulation. Soon, we will be telling our children what the internet "used to be like", when you could go anywhere you wanted and didn't need one service or another to get to specific sites.

Lets just hope those in this world that produced things like Napster and BitTorrents are a step ahead of these mega corporations, and their anti-Net Neutrality stance
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
mrk65
wah, wah, wah...
03:18 PM on 01/21/2011
I agree, pepi. In addition, I won't be purchasing any Verizon products.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pepimartinez
05:08 PM on 01/21/2011
Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is, not many (if any) major providers will be in favor of equal access because theres to much money to be made.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IndependentMeans
Some people are wise, and some are otherwise.
11:12 PM on 01/21/2011
F/F
02:36 PM on 01/21/2011
You can look at regulation two ways. Regulation for the people, and regulation for companies.

Sometimes lack of regulation is in fact, regulation. The government represents the people (well its supposed to). In a situation like this where a corporation can regulate free speech and freedom of press and anything else it wants to for financial gain, then lack of regulation actually creates negative regulation on Americans.

To think that a corporation has our best interests at heart, over profit, exposure, next bonus, making a name for themselves, etc., is just retarded. When a company gets to a certain size, and is actually a monopoly in a lot of areas, it needs to be regulated so it cannot regulate us. Regulation by competition only works when there is actual competition.

Now that is pretty much the same with government, even the democrats, but I trust them more than the corporations to have at least a little bit of my best interest at heart.

This does show who is on who's side here. Regulating small business into the ground is not good for America, and yet LACK of regulation allows HUGE outsourcing companies to over power and easily overthrow small businesses. So lack of regulation actually allows corporations to regulate us right out of a choice of provider, or carrier, or service, or product.

F%&# Verizon.
03:57 PM on 01/21/2011
Just so long as YOU don't have to pay for any of it. Right?
04:07 PM on 01/21/2011
If the big out sourcing corporations were not putting smaller businesses out of business then raising taxes, which I am for, would not matter because more people would have jobs.

I assume that is what you meant by your vague and uninformed response?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nobody78
A little left of Center
10:47 PM on 01/21/2011
No one is asking for anything for free, we all pay for internet and we expect that we don't have content blocked. Go back to your tea party rally.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oftenon
cartoons are the best explanation
06:08 PM on 01/22/2011
Fanned.
photo
Sacchinftw
Isn't it sad...?
02:33 PM on 01/21/2011
Look on the bright side, it's not Comcast this time...
03:09 PM on 01/21/2011
Can bet they're not far behind though.
photo
spytheweb
Black Democrat
02:02 PM on 01/21/2011
They want to control the internet and charge you by the hour and you'll have to buy their computers to use their ISP with a 2 year contract just like cell phones.
02:00 PM on 01/21/2011
Damn! I was going to get a Verizon iPhone today because I'm sick of the terrible coverage I get with AT&T. But I can't give my money to a company fighting against net neutrality. The way things are going, I'm going to have to move to a tiny island and live off the land. These corporate folks are ruining our country.
11:51 PM on 01/21/2011
Try Consumer Cellular. I can't say whether they carry the particular model phone your are looking for. But I can tell you that (1) you do not have to commit to two years service (2) you may change your plan at any time to take advantage of a cheaper rate if you talk more than your then current plan (3) they are cheap and consumer friendly.

Downside: No free weekend or after 9 p.m. free calls. Time not used one month cannot be saved for use in the following month(s).

But when it costs so little to start with, I don't mind paying for weekend and evening calls. There are always trade-offs, but I think Consumer Cellular is a winner.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Silverwolf72
Are We There Yet?
01:58 PM on 01/21/2011
Data plan are now the new America Online
Were they give you their version of the internet
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
objectivist510
Atheists Against Altruism
01:54 PM on 01/21/2011
They will succeed.