Verizon's Anti-Net Neutrality Lawsuit Dismissed By Court

WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court has dismissed two legal challenges to new Federal Communications Commission regulations that prohibit phone and cable companies from interfering with Internet traffic on their broadband networks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Monday dismissed lawsuits filed by Verizon Communications Inc. and MetroPCS Communications Inc. on technical grounds. The court said the companies filed their challenges prematurely since the rules have not yet been published in the federal register.

The new "network neutrality" regulations bar broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services, including online calling and Web video services that could compete with their core phone and cable operations. The FCC's three Democrats voted to adopt the regulations late last year over the objection of the agency's two Republican members.

FCC spokesman Rob Kenny defended the new FCC policy, saying it "preserves Internet freedom and openness." Edward McFadden, a Verizon spokesman, said the company plans to refile its appeal as soon as the rules are published in the federal register. MetroPCS had no comment.

The companies are suing the FCC in the same court that ruled last year that the agency had exceeded its legal authority in sanctioning cable giant Comcast Corp. for discriminating against online file-sharing traffic on its broadband network.

Congressional Republicans also are seeking to repeal the new FCC rules and are planning a House floor vote later this week on a measure to overturn them. Republicans argue that the rules will discourage phone and cable companies from investing in costly network upgrades by barring them from offering premium services over their lines or prioritizing traffic from business partners in order to earn a return on those investments. They also maintain that the FCC overstepped its authority in adopting the rules.

In a statement released late Monday, the White House said it is strongly opposed to the Republican bill and suggested that the measure will likely face a veto if it reaches the President's desk. Overturning the FCC's net neutrality rules, would "raise questions as to whether innovation on the Internet will be allowed to flourish, consumers will be protected from abuses, and the democratic spirit of the Internet will remain intact," the Obama Administration said in a statement.

House Republicans already have attached an amendment to a sweeping spending bill that would bar the FCC from using government money to implement the new rules.

Comments

[Anonymous17]

11:06 PM on 04/05/2011

Trust the Republicans to try and limit access to the greatest store of information in the world

[fozzi58]

03:48 PM on 04/05/2011

"Republicans argue that the rules will discourage phone and cable companies from investing in costly network upgrades by barring them from offering premium services over their lines or prioritizing traffic from business partners in order to earn a return on those investments"

Of course! Why in the world would we want to protect the citizens of the nation form big powerful corporations that fund you campaigns from turning the American Internet Backbone into a corportized profit machine that may allow some middle classers to find a niche and make money.

*sigh*

Sometimes I wonder why the general American Public (mostly GOPers and TeaBaggers) are so against regulation.

[Kathryn Teall]

01:36 PM on 04/05/2011

I READ AN FOUND ABOOK CALLED FREE LUNCH THAT LAY'S OPEN THE WHOLE THING... NOW REALLY DON'T THE RICH THINK OF NOTHING BUT THERE SELVES? WELL I THINK YOU SHOULD CHECK OUT US UNCUT..... IT'S STUPID TO KEEP GIVING TO THE RICH FOR WHAT JOBS ????? LOW PAYING JOBS STAND-UP AND FIGHT BACK TAX THE RICH AND CLOSE LOOPHOLES FOR A START THEN CUT THERE BENEFITS IN CONGRESS CHOP AT THE TOP .......US UNCUT

[fozzi58]

03:44 PM on 04/05/2011

WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT US????

[Floyd Stephens]

11:19 AM on 04/05/2011

Everything boils down to money. Officials make these rules. This generates income for attorneys to take them to court and income for the court systems. It also generates good vibes to the advertisers of those who are fighting the rules ,'for the advertisers sake'. Down the pike somewhere income will be generated by under the table pay offs for some of these officials to get the rules relaxed. And ultimately it will generate income as the communications companies create new fees and raise the price of old fees. Good for the economy? Some would say so. What do you think?

[fozzi58]

03:49 PM on 04/05/2011

I think we need the EU model on the internet backbone (and cell phone system) implemented here.

[fozzi58]

03:49 PM on 04/05/2011

Good post for a 1st.

f&f

[Michael Capanelli]

10:35 AM on 04/05/2011

What bugs me most about this is that it seems people whom never had a problem in the first place are cheering like there was some big battle with the ISP. They passed legislation for something that just didn't exist, at least to y knowledge. ISP's were never discriminating against anything. I've been streaming netflix from my version router for as long as there's been a netflix streaming service. How people whom never had any problems can be led to believe there was a problem with the net is actually a bigger problem in itself. The public has become so gullible they'll buy in to just about anything with the words "freedom" "change" and "hope" in it. The fact of the matter is this bill was COMPLETELY unnecessary and if anything makes the net far less "free" and turns web hosting in to another source of revenue collection. Now you can't just start a web site, it has to be "Approved" by the commission. The FCC has to approve it, and of course charge subsequent fees, before it gets to go live. Net neutrality is not a blow to big business but a blow to the consumers and it was brought about with the cheers of the very people it will help oppress. Do you all understand that our government wants to pattern their control of the internet by the worlds leading nation in human rights violations and the biggest offender to free speech the world has ever known

[Saidas]

01:00 PM on 04/05/2011

Please check you use of "whom".

[SuperHeretic]

05:51 PM on 04/05/2011

You mean: "please check YOUR use of "whom".

[fozzi58]

03:58 PM on 04/05/2011

Please check your facts as well.

Regulation is needed for internet backbone usage because these ISP companies are squeezing the non premium customers into a smaller and smaller pipe and letting the higher paying customers run a muck.

Although ideally its a sound business practice, when you or your child invents the next "you tube" and your ISP decides you have "had enough bandwidth" for the day, your service gets choked or you are put in the smaller bandwidth pool.

Paying for more bandwidth and getting it is a fair practice, but lowering available bandwidth to normal clients is unfair practice. Its like saying we have apples for sale but since you are just buying apples, the fresh ones are going to the customers buying 1100 items today.

And my (or anyone's for that matter) ISP should have NO business regulating what content I am receiving. If I want to steal music, or run an internet arms dealership, let the MPAA and FBI come after me. Its not up to them shut down what they think is appropriate.

[in1nuthouse]

10:18 AM on 04/05/2011

since when did the "market" dictate wheather or not a company will make it or it's profit? What happened to the company providing a good or service and if they did a good enough job for the consumer to purchase that good or service THAT dictated wheather or not the company was going to make a profit? Why have we allowed companies to put more emphasis on there share holders than the consumers who purchase and use the goods and services?????

[Cashman7323]

06:36 AM on 04/05/2011

LOL. I posted a comment that explained what the technicality was - the very obvious missing fact in the story - and it was removed for violating their guidelines. I guess it is true - no facts are permitted on this site.

[Cashman7323]

06:26 AM on 04/05/2011

This is from the link provided by @portabello below. I guess Huffpo is cutting costs so the readers have to supply the answer:

Today's dismissal says nothing about the substantive issues here—this is the very definition of a "procedural" dismissal. The judges pointed out that such lawsuits challenging federal regulations can only be filed in the 30 days after those regulations have been officially published in the Federal Register. That had not happened when the cases were filed (and it still has not happened), but Verizon and MetroPCS tried to skirt the issue by claiming that the case was really about a modification to their spectrum licenses, not about the rulemaking as such.

The judges didn't buy it, and they sided with FCC lawyers. "The challenged order is a rulemaking document subject to publication in the Federal Register, and is not a licensing decision 'with respect to specific parties,'" they wrote.

The cases are almost guaranteed to be refiled once the rules are officially published.

[Cashman7323]

06:25 AM on 04/05/2011

Could they spare a line to tell us what the technicality was?

[DMSmith]

01:04 AM on 04/05/2011

Regardless of Net Neutrality or any other subject, it's somehow comical for corporations to argue that something is wrong and unfair because it creates 'uncertainty' in a market.
Isn't dealing with, and prevailing in the midst of uncertainties in the market and economy public acceptance of products precisely what corporations are designed to do? Isn't it the doing that which creates opportunity for profit?
Any company, it seems to me, that argues that it is hobbled by uncertainty in the market is showing themselves to be pretty poor businessmen/women.

[Cashman7323]

06:30 AM on 04/05/2011

If you knew a lick about business, you'd know that the kinds of uncertainties provided by government meddling in things they do not understand are so opposed to rational economic theory and of such such magnitude across the entire economy that one cannot fathom the results. Thus, writing fraudulent mortgage loans to get votes and then bundling those loans with good loans in the hope of diluting their damage resulted in the collapse of GM and Chrysler. When both car companies focast their cash needs they could not anticipate the collapse of the finanical markets.

[DMSmith]

01:01 PM on 04/05/2011

I've been in business for several decades and I'm still here. "writing fraudulent loans to get votes..." what ARE you talking about. Fraudulent loans, yes - but not to get votes for god's sake. Both car companies also made many seriously bad decisions, including the making of cars that were poor quality and the wrong cars for many years. The improvements they made were not enough at that point to save them. And, yes, the financial collapse added to their problems. It was far more complex than you make out and the problems were not caused mostly by government uncertainty, but by uncertainty caused from within the business and financial world itself.

[AllyCat7]

01:02 AM on 04/05/2011

"Uncertainty"--by far the LAMEST excuse currently being used to push the far right/corporate class's inhumane agenda.

[Opening Shares]

11:38 PM on 04/04/2011

This has got to be the non-news story of the day. Verizon and MetroPCS tried to do an end around on the legal system by bringing a case regarding the rules of net-neutrality before they have even been established. Other than wasting the courts time, this doesn't mean anything

Regarding what net-neutrality means- as the dismissed case points out net-neutrality will mean what the FCC determines it to mean. I've always understood it to mean that ISPs can't throttle content based on it's source and the amount of bandwidth an individual's website gets to push it through the pipeline will be the same for the big players. What non-net-neutrality advocates want is a two tiered pipeline that would allow the big players a much larger chunk of the pipeline. You'll find comments further on in this board saying otherwise.

The US compared to Japan or South Korea is more like dial-up. Their average connections are comparable to T3 speeds.

[Kamereon]

11:01 PM on 04/04/2011

Wow, there's a certain comcast/verizon blogger on this board pushing a bass ackwards definition of net neutrality. Here's a good page for a much more accurate definition of net neutrality.

http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html

[Opening Shares]

11:48 PM on 04/04/2011

Fanned for factiness. It should probably also be said that just because the FCC decides something doesn't mean it's going to be a bad thing. Not too long ago they reversed a position regarding low power FM, making it a better world for the little guy.

[terry90]

10:25 PM on 04/04/2011

what was the technicality???? what kind of reporting is this????