[grc] Trade group sues FCC on Net Neutrality

[juice at whidbey.com]

If net neutrality goes down community radio will suffer on many fronts
to include news gathering and distribution and less reliable and more
expensive STL (studio to transmitter link) connections etc.
Tom.

http://www.rcrwireless.com/20150326/carriers/verizon-att-backed-trade-group-sues-feds

VERIZON, AT&T, CENTURY LINK AND OTHER MEMBERS WANT NET NEUTRALITY
REVIEW

	The US Telecom Association, which counts carriers Verizon
Communications, AT&T, Alaska Communications and many others as
members, on March 23 asked a federal appeals court for a review of the
Federal Communication Commission’s recent order regarding net
neutrality. 

	In February, the FCC voted to bring fixed, mobile and broadband
Internet access under Title II regulations that consider, among many
other rules, no website blocking or charging more for so-called
“fast lanes.” 

	The US Telecom Association is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals
District of Columbia Circuit to review the FCC’s order, which the
trade group calls “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion
…” 

	The filing [1] alleges that the FCC’s newly adopted posture stands
in violation of the Constitution, the Communications Act of 1934 and
previously authorized regulations. 

	The lawsuit, and a similar suit from small Texas operator Alamo
Broadband, isn’t really a surprise; AT&T has singularly signaled a
lawsuit as has Comcast and others. 

	The US Telecom Association also forecasted legal action with a Feb.
26 statement from President Walter McCormick. 

	“Today’s action by the FCC is the wrong path for achieving
broadband deployment in all parts of the United States,” McCormick
said. “It redefines the Internet, inserts the federal government
deeply into its management and invites other countries to do the same.


	“In reversing longstanding bipartisan precedent, and imposing
public utility regulation on the most dynamic sector of our nation’s
economy, the FCC is adopting policies that were not designed – nor
ever intended – for the Internet.” 

	Prior to the filing, McCormick said his group “will now turn to the
courts for review, and given the broad consensus that exists on the
underlying objectives, will look forward to working with the Congress
on a bipartisan basis to advance legislation.” 

	Similarly, AT&T signaled its opposition – and attendant legal
posture – by way of two letters to the FCC from Hank Hultquist, VP
federal regulatory. 

	“The FCC cannot mandate that a service be offered on a common
carrier basis without, at a minimum, a finding that a particular
provider has market power in a particular geographic market,”
Hulquist wrote in a blog post [2] regarding the letters. 

	“Needless to say the FCC has engaged in no analysis of market power
on a geographic market basis. Accordingly, this option is simply not
available to the FCC.”


Links:
------
[1]
http://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015%2003%2023%20USTelecom%20Petition%20for%20Review%20%28No%20%2015-1063%29.pdf
[2] http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/title-ii-closing-arguments/