[grc] [KPFA-watch] Trade group sues FCC on Net Neutrality

[Tracy Rosenberg]

True and by all means people should be vigilant and supportive. But I want
to be clear. The lawsuits were totally expected. The FCC by reclassifying
to Title 2 is on A LOT firmer legal ground than they have ever been before
in open Internet proceedings. The best telecom lawyers I know are confident
the FCC will win.

It is appropriate to keep up public pressure especially around Congress to
leave the FCC alone (Republicans are trying to defund the agency right now)
and help influence the courts.

But the sky is not falling and everyone knew Title 2 would have to be
defended after it was passed.

I actually remember Tom Wheeler saying in a meeting "if we reclassify, the
FCC will be in court for the next decade".

We said, "Yep. But you gotta do it anyway. There is no other way to protect
the Internet".

Thank God, he did.

Cheers,

Tracy



On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:26 AM, juice at whidbey.com [kpfa-watch] <
kpfa-watch at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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
> <http://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015%2003%2023%20USTelecom%20Petition%20for%20Review%20%28No%20%2015-1063%29.pdf>
> 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 <http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/title-ii-closing-arguments/>
> 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."
>
>  __._,_.___
>   ------------------------------
> Posted by: juice at whidbey.com
> ------------------------------
>     Reply via web post
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kpfa-watch/conversations/messages/17794;_ylc=X3oDMTJydTI2OGQxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzcxMTEyODM3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRtc2dJZAMxNzc5NARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzE0MjczOTA3ODU-?act=reply&messageNum=17794>
> *  Reply to sender
> <juice at whidbey.com?subject=Re%3A%20Trade%20group%20sues%20FCC%20on%20Net%20Neutrality>
> *  Reply to group
> <kpfa-watch at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Trade%20group%20sues%20FCC%20on%20Net%20Neutrality>
> * Start a New Topic
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kpfa-watch/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJmN2QwMGtmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzcxMTEyODM3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0MjczOTA3ODU->
> * Messages in this topic
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kpfa-watch/conversations/topics/17794;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZG9nMHRrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzcxMTEyODM3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRtc2dJZAMxNzc5NARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0MjczOTA3ODUEdHBjSWQDMTc3OTQ->
> (1)
> Visit Your Group
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kpfa-watch/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZDNtcnBzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzcxMTEyODM3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MjczOTA3ODU->
>
>
>  [image: Yahoo! Groups]
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYmdiNG9hBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzcxMTEyODM3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQyNzM5MDc4NQ-->
> * Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> *
> Unsubscribe <kpfa-watch-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> * Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>
>
>    .
>
>  __,_._,___
>



-- 
Tracy Rosenberg
Executive Director
Media Alliance
1904 Franklin Street # 818
Oakland CA 94612
www.media-alliance.org
510-832-9000 x303
510-684-6853 Cell
tracy at media-alliance.org