I just posted another article from the Verge about this decision. It is
refreshing to see the 9th Circuit actually uphold the law. This case has huge
implications, as some analysts were predicting that the original decision would
allow any company that has a division that competes in a common carrier
business to be exempt from oversight by the FTC. The court, IMHO, properly
decided that Federal Law states that common carrier regulation only applies to
the common carrier portion of their business.
As an original iPhone customer of AT&T, I was quite aware of the issue in this
case; the original service plans offered unlimited 2G data. I chose to move to
a plan with a data cap to save money; those who retained the original unlimited
plan started to experience throttling after they exceeded an unpublished data
cap. The FTC sued, but a 9th Circuit Judge attempted to dismiss the case based
on the reclassification of ISP service by the FCC as a common carrier service.
The FTC appealed to an en banc panel of judges who ruled yesterday.
Perhaps the most critical aspect of this decision involves two aspects of the
authority that the FTC and the FCC have in cases like this: Retroactivity and
compensation for consumers:
- The FCC can only fine a company retroactively on issues going back one year;
the FTC can impose fines on illegal behavior retroactively for the entire
period of the illegal activity.
- Fines imposed by the FCC go to the treasury and cannot benefit consumers who
have been harmed by the illegal activity; Fines imposed by the FTC can be used
to compensate consumers who were harmed by the illegal activity.
This decision clarifies the authority of both the FTC and the FCC as it relates
to Net Neutrality moving forward. The statement by Chairman Pai was appropriate
and reflects the importance of this Court decision in the Net Neutrality debate.
On the other hand, Bert has allowed his Net neutrality “resistance” to cloud
his judgement once again. One could easily conclude that he supports AT&T in
its actions to throttle customers who were paying for an unlimited data plan,
or that he prefers that any future fines related to Net Neutrality, should go
to the politicians, rather than the consumers who are harmed.
On Feb 26, 2018, at 8:55 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I guess the circuit court approved having the FTC police ISPs. "Significant
win," he says. So our phony, disingenuous crook of a Chairman makes it sound
like consumers had lost all protections, and now they are restored. How
exactly is blocking and throttling a win for consumers? How is that that the
extremist half-wits are so freakin' STUPID?
To prove my point, the FCC goes on to explain:
"The FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom Order reversed a 2015 agency decision
to reclassify broadband Internet access service as a Title II common carrier
service. This 2015 decision stripped the FTC of its traditional authority to
protect consumers and promote competition with respect to Internet service
providers because the FTC does not have jurisdiction over common carrier
activities."
Imagine that. A common carrier, classified as a common carrier, and mandated
to be neutral, was a tremendous loss of protection for consumers, according
to this FCC. As the other article explained, maybe this crook is going to be
hoisted by his own petard. The FCC may now have no authority to prevent
states from setting things right. Let's hope.
