Court Notices That The FCC Appears To Have No Legal Mandate To Enforce Net Neutrality

from the good-for-them dept

With the FCC trying to use its legal fight with Comcast to push for net neutrality, an appeals court has pointed out that the FCC doesn’t have any legal basis for policing net neutrality. This is a point that we’ve made in the past, when we found it odd that the same groups that fought like dogs to have a court say that the FCC had no mandate to enforce a “broadcast flag” were the same groups that suddenly thought the FCC had a mandate over net neutrality.

The truth — as courts have recognized in both cases — is that both appear to be situations where the FCC is overreaching its authority.

Still, it’s not just the groups supporting the FCC on net neutrality that are taking inconsistent positions here. Remember how Comcast — which this latest ruling supports — has in the past used the argument that the FCC does have this mandate over them to try to avoid regulatory oversight in California. So neither side looks very good here. In fact, in a recent interview concerning the proposed Comcast/NBC merger, Comcast’s spokesperson highlighted that people shouldn’t be afraid of NBC getting preferential treatment because “existing law already prohibits any discrimination.” What existing law? Uh, the same one Comcast just convinced the court doesn’t exist. In other words, the law doesn’t exist when Comcast doesn’t like it, but if anyone says Comcast might violate neutrality, it insists the law suddenly does exist.

On the whole, it’s a good thing that the court is making sure the FCC doesn’t overstep its authority here — though, there’s a pretty good chance that the response is going to be a push in Congress to give the FCC this authority. And that’s where things get sticky. Should the FCC have the right to regulate the internet? While the concept of net neutrality is important and it would be bad for it to go away, that’s quite different than opening up the pandora’s box of giving the FCC the right to enforce it. The risk of unintended (and dangerous) consequences is quite high.

Instead, the real focus should be on increasing competition in the broadband space so that users have a real choice and can ditch any provider who decides to ignore the principles behind net neutrality. Until that happens then we’re going continue to have these battles over the symptoms of not enough competition.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: comcast, fcc

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Court Notices That The FCC Appears To Have No Legal Mandate To Enforce Net Neutrality”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Rose M. Welch (profile) says:

Free Market?

The FCC doesn’t have the resources to effectively administer it’s current duties. Screw adding more duties.

Further, if the FCC cracked down on the broadband locational monopolies, you wouldn’t need net neutrality laws. We would take care of errant service providers ourselves, by switching to a different provider.

Ah, the free market. I wish we had one.

Nastybutler77 (profile) says:

Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission

Doesn’t FCC stand for Federal Communications Commission? I would say that if any body is going to regulate the internet, it would fall to the FCC. While I like the Wild West we have now on the net, at some point the government is going to get their sticky little hands on it. That’s just the way government works, like it or not.

Haapi says:

Re: Re: Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission

I dislike (to put it mildly) the Patriot Act, but, no, I don’t “see” the point of your comment.

IF the FCC is tasked with such oversight, and IF the FCC sees that lack of competition is the root cause of violating its regulations, then it should elevate [shift sideways?] that violation to the FTC on those grounds.

I don’t think either IF obtains, today, actually, and maybe they should.

Laurel L. Russwurm (profile) says:

Re: Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission

Currently the internet is international.

The FCC is just YOUR country’s regulatory body. Ours is the CRTC, and I would suspect that most other countries in the world have their own….

Which in itself is a compelling reason for net neutrality.

How would you expect the FCC to enforce net neitrality on China? Isn’t there enough war?

Rooker (user link) says:

Customers of AT&T DSL shouldn’t need permission to visit Verizon’s website. When you plug the modem into the wall, the unfiltered, unprocessed internet should come out. If these basic concepts can’t be protected by current law, then the law needs to change.

“Competition and the free market will prevent these problems” is a myth that never works out here in the real world. The choice between bad and equally bad is not competition and does nothing to prevent consumer-hostile companies from behaving like douchebags. The only thing that will is to outlaw the douchebag behavior.

gfh says:

The problem is that the FCC focused too much in this argument on the process. They should be looking to lose on process but win on jurisdiction, if anything.

That way they don’t undermine the net neutrality proceeding (where there’s no question that the process is legit, but there is question as to whether there’s jurisdiction). In the Comcast case, it looks an awful lot like they fined someone for rules that did not exist (but which they could have enacted earlier if they wanted to).

Specific statutes give them direction, but their jurisdiction is “communication by wire or radio.”

The Anti-Mike (profile) says:

FCC is pretty much a lost organization, killed by Mr George W Bush who allowed a very political appointee to run the show (Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell). He was, IMHO, a completely political hack more interested in furthering conservative values than actually doing right by the people as a whole.

In those 5 years, the FCC lost pretty much all of it’s credibility. It’s pretty hard to get back from this one.

Net Neutrality is something that would likely require new laws rather than just guidelines from the FCC or others to accomplish, and may still have some constitutional issues. It certainly appears to be something beyond the FCC’s powers.

Gene Cavanaugh (profile) says:

FCC and net neutrality

Too much regulation seriously hampers progress, and when the lack of campaign finance reform gives regulators a choice between selling out to the wealthy or not being in office, it is compounded.
However, unrestricted greed and an absence of any regulation is far, far worse.
Who should provide reasonable regulation? Without breaking the stranglehold on legislation we have given the wealthy, there is no answer.

Anonymous Coward says:

“the real focus should be on increasing competition”

The real focus IS on turning the Internet into the broken mainstream media that we have today under the pretext that it’s to help promote net neutrality. If it were really about promoting net neutrality there wouldn’t be a monopoly on existing infrastructure and on who can build new infrastructure and the competition wouldn’t allow the mainstream media to be as corrupt and broken as it currently is. and the evidence for the fact that this is the true focus is the fact that, outside the Internet, this is exactly what the government has accomplished. When their motives outside the Internet are clearly not intended to be in the public interest, why should I believe that their motives for Internet regulation are intended to be in the public interest?

AZM says:

Not a ruling - just oral arguments

Slight correction is needed in this story – the court on Friday did not issue a ruling, that is probably still a couple of months away. The Wired and other news stories are basing their opinions of the likely outcome on the Judges’ questions during oral arguments. It is still very possible that the court won’t rule on the net neutrality authority issue instead deciding on narrower administrative law grounds.

Talbot says:

… the FCC has no Constitutional basis to exist at all, and absolutely zero authority to regulate/rule anything.

American radio frequency airwaves were originally open & free to everyone, similar to the internet.

But the federal Radio Act of 1912 blatantly & illegally seized half the useable RF spectrum for the government/military. A shameful pattern of Federal bullying and special-interest corrupt regulation followed … resulting in the ‘Radio Act of 1927’ establishing the Federal Radio Commission bureaucracy (…now the FCC).

The airwaves were simply declared public property under Commission control… pure socialism with no Constitutional basis.

Same thing will happen to the internet within 15 years.

The courts are an integral part of the government– and certainly will not protect you from the government itself.

Brooke (profile) says:

Cable video regs aren't the same as neutrality...


You’ve made the same error Karl Bode made in his post on this subject. The regulations Comcast is talking about with respect to the NBCU merger are already extant regulations that cover cable and other MVPDs. Those regulations are totally different from the net neutrality regulations that would cover Comcast in its ISP operations.

It’s true that it was foolish of Comcast to argue the FCC’s jurisdiction over the Internet to get out of litigation in California. But with the NBCU issue, you’re talking about the regulation of a totally different service (in the eyes of the law), one which has a well-established statutory record. With net neutrality, there is no statutory authority and only debatable ancillary authority.

To say that Comcast is being hypocritical with respect to NBCU is to say that they’re hypocritical for liking apples but not oranges.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
05:30 Survey Shows Majority Of GOP Voters Support Restoring Net Neutrality (31)
06:25 Big Telecom Finally Ends Quest To Stop States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (35)
05:56 Big Telecom's Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers Continues To Go... Poorly (13)
12:15 Courts (Again) Shoot Down Telecom Lobby's Attempt To Kill State-Level Net Neutrality Rules (5)
04:48 Dumb Telecom Take Of The Week: Because The Internet Didn't Explode, Killing Net Neutrality Must Not Have Mattered (23)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
04:55 Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality (54)
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
More arrow