- Act Now
- Open Internet
- Promoting Creativity
- Open & Accessible Technology
Today, Verizon and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had an oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court debating the network neutrality rules. The argument took place before Judge Rogers, Judge Tatel, and Senior Judge Silberman (“senior” means “technically retired but still hearing cases when I feel like it”). You can listen to the 2+ hour oral argument I sat through this morning here.
On today's podcast we discuss net neutrality in anticipation of Monday's oral argument before the D.C. Circuit. What is it, what are the rules, and what is being argued.Listen to Podcast
Before next week's oral argument on the FCC’s Open Internet rules we discuss why the FCC has the Authority to Make Network Neutrality Rules and what could get in the way.
On Tuesday, Michael Weinberg wrote about why we at PK think network neutrality is important, and Sherwin Siy explained the actual net neutrality rules the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted. None of this, however, will get debated in the courtroom on Monday September 9 when the oral argument finally happens – at least not officially.
In theory, the reviewing court will focus on two things. Did the FCC have the authority to make the net neutrality rules? And, even if the FCC does have the authority, does something else prohibit the FCC from exercising that authority here?
I say in theory because judges have their own opinions and the D.C. Circuit is particularly famous for its high level of judicial activism. But judges can’t come out and say “well, even though the FCC has authority to do this, we think it’s a bad rule so too damn bad!” That wins you a quick trip to the Supreme Court, which just last term reminded lower courts they are supposed to respect the FCC’s authority and defer to its expert judgment. So while policy arguments may lurk in the background, here’s what everyone will actually be talking about in the courtroom.
Taking a closer look at the FCC's Net Neutrality Rules.
Yesterday, Michael wrote about the importance of net neutrality, and what's at stake in the court case that will be argued next Monday. Today, I'd like to take a closer look at the source of the court case that's going to be argued next Monday: the FCC's net neutrality rules that Verizon is suing to overturn.
In the wake of next week's oral argument about the FCC’s Open Internet rules, we revisit Net Neutrality and why is it important. We've also put together this timeline on the history of net neutrality.
Net neutrality is going to be back in the news for the next week or so. That’s because next week will feature an oral argument about the FCC’s Open Internet rules (that’s the FCC’s name for its net neutrality rules) before the DC Circuit Court. Since it has been a little while since the last big net neutrality news, we wanted to take a moment to bring everyone back up to speed. Today’s post will remind you what net neutrality is and why it is a good idea. Tomorrow we’ll discuss the FCC’s actual implementation of net neutrality through its Open Internet order. And on Thursday we will go over the issue actually being argued before the DC Circuit – if the FCC even has the authority to implement rules in the first place.
What is Net Neutrality Again?
Contrary to how it is sometimes used, net neutrality is not synonymous with “something bad happening on the internet.” It actually refers to something fairly specific. Simply put, net neutrality is the principle that the company that connects you to the internet does not get to control what you do on the internet. We’ve created a website – WhatIsNetNeutrality.org – to help people remember that. And if you prefer your explanations in video form, give this a spin.
After disasters, the FCC and the American people must decide not just whether to rebuild, but also how to rebuild.
August 29 will be the 8th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, a storm that left a level of devastation and death in the Gulf Coast that horrified our nation. Soon after the storm in 2005 there was an open debate about whether it was smart to rebuild in cities such as New Orleans, where the cost to build back the city’s defenses against future storms was great due to the natural terrain and the level of technology needed to do the job. Residents had to choose if they would return to their homes and invest in making their communities whole again, or simply start over in a new town where the prospects where better.
This decision is not unlike what communities faced following the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy along the New York and New Jersey coast in 2012. In both instances, residents decided that their community was “stronger than the storm” and that they would restore their communities back to a place that worked for all its people and businesses.
|STAY CONNECTED, JOIN OUR MAILING LIST|