Verizon

On the way out the door, Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) jammed through a massive new power grab – which changed the rules on data collection and sales. But only for Internet Service Providers.

The Federal Communications Commission has begun a high profile rulemaking process to undo the net neutrality rules that President Obama’s FCC passed in 2015. So it is imperative to get the basic facts right about the “networks” involved in “network neutrality.”

The latest FCC rule was a wise, pro-competitive, pro-property rights, and good government request from Congress to the new Chairman Pai

To prove to the public once and for all that the FCC’s proposed broadband privacy rules are designed to benefit consumers and not special interests, the FCC has agreed to answer some reel questions from reel people about their reel privacy concerns just before they vote on the rules October 27.

Any and every tax, law and regulation – is government placing itself between you and the free market. And, conversely, between the free market and you. And, of course, it makes the market less free. It’s inherent. The bigger the tax – the less money you have for the market, and the less money marketeers have to operate. The bigger the laws and regulations – the less freedom we and the marketeers have to maneuver.

Net neutrality absolutists demanded Title II regulation of the Internet in hopes of getting the “strongest possible” net neutrality rules.

Given that the USTelecom v. FCC appellate challenge of the FCC’s Open Internet Order is so important to net neutrality, the FCC’s authority over the Internet, and broadband providers’ future, and given that Judge Tatel’s thinking is so important to the outcome of this case, wouldn’t it be important to better understand Judge Tatel’s personal reasoned public explanation of how courts adjudicate cases just like USTelecom v. FCC?

The central overriding question in the USTelecom v. FCC case challenging the FCC’s Open Internet Order may be: did the FCC read Judge Tatel right in that he de facto guided the FCC to pursue Title II to create the most solid legal foundation for net neutrality? That has been the public legal mantra of the FCC and the net neutrality movement for well over a year.

Tim Wu, the self-described “policy advocate,” who coined the term “net neutrality;” who has been a leading activist for preemptively regulating broadband service like a utility despite scant evidence of any problem; who from 2008-2011 was Chair of the pressure group FreePress that ran the notoriously-deceptive “Save The Internet” campaign to force FCC net neutrality regulation that was overturned in court

The FCC’s just operative Open Internet Order, with its classification of broadband as Title II common carriage and vague Internet conduct standard, sets ISPs up for FCC “gotcha” or contrived regulation and enforcement.

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) recent decision to claim full regulatory power over the way the Internet works was bad enough, but the next battle in the government’s war on consumer-friendly innovation is approaching fast.

The FCC’s latest legal brief opposing a stay of its Open Internet Order, hurt its legal case more than it helped. The FCC brief unwittingly: exposed a glaring internal inconsistency with the FCC’s Open Internet Order; spotlighted its arbitrary and capricious decision-making; and exposed a big mistake in its legal strategy.

Based on the latest best arguments this week from both the FCC and broadband petitioners, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is very likely to partially stay the FCC Open Internet Order’s reclassification of broadband as a Title II service and imposition of a new Internet conduct standard — in the coming weeks.