This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/30/telecoms-lobbyists-net-neutrality-regulation-arbitrary-capricious

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Telecoms lobbyists rail against 'arbitrary and capricious' net neutrality rules Telecoms lobbyists rail against 'arbitrary and capricious' net neutrality rules
(about 20 hours later)
Telecoms lobbyists have filed a brief in a lawsuit that includes nearly every major industry player demanding that the Washington DC court of appeals vacate net neutrality rules ordered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in February.Telecoms lobbyists have filed a brief in a lawsuit that includes nearly every major industry player demanding that the Washington DC court of appeals vacate net neutrality rules ordered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in February.
Chief among the objections of the United Telecom Association (UTA) is that their members won’t invest as heavily in broadband infrastructure if they’re forced to abide by the new regulations, contravening the FCC’s mandate to encourage investment. Chief among the objections of the United Telecom Association (UTA) is that their members won’t invest as heavily in broadband infrastructure if they are forced to abide by the new regulations, contravening the FCC’s mandate to encourage investment.
One of the plaintiffs in the joint brief, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, said in a blogpost on Thursday that it had always supported “reasonable” net neutrality. The FCC re-classified internet providers under Title II of the Communications Act, making them common carriers subject to the same regulations as public utilities. One of the plaintiffs in the joint brief, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, said in a blogpost on Thursday that it had always supported “reasonable” net neutrality. The FCC reclassified internet providers under Title II of the Communications Act, making them common carriers subject to the same regulations as public utilities.
“Unfortunately,” the NCTA said, “the FCC went well beyond that sensible mission and chose to impose an outdated, far-reaching and punitive regulatory model on today’s dynamic Internet.”“Unfortunately,” the NCTA said, “the FCC went well beyond that sensible mission and chose to impose an outdated, far-reaching and punitive regulatory model on today’s dynamic Internet.”
The net neutrality rule is “arbitrary and capricious”, according to the UTA’s brief. “Worse, the Order willfully disregards the destructive effects of reclassification on hundreds of billions of dollars in investment-backed reliance interests that the FCC’s prior light-touch approach deliberately induced,” UTA lawyers wrote.The net neutrality rule is “arbitrary and capricious”, according to the UTA’s brief. “Worse, the Order willfully disregards the destructive effects of reclassification on hundreds of billions of dollars in investment-backed reliance interests that the FCC’s prior light-touch approach deliberately induced,” UTA lawyers wrote.
This is in contrast to statements by Fran Shammo, CFO of Verizon, which has some 9.2 million US subscribers, at a UBS Bank telecoms industry conference in December 2014. “To be real clear, this does not influence the way we invest,” he said in answer to a question about the coming change to Title II regulation.This is in contrast to statements by Fran Shammo, CFO of Verizon, which has some 9.2 million US subscribers, at a UBS Bank telecoms industry conference in December 2014. “To be real clear, this does not influence the way we invest,” he said in answer to a question about the coming change to Title II regulation.
“I mean we’re going to continue to invest in our networks and our platforms, both in wireless and wireline FiOS and where we need to. So nothing will influence that. I mean, if you think about it – look, I mean we were born out of a highly regulated company, so we know how this operates.” (Shammo also added that the regulations would result in “a very litigious environment”.)“I mean we’re going to continue to invest in our networks and our platforms, both in wireless and wireline FiOS and where we need to. So nothing will influence that. I mean, if you think about it – look, I mean we were born out of a highly regulated company, so we know how this operates.” (Shammo also added that the regulations would result in “a very litigious environment”.)
The NCTA said its own record on net neutrality as a concept was solid. “Cable providers have invested billions of dollars into building, maintaining, and improving an open Internet experience for our customers,” the organization’s statement said. “And even without formal net neutrality rules on the books, our industry embraced core Open Internet principles since they were first floated in the 1990s – and we continue to live by those principles today.”The NCTA said its own record on net neutrality as a concept was solid. “Cable providers have invested billions of dollars into building, maintaining, and improving an open Internet experience for our customers,” the organization’s statement said. “And even without formal net neutrality rules on the books, our industry embraced core Open Internet principles since they were first floated in the 1990s – and we continue to live by those principles today.”
Evan Greer, campaign director of internet activist group Fight for the Future, disagreed with that assessment. “I think it’s outrageous for companies that have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to undermine the public will on this issue claim that they’ve always supported net neutrailty,” she said. “In recent years they’ve used it as a buzzword, but they’ve always pushed for policies that allow for a two-tiered internet that allows for fast lanes. That is the opposite of net neutrality.”Evan Greer, campaign director of internet activist group Fight for the Future, disagreed with that assessment. “I think it’s outrageous for companies that have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to undermine the public will on this issue claim that they’ve always supported net neutrailty,” she said. “In recent years they’ve used it as a buzzword, but they’ve always pushed for policies that allow for a two-tiered internet that allows for fast lanes. That is the opposite of net neutrality.”