Lobbyists representing almost every major telecom company have called on a federal court to overturn the Federal Communicationas Commission’s (FCC) net neutrality rules implemented earlier this year.
In a brief filed as part of an industry-wide lawsuit against the FCC, the U.S. Telecom Association (UTA) said internet providers wouldn’t commit to deep investments for maintaining infrastructure if it has to comply with the net neutrality rules. The Wireless Association (CTIA), also named in the suit, wrote in a strongly worded blog post Thursday that the industry’s future and leadership was “at risk under the FCC’s heavy-handed net neutrality rules on wireless broadband.”
The CTIA continues saying, “[broadband] providers must be able to manage usage so that all consumers have the highest quality experience,” and less regulation means more jobs and a better economy for all.
The FCC reclassified the internet from an information service to a telecom service to be regulated under Title II of the Communications Act. The February decision was celebrated by civil liberties and tech activists for establishing clear legal boundaries for the telecom industry and giving the FCC authority to prevent internet providers from forcing customers, online sites, and internet-dependent services to pay for reliable access.
In its own blog post following the brief’s filing, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association lambasted the net neutrality rules as “unlawful” but also asserted that the industry FCC lawsuit on which it is also a plaintiff isn’t about net neutrality the concept, but how the regulation affects their revenue model.
We are not appealing the FCC action because of net neutrality. In fact, we have been vocal in our support of the FCC crafting reasonable net neutrality protections for consumers. Unfortunately, the FCC went well beyond that sensible mission and chose to impose an outdated, far-reaching and punitive regulatory model on today’s dynamic Internet. With Title II opening the door for rate regulation, higher taxes and fees and the ability for government the set the terms and conditions of business relationships, we had no choice but to appeal.
The telecom lobbying organizations said the FCC’s Open Internet 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.”
The telecom industry has consistently opposed, citing the potential for the FCC to over-regulate the companies and ultimately hurt customers service, despite the agency’s promise to continue its “light touch” approach.
Before the FCC released its net neutrality rules, AT&T; threatened to stop investing in infrastructure last year if it had to adhere to net neutrality rules. The company was also ordered to pay a $100 million fine for surreptitiously throttling customers’ mobile internet access. AT&T; is now arguing to pay a fraction of the fine — $16,000.
The brief comes after a National Journal report revealed the thousands of complaints filed against telecom companies. Just a month after the net neutrality rules became effective, customers have filed 2,000 complaints with the FCC against Comcast, AT&T;, and other internet providers:
“The Comcast modem is such crap that we can’t even access the Internet,” one complaint read. “I’m livid.”
“Our data should not be capped at 350 mbps!!!! “Please, please make data caps illegal!!”
“I have to tell my kids to stop using YouTube and other services and stuff they need for school so we don’t go over the cap,” [a] consumer wrote, explaining that their Internet-enabled home security camera uses up a significant amount of their monthly data.
“By Comcast having this data cap, I don’t have a open Internet … I also think this data cap is very inaccurate, it goes up without anybody being home, and sometimes by a lot.”