This is based on CA state law, and (from the Mercury-News link in the post):
Whether Sabraw's ruling will stand isn't clear. Experts say an appeal is likely, and the Federal Communications Commission is considering imposing a rule - backed by the wireless industry - which might decree that only federal authorities can regulate early termination fees.
I couldn't agree more. There's absolutely no way this ruling can benefit the customers. The article mentionned that the FCC could rewrite its rule so to fit under the law, so it may very well be far from over.
A big part of this suit seems to rest on the Adminstrative Procedures Act - an argument to the administrative law process, rather than to the FCC's authority to make this decision. I think that's more likely to stick, but that's a delay rather than a halt - the FCC can always try again with the right procedure.
Yes, I think your interpretation is supported by the next line in the article, too: "O’Rielly said an initial fine negotiated by FCC staff was rejected by some commissioners, which led to reopening settlement talks."
I hope that the FCC leaves well out of this, unless the state law later morphs into something that restricts home servers or favors California based servers
The FCC has a legally mandated process (see Administrative Procedure Act) including a public comment period that is open to judicial review. They can’t just copy California’s law and call it a day, they have to actually take public comments into consideration. If they don’t follow this process the courts will overturn the rules.
I would like to read the suit, because I don't think they have a leg to stand on. If the FCC can make the regulations, they can rescind them. The only thing maybe is process, but that only delays the inevitable.
> FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said the size of the penalty “is probably not significant enough to deter future behavior, but the negative press coverage is likely to prevent this company and others from attempting to do this again.”
I think it is important to note that the legal principle that allows the FCC to make rulings like this is called Chevron Deference, and many consider it to be under attack.
The idea is that California's law conflicts with a federal rule, the one the FCC recently put into effect. The FCC says its authority preempts that of states on issues like broadband providers, which in a way provide interstate services, arguably making it a federal issue. That's far from settled however and this lawsuit will be a closely watched one.
Right, the only question here is whether or not the FCC can preempt state regulation under existing statutory authority, and existing precedent suggests that maybe it can't. Pretty much everyone agrees that, given additional statutory authority, this kind of regulation would be constitutionally kosher.
Truth. Really, I have to sympathize with the court on this, they're basically saying "The FCC knows more about communications technology and the economics associated with it than a judge does", which is undoubtedly true. Deciding this sort of thing is what the FCC is for. That doesn't mean they got it right, but short of creating a communication-technology centered appeals court, that's what we've got. The FCC is the correct (currently existing) government institution to be making that kind of decision. Just because they (arguably) made the wrong decision here, doesn't mean it makes sense to have appeals court judges deciding this, as the technology and economic background required to make that decision is not part of their training, nor something they could acquire in the course of a court case.
Whether Sabraw's ruling will stand isn't clear. Experts say an appeal is likely, and the Federal Communications Commission is considering imposing a rule - backed by the wireless industry - which might decree that only federal authorities can regulate early termination fees.
3e-3 cheers for the FCC. Sigh.
reply