stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 6014
[type] => release
[language] =>
[uid] => 4
[status] => 1
[created] => 1295563520
[changed] => 1295563647
[comment] => 0
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 6072
[revision_uid] => 4
[title] => Public Knowledge Calls Verizon Net Neutrality Filings ‘Too Cute’
[body] =>
The following is attributed to Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge:
“We are disappointed that Verizon is trying to play legal games with an issue as important as an open Internet. On one hand, they jumped the gun and filed an appeal in the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. circuit based on the idea that they are a wireless company and that their license is affected by the Net Neutrality rules. The D.C. Circuit is the only court designated to hear license challenges. Normally, license challenges relate to an individual company’s operation, not to a rulemaking that affects everyone. Challenges to rulemakings can be heard in any federal appellate circuit.
“Verizon also filed a motion to have the same group of judges which decided the Comcast case hear their challenge to the Net Neutrality rules. However, the Comcast case was a cable case – not a wireless case. Verizon can’t have it both ways.
“Verizon is trying to be too cute in trying to pick not only the venue for the challenge to the rules, but also to pick the judges to hear it. The court should see through this ploy and reject Verizon’s attempt to pick the home field for its appeal.”
The Verizon appeal is here.
The motion to send the case to the Comcast judges is here.
[log] => Created by Sononaco Drupal Importer
[revision_timestamp] => 1295563647
[format] => 1
[name] => Art Brodsky
[picture] => files/pictures/picture-4.png
[data] => a:6:{s:7:"contact";i:0;s:10:"form_token";s:32:"8ccae93257cd5bd08279c4b915d339a4";s:14:"picture_delete";i:0;s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:1;}s:14:"wysiwyg_status";a:1:{i:7;i:7;}}
[path] => public-knowledge-calls-verizon-net-neutrality-fili
[print_display] => 1
[print_display_comment] => 0
[print_display_urllist] => 1
[print_mail_display] => 1
[print_mail_display_comment] => 0
[print_mail_display_urllist] => 1
[print_pdf_display] => 1
[print_pdf_display_comment] => 0
[print_pdf_display_urllist] => 1
[last_comment_timestamp] => 1295563647
[last_comment_name] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[62] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 62
[vid] => 5
[name] => Network Neutrality
[description] =>
[weight] => 0
)
)
[files] => Array
(
)
[page_title] =>
[nodewords] => Array
(
)
[build_mode] => 0
[readmore] => 1
[content] => Array
(
[print_links] => Array
(
[#weight] => -101
[#suffix] =>
[#value] =>
[#prefix] =>
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[field_issue] => Array
(
[#type_name] => release
[#context] => full
[#field_name] => field_issue
[#post_render] => Array
(
[0] => content_field_wrapper_post_render
)
[#weight] => -1
[field] => Array
(
[#description] =>
[items] => Array
(
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#single] => 1
[#attributes] => Array
(
)
[#required] =>
[#parents] => Array
(
)
[#tree] =>
[#context] => full
[#page] => 1
[#field_name] => field_issue
[#title] => Issues
[#access] => 1
[#label_display] => above
[#teaser] =>
[#node] => stdClass Object
*RECURSION*
[#type] => content_field
[#printed] => 1
)
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#content_extra_fields] => Array
(
[title] => Array
(
[label] => Title
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => -5
)
[body_field] => Array
(
[label] => Body
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 0
[view] => body
)
[revision_information] => Array
(
[label] => Revision information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 20
)
[author] => Array
(
[label] => Authoring information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 20
)
[options] => Array
(
[label] => Publishing options
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 25
)
[comment_settings] => Array
(
[label] => Comment settings
[description] => Comment module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[menu] => Array
(
[label] => Menu settings
[description] => Menu module form.
[weight] => -2
)
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[label] => Taxonomy
[description] => Taxonomy module form.
[weight] => -3
)
[path] => Array
(
[label] => Path settings
[description] => Path module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[attachments] => Array
(
[label] => File attachments
[description] => Upload module form.
[weight] => 30
[view] => files
)
[itunes] => Array
(
[label] => iTunes feed information
[description] => iTunes specific information.
[weight] => 0
)
[path_redirect] => Array
(
[label] => URL redirects
[description] => Path redirect module listing
[weight] => 30
)
[print] => Array
(
[label] => Printer, e-mail and PDF versions
[description] => Print module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[xmlsitemap] => Array
(
[label] => XML sitemap
[description] => XML sitemap module form
[weight] => 30
)
[nodewords] => Array
(
[label] => Meta tags
[description] => Meta tags fieldset.
[weight] => 10
)
)
[#pre_render] => Array
(
[0] => content_alter_extra_weights
)
[body] => Array
(
[#weight] => 0
[#value] => The following is attributed to Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge:
“We are disappointed that Verizon is trying to play legal games with an issue as important as an open Internet. On one hand, they jumped the gun and filed an appeal in the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. circuit based on the idea that they are a wireless company and that their license is affected by the Net Neutrality rules. The D.C. Circuit is the only court designated to hear license challenges. Normally, license challenges relate to an individual company’s operation, not to a rulemaking that affects everyone. Challenges to rulemakings can be heard in any federal appellate circuit.
“Verizon also filed a motion to have the same group of judges which decided the Comcast case hear their challenge to the Net Neutrality rules. However, the Comcast case was a cable case – not a wireless case. Verizon can’t have it both ways.
“Verizon is trying to be too cute in trying to pick not only the venue for the challenge to the rules, but also to pick the judges to hear it. The court should see through this ploy and reject Verizon’s attempt to pick the home field for its appeal.”
The Verizon appeal is here.
The motion to send the case to the Comcast judges is here.
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#children] => The following is attributed to Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge:
“We are disappointed that Verizon is trying to play legal games with an issue as important as an open Internet. On one hand, they jumped the gun and filed an appeal in the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. circuit based on the idea that they are a wireless company and that their license is affected by the Net Neutrality rules. The D.C. Circuit is the only court designated to hear license challenges. Normally, license challenges relate to an individual company’s operation, not to a rulemaking that affects everyone. Challenges to rulemakings can be heard in any federal appellate circuit.
“Verizon also filed a motion to have the same group of judges which decided the Comcast case hear their challenge to the Net Neutrality rules. However, the Comcast case was a cable case – not a wireless case. Verizon can’t have it both ways.
“Verizon is trying to be too cute in trying to pick not only the venue for the challenge to the rules, but also to pick the judges to hear it. The court should see through this ploy and reject Verizon’s attempt to pick the home field for its appeal.”
The Verizon appeal is here.
The motion to send the case to the Comcast judges is here.
[#printed] => 1
)
[links] => Array
(
[print_html] => Array
(
[href] => print/6014
[title] => Printer-friendly version
[attributes] => Array
(
[title] => Display a printer-friendly version of this page.
[class] => print-page
[rel] => nofollow
)
[html] =>
[query] =>
)
)
)
