Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Will Also Order States To Scrap Plans For Their Own Net Neutrality Laws (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the double-win-for-ISPs dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In addition to ditching its own net neutrality rules, the Federal Communications Commission also plans to tell state and local governments that they cannot impose local laws regulating broadband service. This detail was revealed by senior FCC officials in a phone briefing with reporters today, and it is a victory for broadband providers that asked for widespread preemption of state laws. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposed order finds that state and local laws must be preempted if they conflict with the U.S. government's policy of deregulating broadband Internet service, FCC officials said. The FCC will vote on the order at its December 14 meeting. It isn't clear yet exactly how extensive the preemption will be. Preemption would clearly prevent states from imposing net neutrality laws similar to the ones being repealed by the FCC, but it could also prevent state laws related to the privacy of Internet users or other consumer protections. Pai's staff said that states and other localities do not have jurisdiction over broadband because it is an interstate service and that it would subvert federal policy for states and localities to impose their own rules.

15 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. B-b-b-b-but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    states rights!

    1. Re: B-b-b-b-but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think all the intelligent things about net neutility have already been said. Now it's just fuck Ajit Pai, and fuck Donald Trump, and fuck rich corporations that just look for ways to screw people more instead of adding something of value to society.

    2. Re:B-b-b-b-but by slinches · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So pass an amendment that gives the federal government those authorities. Undermining the constitution, even for good reasons, still weakens our rights and threatens the fundamental concept of consent to govern. How can we feel represented when the fundamental rules of our government are ignored whenever it's convenient for whoever is in power?

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
  2. Keep on draining the consumer protection swamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thanks again, Trump voters! I really can not express strongly enough what an awesome decision you made.

    1. Re: Keep on draining the consumer protection swamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fuck that. I blame people that actually voted for Trump and those that didnâ(TM)t vote.

    2. Re:Keep on draining the consumer protection swamp by mukinrestak · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, he was required to appoint a Republican. He didn't have to choose an ISP mouthpiece/lobbyist as the one he appointed.

  3. Folks, we are in big trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I cannot think of a better way to kill the tech sector.

    1. Re: Folks, we are in big trouble by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I cannot think of a better way to kill the tech sector.

      Won't kill it. Just turn it into something more like cable TV.

      The difference being?

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  4. Bonus by mrwireless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "And if you can kill it at the state level too, we'll throw in a private jet"

    Sigh.

    It's a sad thing for the world.. but a great opportunity for Europe.

  5. Interstate service but not a utility? by Tinsoldier314 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Somehow the rationalization that the internet is simultaneously a vital interstate service that precludes state regulation and a purely market driven business seems like a big business wet dream.

    States can regulate and tax most businesses but not *this* business because it's special for "reasons".

  6. Dear Mr. Pai by JohnFen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck you twice, then. Once for letting the foxes into the henhouse, and once more for locking the door behind them.

  7. 10th Amendment baby! by sphealey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    - - - - - In addition to ditching its own net neutrality rules, the Federal Communications Commission also plans to tell state and local governments that they cannot impose local laws regulating broadband service. - - - - -

    I suspect that tomorrow will not be a big day for my hard Radical Right coworkers to expound on the centrality of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, nor to opine on "states' rights". Just a guess.

    1. Re:10th Amendment baby! by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They can't count past the 2nd Amendment.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    2. Re:10th Amendment baby! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You hyperpartisan nutcases are basically going to be the ruination of this world.

      You appear to swear near undying allegiance ot the party in power and hate the scum in opposition.

      Essentially the party in power has done something you don't like so you find a way to make that a criticism of the scum you despise rather than the ones you worship.

      Drop they hyperpartisan bullshit, pull your head out of your arse and start evaluating the actions on their own merit rather than whether they come with a little red or blue flag attached.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  8. Re:you either keep control or you lose it, no both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is that the ISPs actually don't want the internet in the first place.
    So they just black list any site that doesn't pay them, their customers are locked in to the ISP since they have a monopoly where they live, so they just can't access those sites.

    In the end every website is blocked and the only thing you can do is get to the ISP's content (News/Movies/TV Series) because of vertical integration. And this is exactly what the ISP would like the best.

    It is win-win for the ISP, either sites pay them and they got money, or they become a content monopoly and they get more money by increasing prices.