Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Filed By 22 State Attorneys General Seeks To Block Net Neutrality Repeal (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: A lawsuit filed today by the attorneys general of 22 states seeks to block the Federal Communications Commission's recent controversial vote to repeal Obama era Net Neutrality regulations. The filing is led by New York State Attorney General Schneiderman, who called rollback a potential "disaster for New York consumers and businesses, and for everyone who cares about a free and open internet." The letter, which was filed in the United States District Court of Appeals in Washington, is cosigned by AGs from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Washington DC.
"An open internet -- and the free exchange of ideas it allows -- is critical to our democratic process," Schneiderman added in an accompanying statement. "The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers -- allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online."
"An open internet -- and the free exchange of ideas it allows -- is critical to our democratic process," Schneiderman added in an accompanying statement. "The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers -- allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online."
A paper insulated wireline monopoly that fully supports NN rules.
Net censorship by social media and the deranking of search engine results.
Enjoy the NN regulations and rules.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
smh
When you can rule by fiat with just one.
As Yoda would tell you - there is another.
That Another is Congress. You know, the guys who are supposed to make laws?
So which would you rather have - an un-elected body making up whatever rules they like (FCC), or rules thought out be representatives from across the country (legislative branch - congress/house).
And they are making an effort to do so. It's WAY BETTER that rules that effect so many companies large and small, come from careful deliberation in the open rather than a handful of commissioners in secret.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If the governments in these states really cared about having a free and open internet, they would repeal any state laws that restrict broadband competition or the roll out of new players (be it companies like Google, community groups, non-profit groups, municipalities or whoever else) and pass state laws that overrule any monopolies at the local level (be they monopolies put in place by local laws or monopolies granted via exclusive franchise deals).
And they would tell AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Charter Spectrum and the other last-century dinosaur ISPs to get stuffed when said ISPs complain about having to actually compete.
I am shocked and appalled that the long discredited idea of states rights is making a comeback under Trump. It has long been on the ash heap of history, as we all know that the federal government has better and smarter people who are capable of making the hard decisions. Decisions that may be controversial, but are nonetheless good for us (otherwise they wouldn't have made them). States rights is also racist. Why are all these good progressives suddenly in favor of small governments and devolving power to the clueless masses? Power is best kept in the federal government where the smart people can use it to benefit all of society, not just what the mob has been told it wants this month.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
This was an executive order, rules change only. No legal basis for them to challenge - since there is no law there in the first place. All Trump did was revert back to the pre-2015 "bad days" of no net neutrality. Oh, it was so much worse back then, just a couple of years ago!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Almost every single one of these AGs is a Democrat. I still don't fully understand how NN became a partisan issue, but in so far as it has become one, it is pretty clear that there's a pretty massive difference between the Democrats and the Republicans at play here. When people claim that the parties are functionally identical, they are ignoring things like this.
The fundamental issue with the Obama Admin regulations is that they were only regulations, and based on some reports the protections they tried to implement were better suited to bring enforced by the FTC, not the FCC.
Enough alreafy, flip a coin to decide if the DVD or the HTC should enforce it, write an actual LAW implementing Net Neutrality, and be done with it.
It's not hard to do, the language for the bill was in the ACC regulations, and the clear majority of the public agrees there should be something like the soon to be scuttled regulations, so do it the write way - these "one and phone" acts by the previous administration did little more than placate a voting constituency, they weren't bui!t to last.
Anything one DVD administrator can do, another can undo.
Anything a President can do, another can undo.
Laws passed by Congress, well, it takes an act of Congress to reverse it.
Ken
The petition has no validity because the FCC rule has yet to be published in the Federal Register so it's premature to file it. Petition even acknowledges that.
I'm disappointed in the list of states. Only Kentucky and Mississippi could be considered red states. New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and North Carolina are swing states. But most of the states on the list are blue states.
Why is net neutrality such a partisan issue? Although repealing net neutrality may help certain big businesses, it is at the expense of many other businesses. Republicans have long been associated with policies that favor businesses, but it doesn't seem like this actually is good for businesses. On the other hand, it is almost certainly bad for individuals, just like the other FCC policy changes like redefining the definition of high speed internet.
Why must this be a partisan issue? There was a time when issues like deregulation telecommunications was bipartisan, overwhelmingly passing both houses. It's good that attorneys general are suing, but it's a sad commentary that very few red states have joined in. What the hell is wrong with this country?
I generally despite injecting politics where they don't belong. The constant flamebait political comments in every story are tiresome and ought to be deleted. They add to the polarization in this country, for no good reason. But this is a political story, and it's relevant. It's a damn shame that we're so polarized that we can't even join together and support a common sense issue like net neutrality.
The Republicans control all three branches. They're not ruling by fiat. They won. I suppose you could argue that gerrymandering, voter suppression and our generally corrupt system let them win unfairly. But the one thing you _can't_ argue is that they're ruling by fiat. America got exactly what we voted for. And if you didn't vote for it, well, this is what happens when you don't show up to the polls.
And yes, for what I hope is the last bloody time this _is_ a partisan issue. When a Dems was in the Whitehouse we had NN. When the Dem left a Republican appointed an additional Anti-Net Neutrality FCC chair who did exactly what he was appointed to do. Hell, the Republicans central plank is eliminating regulation, of which NN is one. Meanwhile every Democrat Senator just signed on to undo the FCC ruling. When one party supports an issue and another party doesn't that _is_ partisan politics.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I want a parliamentary system with proportional representation, and end to the Senate who's original purpose was to put the breaks on Democracy (or populism if you want to be nasty about it) and the end to the electoral college that served the same purpose.
Our entire system of government was designed by wealthy landowners to give themselves a disproportionate amount of political power at the expense of the working class.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I am wondering - do the AG's have standing to file suit here?
Can a bunch of AGs just get together and appeal to a judge to get the government to do something?
(Assuming the topic was not legislated by congress. NN actually went against a legislative directive.)
It just seems really weird that, in the future, random groups of AGs can file suit to force the federal government to do stuff.
Can they really do that?
I think the FCC is on pretty solid footing here, just like I did when they made NN happen. The FCC has the regulatory authority it needs to act here, so I don't see this lawsuit working. Hell, the lawsuits that made NN possible are likely to be used against this suit.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
because offering Internet costs about $9/month, all costs included. Comcast admitted as much in their SEC filing. This isn't surprising. It's mostly public infrastructure and what isn't was paid for by tax breaks and direct subsidies.
Anyone that tries to compete at this point can't. Comcast would just drop its pants until the competitor was run out of business. That's exactly what happened to Google fiber.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why does a fear of something means we have to have it?
Why do Democrat assume businesses are evil trying to hurt people? The net was free before Obama's net neutrality, and will be free now that it is gone. Until I see proof that companies are doing what Democrats are claiming the will do, I will not believe them. (believing any Democrat is a mistake to begin with)
Why are half the posters here so pathologically fixated on Net Neutrality? Wanna know what life was like before Net Neutrality? Remember what it was like before 2015. Yes... in the ancient history of 3 years ago. That was when the FCC had- you guessed it- zero authority over the Internet. Yet, somehow it still managed to function and be cost-effective. Explain to me why we need it NOW when we haven't had it for the vast majority of the existence of the Internet?
How about we let the market decide? We start by allowing municipalities to set up their own ISPs and offer service to residents. Then, as part of the big infrastructure push, we build a nationwide (well, at least the 48 contiguous states) fiber network that connects all those municipal ISPs. Comcast and friends can do whatever they want on their privately owned network. The municipal option will abide by the principles of net neutrality.
People can choose service from Comcast and friends, or from their local municipal ISP, and the market will decide.
To the contrary, Congress is demonstrably less effective, as witnessed by their continued inability to serve the American people.
True, but that is still actually BETTER than action by a small group in government that you cannot vote out.
Or did you wonder why it took dozens and dozens of pages to write the NN regulations, when anyone you talk to on Slashdot can define what they think NN should be in a paragraph? There were tons of handouts to big telco in the NN regulations that were disbanded.
Inaction is always superior to action without consequence.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Because that's exactly what calling them common carriers does; it makes them legally obligated to wiretap you and feed the data to the FBI. Sucker.
I am shocked and appalled [...] States rights is also racist. Why are all these [...]
Oh racism - is there nothing it can't be applied to?
Somehow "Net Neutrality" has now been equated with government regulation. Newspeak. The internet thrived until Obama used dubious procedures to reclassify it as a regulated monopoly (and the regulations never came into full effect). The internet was much more free before regulation because market forces demanded "Net Neutrality".
Yes, being a common carrier would require them to comply with CALEA.
Without the rules, they just comply with CALEA voluntarily on Internet.
You still get wiretapped; you just don't get the projections that them being a common carrier would have afforded you otherwise.
For example: now that they are not common carriers, they no longer have to provide you with 911 service on your VOIP lines.
trump is going to get them to make net neutrality an actual law.
everyone played again and nobody sees the strings!
What jurisdiction do states have on guidelines for federal agencies? Now if they want to actually do something other than grandstand they're free to pass their own rules.
Now good ol' Ajit gets to be deposed. Lets see him back up all those lies under oath.
Yeah there were no complaints of bittorrent being throttled or paid fast lanes being negotiated by crappy US ISPs. Please remove your rose tinted spectacles.
Then perhaps you'll learn to think critically rather than assume everyone who disagrees with you is an evil racist. You have no idea what the skin color or background is of that AC, so in fact, YOU'RE being a racist.
...For more highway robbery against the actual productive sectors of society: businesses and producers.
Basically you are saying that since the Union won the Civil War, if you murder enough people that means your ideas are successful.
So if the Nazis had won WWII, the Holocaust would have been a credible idea?
Washington, D.C. is not a state, therefore only 21 states.
Signed Pedantic Coward
Historically, the folks on the right of the isle (eg; Republicans) have ignored the best interest of their constituents, while their constituents applaud their actions and call Democrats "libtards" and worse. 22 congress critters oppose something isn't news. That 22 can spark a change would be news. I don't expect this to make a fart in the wind of difference.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
This being slashdot, there are plenty of commentators trying to make killing Net Neutrality the fault of both parties. But the evidence shows clearly that Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of gutting it, and the Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of preserving it.
Simple, irrefutable, facts, people.
As the industry was maturing, there were signs of change. Such as ISPs suddenly wanting to double dip on fees -- charging end user subscribers for access and services (who were already paying a provider for access) to access their subscribers. This is why some of the biggest proponents of NN are large content providers like Facebook and Google. Those providing access to the end point consumers were not see seeing money from the content people. That money was going to the large backbone companies instead. Foolish executives at the likes of Verizon failed to see the symbiotic nature of peer agreements and that end point services were being bought because of the freely flowing data from other networks.
I am a fiscal conservative. I believe in limited regulation and market dynamics. I also do not want to see the internet become balkanized like the cable tv industry. I don't think any consumer wants to see such a fucked up consumer model like that ever develop again. We do need some smart and limited regulations to ensure an open internet. What the FCC was cornered in to do with Title II is not the answer. Repeal was the right move. We need to ensure that the internet continues to provide a platform for competition and innovation. That no one company can stifle or control what can be delivered to users or what new startup can produce without having heaps of cash to pay gate keepers in every corner.
then we'll have a new administration that will settle it.
but the big question here.. what the fuck is north carolina doing? they are anti-muni fiber yet are signed-on for this.....
The listed states total 20.
what a fucked up president you have elected lol. Attornies have to defend the democracy against him lol. Well at least your democracy works lol...
I wish the U.S. had a well-functioning government.
If you look at every other genocide in history, then yes.
Manifest destiny.
Net Neutrality relied on and enforced a law from the 1930s that in the case of the Internet was repealed in the 1990s. We are only returned to status quo pro ante 2012.
The lawsuit should fail for lack of standing. Further, the federal government has supremacy under our Constitution in this regard due to the interstate nature of the Internet, so states cannot pass their own equivalent.
The only way to meaningfully change this is through Congress. All else is political smoke and mirrors.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
None of those people care about NN. They saw another AG fund raising like crazy by suing the Trump administration. They want a piece of the action.
Nothing will come of this other than fund raising emails sent out in mass. Simple, irrefutable, fact.
I think they should call the attempted senate bill to block the repeal the:
Net Neutrality Repeal Repeal Act
The US government does not have the unquestioned level of blind following they used to enjoy in the cold-war era, and only through repealing net neutrality as a means to control the hearts and minds of the people through communications manipulation, do they stand a chance (in hell) of getting a decent propaganda machine back up and running.
The single biggest obstacle to the propaganda machine is an informed public. If the information is filtered, controlled and censored, then propaganda can start to get traction, as there won't be the flood of "I call B.S." feedback, coupled with cited facts that shoot really big holes in any form of crafted misinformation.
They want to bring back fear-driven, knee-jerk reactions so that the people pulling the strings can make the public dance again, and the unfiltered internet is their biggest stumbling block.
The Good Ol' Days of the government having an iron-clad grip on the Media is long gone, and anything put out there that does not line up with the Government Agenda is branded as Fake News. Not that there hasn't been a batch of unfiltered B.S. flowing from the media for a while, it's just more obvious when it involves information contrary to officially issued "facts"...
Like chaining down innovation to a 1930' telecom law. For the love of God just stop
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That is EXACTLY how our government is designed.
Sent from my TARDIS
story of Bob Ferguson, one of those listed in the NN suit above, sends out a fund raising letter about once a week listing his lawsuits against the Trump administration.
I believe people in his state have called for him to be investigated for turning his office into a fund raising campaign instead of doing his job, but he is the AG and would be responsible for appointing such an investigation.
So is it "intentional fallacy" if that is what they are ACTUALLY doing? Before you call a fallacy, you have to make a point that is applies.
“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
And he also said
"I've got a pen, and I've got a phone."
A different wise man once said "all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword".
The original meaning of Net neutrality was that the Internet should be a fair and even playing field for everybody. If you decide to watch a video on Youtube, or look at Joe Cool's web page, or Google, or watch a movie on netflix, it's bandwidth that YOU as the consumer paid for, and not subject to control by your ISP or anybody else.
Those Attorney Generals don't understand that the name "Net neutrality" was hijacked by the Obama administration. They cooked up an idea to seize control over it so they could apply censorship and searches of things they had no authority over previously. Mr. Obama called their plan "Net Neutrality" The exact same name, but different plan. So when everybody wrote in that they wanted Net neutrality, this modified version is what they gave us.
This would be the same somebody hijacking the name "car" so when you buy a car for $20,000, you get handed a bicycle called "car". Then the salesman says "That's what you said you wanted".
Yes, his version of Net Neutrality did temporarily restrict corporations from throttling traffic, but soon after, all the censorship started.
We want TRUE net neutrality. no censorship, no restriction, no government control, no corporate control. Data is data.
I told all of you before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7WHoqsRuxU
Email all the attorney Generals in this case and please explain it to them.
The same place were DACA should have been done. Hell, even Obama knew that when he said things like "I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true." and "I'm president, I'm not king." and "there are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president."
Unfortunately for Obama, he chained much of his legacy to executive orders and executive policy statements rather than real legislation. Those can get undone.
There is little doubt that whatever Obama accomplished via executive actions can be undone by Trump's executive actions. All these lawsuits on Trump executive actions are going to end up in SCOTUS and lose, simply because he has the authority to make these policy actions (like the travel ban)--exactly the same way that Obama had authority to implement his policies (within proper scope...Obama policies were overturned by SCOTUS several times especially cases of regulatory overreach).
...no more sanctuary cities, and prosecution of people who do similar, we'll bring back net neutrality.
Are we supposed to salute them? Are they attorneys, or are they generals?
Perhaps you meant "attorneys general"?
Please, help in the fight for what is right.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
States can forbid EC votes to go to anyone else other than the preferred candidate even if they're a brain dead elitist moron with no experience.
Seriously, some states have laws that make switching your EC vote illegal.
We found the zombie:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/13/the-u-s-is-not-a-democracy-it-never-was/
You don't even know what a democracy looks like.
duh
OTOH, SF and Berkeley and much of Silicon Valley are indeed progressive and liberal, thankfully; it makes it worthwhile to live here.
LOL! Enjoy your shit in the streets:
http://mochimachine.org/wasteland/
Comment removed based on user account deletion