Judge Won't Let FCC's Net Neutrality Repeal Stop Lawsuit Alleging Charter Throttled Netflix (hollywoodreporter.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hollywood Reporter: [I]n the first significant decision referring to the repeal [of net neutrality] since FCC chairman Ajit Pai got his way, a New York judge on Friday ruled that the rescinding of net neutrality rules wasn't relevant to an ongoing lawsuit against Charter Communications. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed the lawsuit almost exactly a year ago today. It's alleged that Charter's Spectrum-TWC service promised internet speeds it knew it couldn't deliver and that Spectrum-TWC also misled subscribers by promising reliable access to Netflix, online content and online games. According to the complaint, the ISP intentionally failed to deliver reliable service in a bid to extract fees from backbone and content providers. When Netflix wouldn't pay, this "resulted in subscribers getting poorer quality streams during the very hours when they were most likely to access Netflix," and after Netflix agreed to pay demands, service "improved dramatically." This arguably is the kind of thing that net neutrality was supposed to prevent. And Charter itself pointed to the net neutrality repeal in a bid to block Schneiderman's claims that Charter had engaged in false advertising and deceptive business practices. New York Supreme Court Justice O. Peter Sherwood isn't sold.

He writes in an opinion that the FCC's order "which promulgates a new deregulatory policy effectively undoing network neutrality, includes no language purporting to create, extend or modify the preemptive reach of the Transparency Rule," referring to how ISPs have to disclose "actual network performance." And although Charter attempted to argue that the FCC clarified its intent to stop state and local governments from imposing disclosure obligations on broadband providers that were inconsistent with FCC's rules, Sherwood notes other language from the "Restoring Internet Freedom Order" how states will "continue to play their vital role in protecting consumers from fraud, enforcing fair business practices... and generally responding to consumer inquiries and complaints."

Comments

Re:Charter's response..

[Shikaku]

Yeah no. It works both ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You can't make a law retroactively, it's in the constitution. Neither to punish nor permit something.

Re:Charter's response..

[Mattcelt]

I don't see a "/s" at the end of your post, but I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic.

Because if not, you're an idiot.

The only reason Charter's motion didn't cause the suit to be tossed was that it was filed before the repeal was enacted.

In other words, if the lawsuit were to be filed today, the repeal of Net Neutrality would have allowed Charter to throttle Netflix traffic without consequence.

This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[SlaveToTheGrind]

As explained in the complaint, there are two primary allegations:

1. That "Spectrum-TWC promised Internet speeds that it knew it could not deliver to subscribers."
2. That "Spectrum-TWC promised reliable access to online content that it knew it could not deliver to subscribers."

The specific legal theories are fraudulent misrepresentation, deceptive business practices, and false advertising.

It's completely unsurprising that the judge would conclude Net Neutrality or the lack thereof has no bearing on this case.

Re:Charter's response..

[dryeo]

Did you read the article you linked to? First there is nothing about passing a law, such as legalizing pot and retroactively remove the criminal status of offenders and the idea that it is against the Constitution to undo an unjust law seems like a pretty large infringement on the rights of those who are being punished by an unjust law.
What the article does show is how the Supreme court reinterprets the Constitution and reality. First, it now only applies to criminal law where the Constitution just says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. and then how the Supreme Court has ruled that things like being put on a sex offender list and having to post your personal information on the internet is not a punishment and I guess the ruling implied it is not a Bill of Attainder either (in my country, a Judge has to put you on the list as part of sentencing).
There's also the example of the child molester who had finished his sentence and being committed due to a law being retroactively applied was not a punishment so fine. I'd think it would take a Judge, on the advise of experts to commit someone rather then a broad law, so once again touching on both parts of "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
There's also the "Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban" which besides obviously going against the 2nd amendment, the Supreme Court considered the possibility of 10 years in jail for your previous legal gun and the fact that 10 years in jail is not a punishment but rather regulatory. In my country, where firearms aren't even a right, it once again takes a Judge to ban someone from owning firearms and is usually part of sentencing though I'd think it could be in the form of a restraining order.

So there you have it, at least according to the Wiki article, that part of the Constitution only applies to criminal law that is punitive and the punitive part is pretty flexible. It's amazing how your Supreme Court can interpret pretty clear language, especially if it means punishing someone that everyone hates.
This discussion is about a lawsuit against a company that isn't facing jail time so Article 1 Section 9 doesn't even enter into it according to precedent.