Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Repeal Is Official (cnet.com)
The Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules, which had required internet service providers to offer equal access to all web content, took effect on Monday. The rules, enacted by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2015, prohibited internet providers from charging more for certain content or from giving preferential treatment to certain websites. CNET: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has called the Obama-era rules "heavy-handed" and "a mistake," and he's argued that they deterred innovation and depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks. To set things right, he says, he's taking the FCC back to a "light touch" approach to regulation, a move that Republicans and internet service providers have applauded.
But supporters of net neutrality -- such as big tech companies like Google and Facebook, as well as consumer groups and pioneers of the internet like World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee -- say the internet as we know it may not exist without these protections. "We need a referee on the field who can throw a flag," former FCC Chairman and Obama appointee Tom Wheeler said at MIT during a panel discussion in support of rules like those he championed. Wheeler was chairman when the rules passed three years ago. We expect to see some protests today as the tussle to convince House representatives to reinstate the regulations continues. Some members of Congress are still fighting to overturn the ruling, so there's hope for a net neutrality return if legislators agree to it.
Further reading: The Washington Post published an interview of Pai over the weekend. In the interview, Pai remained bullish that the FTC could stop abuses. He also criticized Senate Dems and others for spreading misinformation during net neutrality debate. Over at CNET, Ajit Pai has written an op-ed, in which ... he is defending his move. Fight for the Future: The FCC repeal of net neutrality goes into effect TODAY, but Congress can still stop it and save the Internet.
But supporters of net neutrality -- such as big tech companies like Google and Facebook, as well as consumer groups and pioneers of the internet like World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee -- say the internet as we know it may not exist without these protections. "We need a referee on the field who can throw a flag," former FCC Chairman and Obama appointee Tom Wheeler said at MIT during a panel discussion in support of rules like those he championed. Wheeler was chairman when the rules passed three years ago. We expect to see some protests today as the tussle to convince House representatives to reinstate the regulations continues. Some members of Congress are still fighting to overturn the ruling, so there's hope for a net neutrality return if legislators agree to it.
Further reading: The Washington Post published an interview of Pai over the weekend. In the interview, Pai remained bullish that the FTC could stop abuses. He also criticized Senate Dems and others for spreading misinformation during net neutrality debate. Over at CNET, Ajit Pai has written an op-ed, in which ... he is defending his move. Fight for the Future: The FCC repeal of net neutrality goes into effect TODAY, but Congress can still stop it and save the Internet.
They wont start actually acting on the repeal until after the 2018 elections. So we got time before everything goes to hell.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
"He also criticized Senate Dems and others for spreading misinformation during net neutrality debate"
Like using bots to spam comments in your favor, or fake a DDoS attack to stop people petitioning against you?
And when the political power flips again in the future, the new administration will bring back the regulations.
This is why Internet regulation shouldn't be run by the FCC in the first place with their 5 votes. It's always going to flip flop based on which party controls the president.
I'd like to see congress pass some Internet regulations and let the FTC enforce it.
You say this as if there's some conspiracy going on. Anyone can read the laws. Google and Facebook are in favor of it because they don't want to be charged twice by ISPs.
What more do you think it is?
Now I can get my free AT&T TV over my AT&T cell service.
Oh, you innocent, sweet summer child.
Agreed, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make law, not Ajit Pai. Pai's contention that the FCC doesn't have the authority to make NN laws isn't completely unfounded. There are arguments both ways, but any time it's unclear whether an unelected bureaucracy has the authority to do X, I'd rather them not do X. I get a chance to vote for or against my Congressman every two years. I don't get to vote on FCC commissioners.
I hope whatever does get passed, whenever that happens, has a lot of input from people who really understand carrier-grade networks. One draft bill proposed in Congress would have actually made it illegal to block spam. "Treat every packet the same" would be disastrous, making VoIP virtually impossible. Some of the goals related to NN are certainly good, and I'd like to see them happen, but writing a law will be tricky because the technical details are very complex.
Agreed, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make law, not Ajit Pai.
You fail to understand how laws are actually made. There are in broad strokes three kinds of law. Statutes, regulations, and case law. Regulations ARE laws. Congress passes statutes which then delegates the authority to the administration (the FCC in this case) to make regulations which are the details about how the law is to be implemented and they have substantial discretion in doing this in most cases. Congress doesn't have the expertise to fill in all the details so they leave much of the heavy lifting up to the executive branch. Regulations ARE laws so the FCC has (within their mandate from Congress) the power to make law. Since Ajit Pai is in charge of that particular agency he has been delegated law making power from Congress.
Now a judge or Congress can constrain his actions through further statutes or case law, but otherwise the FCC absolutely can make laws and does so routinely every time they make a regulation.
They're private companies that use the Internet for connection. Net neutrality is about the connectivity. You seriously think that every website on the Internet with a public forum should have to accept every single post that they get? There's no expectation that newspapers have to publish every letter to the editor, so why is it you want to force Reddit, Twitter et al to keep up every post? If you don't like their TOS, then start your own website.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Uh, how do you figure that treating all traffic on the internet the same way locks out competitors?
The majority of Americans live in urban centers, so yes, while it sucks to be out in the backwoods of Montana and not have great service, it doesn't really apply to the majority of Americans, so this really is an absurd counterpoint.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Need to go back and get a refund on your education. We don't now, or ever have lived in a democracy. And, you better PRAY we never do!
I'm AT&T shareholder! Between this and the ruling tomorrow on the Time Warner merger by a George W. Bush appointed judge (Gee, I wonder how a Republican appointed judge is going to rule? For the corporations or the consumer?
This one must be very conflicting for you since the Trump administration is against the merger.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Throttling was indeed a thing in areas with perfectly good pipes in the past. There were lawsuits by some, payoffs by others. Now that "rent seeking" behavior is all back on the table
Comcast could block Cloud Gaming unless you buy an tv package just like how ATT blocked facetime on some plans.
Nonsense. Did Faux News tell you that? The purpose of Net Neutrality is to prevent the Comcasts of the world from going to the Netflixes of the world and saying "That's a nice business you got there. It'd be a shame if Something Bad happened to it...".
He was first appointed to the FCC by Obama. It's not like he gets an extra vote for being Chairman.
I'm just guessing here.. But it seems to me that returning to a pre-NN regulation environment won't be a huge issue even then.
I'm sure companies like AT&T and Comcast are fighting hard against Net Neutrality with no further goals and only the most altruistic of intentions. I'm sure that Comcast will be thrilled to compete fairly against Netflix and Google and countless tiny companies.
I see "patriots" forcing people to stand for the national anthem and pledge of allegiance. Forcing one to stand or kneel...whatever, it's basically the same thing.
Fuck the judicial "branch" and their rewriting of laws. They have no place and no value in our society. Lame ducks.
So let me get this straight. The judiciary is granted by the Constitution the power to interpret laws and decide between conflicting opinions regarding those interpretations. This is a vital part of the checks and balances in our government but you are uncomfortable with that fact. So you are effectively saying we should not have a Judiciary with the power to keep the Legislative and Executive branches in check or to correct Congress when they make laws that are contrary to the Constitution.
Yeah... let's just say I don't agree with you.
That's the way that comports with the Constitution. Congress makes laws, the executive *implements* the law passed by Congress. Which includes details of *how* the Congressional law is implemented. How, not *what* the law is.
That's a distinction without a difference. Any decision on a means of implementation (a regulation) de-facto IS a decision about what the law is. Congress delegated law making power. If Congress does not like a particular interpretation of the law they are empowered to pass legislation to clarify the powers they are delegating to the legislative branch or to give them further constraints. Congress is empowered to be as specific as they like with how they want a federal agency to behave. But in the absence of specificity from the Legislative branch federal agencies can and do write laws in the form of regulations on a daily basis within whatever mandate they are granted. Regulations ARE laws. Whether Congress writes a detailed law itself or delegates that authority to the Executive branch (which they do most of the time) has exactly the same effect at the end of the day. There is NO difference.
The Constitution, and common sense, disagree with you on this.
You would fail Constitutional Law 101 with that opinion. You're not arguing with my opinion and whether or not you think it sensible is irrelevant because that is how it works. I suggest you educate yourself on this point because it's important.
IF Congress passed a NN law, we could discuss at what level of detail Congress should act and what level the can legitimately leave to the FCC.
The FCC has already been granted powers by Congress. We can debate whether those powers extend to regulating Net Neutrality or not (the Judiciary has held that they do thus far) but the fact is that the FCC like all other federal agencies is granted substantial power to interpret the laws via regulations and to enforce those regulations. EVERY federal agency has the power to write laws via regulations. Regulations ARE laws whether you like it or not. That is how it works whether you like it or not.
In fact Congress chose NOT to make NN law.
That does not matter if the powers Congress already granted the FCC are broad enough to permit them to create (or remove) regulations surrounding Net Neutrality. It appears that the FCC does indeed have powers that broad as the Supreme Court has issued a ruling supporting the FCC's authority to write (or not) such regulations back in 2005. There have been other federal rulings that similarly affirm the FCC's authority to make such regulations under their existing authority. If Congress wishes to change this state of affairs they are empowered to do so.
> You would fail Constitutional Law 101 with that opinion.
You might want to educate the Supreme Court about that. The court says;
"The legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated"
United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., 287 U.S. 77, 85 (1932).
also Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 692 (1892).
That makes perfect sense because a) the Constitution says legislative power is vested in the Congress, which is elected every two years. It does not say "the Congress, the FCC, the FBI, the CIA, and every government bureaucrat".
Also see:
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935).
61 A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).
If "the legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated" isn't clear enough, John Locke gave a more lengthy explanation:
--
The Legislative cannot transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to othersâ¦And when the people have said, We will submit to rules, and be governâ(TM)d by Laws made by such Men, and in such Forms, no Body else can say other Men shall make Laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any Laws but such as are Enacted by those, whom they have Chosen, and Authorised to make Laws for them. The power of the Legislative being derived from the People by a positive voluntary Grant and Institution, can be no other, than what the positive Grant conveyed, which being only to make Laws, and not to make Legislators, the Legislative can have no power to transfer their Authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.
--
What CAN Congress legitimately grant to departments?
SCOTUS has ruled it "constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority", "only if the statute delegating the power provides definite standards or proceduresâ.
Here Congress did NOT "clearly delineate the general policy" of network neutrality. In fact, they considered doing so and decided NOT to. They decided that is NOT the general policy.
The 2005 ruling is that the FCC has the authority to decide a factual matter - whether or not a specific service meets the definition of "information service" that Congress put in the law. That's a determination of fact, with Congress having created the law, the definition.
Further reading:
State v. Union Tank Car Co., 439 So. 2d 377 (La. 1983)
In re Judgment & Sale of Delinquent Properties for the Tax Year 1989, 167 Ill. 2d 161, 177 (Ill. 1995)
ACT-UP Triangle v. Commission for Health Servs., 345 N.C. 699, 707 (N.C. 1997)
Citizensâ(TM) Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Commâ(TM)n, 264 Kan. 363 (Kan. 1998)