Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trump Administration Tells Supreme Court To Wipe Out Decision Upholding Net Neutrality (hollywoodreporter.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the throw-out-the-window dept.

Repealing net neutrality wasn't enough for the Trump administration. Today, the administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate a 2016 appeal court ruling that had upheld Obama era net neutrality rules that barred ISPs from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing content. Reuters reports: The request was made even though the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines to toss out the 2015 rules late last year, rendering the fight over their legality moot. In a filing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration said the question for the court was "whether the now-superseded 2015 order was invalid because it exceeded the FCC's statutory authority, was arbitrary and capricious, was promulgated without adequate public notice, or violated the First Amendment."

34 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. He'll get it too by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the current Supreme Court is stacked against government regulation of any kind. That is by design. We've been electing right wing presidents since I was born (yes, both Obama and Clinton, especially Clinton, were on the right wing). As the saying goes, Elections have consequences. America continues to choose candidates who oppose government regulation and favor leaving things up to the markets. We should stop acting surprised when that happens just because they're striking down a regulation we happen to like.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:He'll get it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As the saying goes, Elections have consequences. America continues to choose candidates who oppose government regulation and favor leaving things up to the markets oligarchs.

      There, FTFY. The "free market" is a myth in the USA. On the one hand, you have restrictions such as patents which locked out competitors to Amazon and Microsoft so there was no market in simple shopping or pre-installed operating systems. On the other hand, where clear information is needed, the entire US mass media has been controlled by Oligarchs such as Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch who have much more in common with each-other than with any of their consumers. The US public is so brainwashed that they blame the problems of de-regulation on those few regulations which remain.

    2. Re:He'll get it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      America continues to choose candidates who oppose government regulation and favor leaving things up to the markets.

      The democratic party seems to have the centrists and the more left people, while the republican party has the right, and the far right, and well Donald Trump, who seems to mostly be about worship of Donald Trump.

      The last election had people:
      1. Angry and wanting to vote someone in who was angry at the same people they were angry at. They have been told to be angry at the democrats/clintons/etc for some time. Trump's whole birthirism spiel was just a gigantic fan for the flames of prejudice. "This one is other." "He had no right to ever be in charge, kinda vibe." Much of the Russian crap helped with this, one way, or another. A lot of this is voting against their best interests, but that is where we are.

      2. Believing the two main parties were nearly as equal as far as their lives went. Many of those stayed home. Some might have voted for Trump because well your back to 1. This is false, but yah, we are here. Our voter participation is crap. I'd like to say those people are getting a wakeup call, but yah, not seeing it.

      3. You had a lot of people who thought trump was aweful/unqualified/lacking ethics voting on the other side, and that's about it. If you thought Trump was one of those things well Hillary was basically generic democrat to everyone else, including me. There was nothing particularly wrong with the choice and it was vastly better than the alternative, but hardly inspiring. Some likely stayed home because she was probably more of a republican than Donald Trump is. That was no doubt a mistake, since her policies would have been far better. Hell, she stood up to Putin, which is something Trump can't say. That is partly why she got attacked. I think the part of this group that didn't show up, might show up better next time. Actually come to think of it, part of the reason Trump might be refusing to attack Putin is this is what happened to Hillary. It makes sense, though I doubt that is all of it.

      The interesting thing will be is whether the delta causes enough of a shift in november to overcome partisan gerrymandering. I think you have to get about 6% in favor of the democrats for the republican seats to start falling like dominoes. Someone can correct me if they have a better number.

  2. So? by sexconker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In a filing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration said the question for the court was "whether the now-superseded 2015 order was invalid because it exceeded the FCC's statutory authority, was arbitrary and capricious, was promulgated without adequate public notice, or violated the First Amendment."

    Sounds like they want clarification on how, exactly, the FCC fucked up so they can use that against them in the future.

    1. Re:So? by Desler · · Score: 2

      Then why would they go to the Supreme Court? Congress dictates the authority of the FCC. Also, the courts alreay ruled the FCC did have the authority

    2. Re:So? by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds like they want clarification on how, exactly, the FCC fucked up so they can use that against them in the future.

      Sounds to me like they want to get a ruling to prevent the next liberal "rule by fiat" President from simply reinstating the same rules by fiat. If the FCC can point to a SCOTUS decision that said they shouldn't have created rules outside their scope of authority when President Next issues his Executive Order putting them back, then we can avoid the executive branch politicization of this legislative branch football.

    3. Re:So? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds to me like they want to get a ruling to prevent the next liberal "rule by fiat"

      Say, did you know that Donald Trump has signed more executive orders in the first 20 months of his presidency that Barack Obama did in his first two years?

      If you don't like "rule by fiat", then you should really be uncomfortable with the degenerate Trump regime.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:So? by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      The telecoms are fighting furiously to contain the newly found grip, and additionally get those pesky states who've passed neutrality laws to just go away and leave them alone.

      This is a battle with telecom $$ campaign contributions and therefore funded US Justice Dept goading the SCOTUS to see it their way (that is, their friends, the telecoms), and pay back their benefactors, 'cause this sure isn't going to benefit the citizenry.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    5. Re:So? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Many of the same people continue to be upset by it,

      They sure are quiet about their disapproval. Who are these mythological Republicans who are now uncomfortable with Trump's rule by fiat?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:So? by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter the number. What matters is the substance and what the executive order does. If it bypasses Congress to do something the President wants that Congress has refused to work with then that is an overreach of executive authority. That is very different than a proclamation of intent. If a E.O. undo past executive overreach than I don't see it as big as an issue than the original E.O. being undone.

      I hope you can tell the difference. Bypassing congress bad. Working within Constitutional Executive authority good.

    7. Re:So? by jrumney · · Score: 2

      No, Trump just wants the court to declare an Obama era order unconstitutional so he can rant about it on Twitter.

    8. Re:So? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jeff Flake, John McCain, Ben Sasse, the two Koch brothers, none of whom seem mythical.

      Three retiring senators that are hated by their own party and a pair of oligarchs.

      It's not a very robust group of resisters to the Trump regime from the conservative sphere, now is it? I'd be more impressed if you could name someone who was actually running for re-election.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:So? by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds to me like they want to get a ruling to prevent the next liberal "rule by fiat"

      Say, did you know that Donald Trump has signed more executive orders in the first 20 months of his presidency that Barack Obama did in his first two years?

      If you don't like "rule by fiat", then you should really be uncomfortable with the degenerate Trump regime.

      Wow

      20 months vs 2 years ? Any reason you felt the need to change units there ? 20 months vs 24 makes it much easier to see the difference. Though it doesn't sound nearly as impressive.

      Gotta ask before you posted that did you do any checking about the nature of the EOs ? I mean just how many were undoing previous EOs ?

      Seems this would important to make the point you are trying to unless you are just looking to troll.

    10. Re:So? by whit3 · · Score: 2

      Congress hadn't envisioned such a massive chunk of the economy to be pulled under regulatory control ... That's all some ask, regardless of the proposed value of the control. Regulators should not do it without express Congressional instruction.

      Don't be silly. The purpose of an FCC is to make a variety of rules in a timely fashion for a public purpose, without the cumbersome (and often contentious) process of partisan lawmaking. The public purpose (improving communication) is why the Constitution put navigable waterways, post roads, and post offices, fully in the federal (not state or municipal) authority. It's as old a principle as the Constitution (indeed, older: the US Postmaster was established before the Constitution was written). The country has grown since we established a postmaster, and since the Constitution, and since we made the FCC. So what? There's no expiration time or size limit involved. The FCC ought not to ignore the 'proposed value of the control'; that's a statutory requirement,. And Congress, while it can unmake the FCC or modify its rules, is a poor tool for doing a fine adjustment: that's why regulation was outsourced to an expert group. Congress and the President already defined FCC regulatory scope, back when that commission was formed; reformalizing that scope is going to take the same two-houses-of-Congress and a Presidential signature as the original telecommunications act (and we haven't seen that happen recently).

    11. Re:So? by meglon · · Score: 2, Informative

      For as much bitching and whining that republicans did, Obama actually signed fewer EO's than any other 8 year president going back to Ulysses Grant (1869-1877). On a yearly average, which is a better measure, Obama's average is less than any president since Grover Cleveland (1885-1889). Trump, on the other hand, is on pace to match in 4 years what it took Obama 8 years to sign.

      And to be even more correct, a number of Obama's EO's were drafted and signed AFTER republicans told him to go ahead and do it to fix a problem because they couldn't, or wouldn't, fix them.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    12. Re:So? by Straif · · Score: 2

      That's because Obama preferred the use of Presidential Memos instead of EOs and despite having the same legal authority of an EO (though few of the reporting requirements) the press and the "fact checkers" who have the research ability of a squirrel with ADD when it comes to digging into anything Obama related, made sure to only counts EOs when any question of his use of the 'phone and pen' were questioned.

      Obama in 2 years: EOs = 74, PMs = 139
      Trump in 20 months: EOs 76, PMs = 42

      And just for comparison:
      Obama 8 years: EOs = 276, PMs = 644
      Bush 8 Years: EOs = 290, PMs = 7

      There are also a few other Presidential documents that act similarly to EOs but they tend to be in the low double digits for all Presidents so not really worth counting.

      And as people have already mentioned, not all EOs and PMs are created equal. They are supposed to be used to further clarify existing laws or express how the President would like certain powers granted to him to be executed, or for mundane things like declaring some random day special or bestowing special honors on someone. Obama routinely used them to bypass congress altogether and just write new laws that didn't exist. Not only is that unconstitutional but as we've all seen since Trump arrived (since several of his EOs are expressly to counter Obama's), a terrible way to govern as anything done by EO can be erased by EO.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  3. USA. Now officially a dictatorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Germany here. This kind of ... well ... dictating, is when our government back then crossed the line into a dictatorship.
    Like with an event horizon, you aren't aware you crossed it, at the time of it happening. But later on, you realize that this was the point where you would have had to stop it or die trying.

    So please take care of yourselves over there. Especially the convenient scapegoat fringe groups. Don't believe what you are being told about "communists/socialists/democrats/republicans/libertarians/muslims/christians/jews".

    1. Re: USA. Now officially a dictatorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Germany here. This kind of ... well ... dictating, is when our government back then crossed the line into a dictatorship. Like with an event horizon, you aren't aware you crossed it, at the time of it happening. But later on, you realize that this was the point where you would have had to stop it or die trying. So please take care of yourselves over there. Especially the convenient scapegoat fringe groups. Don't believe what you are being told about "communists/socialists/democrats/republicans/libertarians/muslims/christians/jews".

      yeah okay

      See, that right there is the same smug and complacent attitude that led to Auschwitz, Sobibór, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Gross-Rosen, Neuengamme, ... but don't let those examples stop you from travelling down that road again.

    2. Re:USA. Now officially a dictatorship? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This.

      Authoritarianism can work on anybody. Anybody. All it takes is the following:

      1. Make the population afraid, angry, or confused about something.
      2. Present yourself as the only way to solve the problem.

      Sound familiar?

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:USA. Now officially a dictatorship? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 5, Informative

      They filed an appeal to an ongoing court cause which they are a party to. This is bog-standard lawyering.

      How does that have anything to do with dictatorship, or dictating anything?

      At most, the Supreme Court might decide to take the appeal and dictate an opinion to give their results.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    4. Re:USA. Now officially a dictatorship? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      This particular move isn't dictatorship yet. He's asking, not telling. If he instructed them to do so, that would be dictatorship. If they tell him no, and he has some of them imprisoned or killed, that'll be dictatorship.

      With that said, every time Trump says Fake News, I hear Hitler say Lugenpresse

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:USA. Now officially a dictatorship? by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Theoretically, this can be reset in no more than 6 and a half years.

      Of course, what's left of the country by that point may not be worth resetting.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    6. Re: USA. Now officially a dictatorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You still don't get it. Those examples are their goal.

    7. Re:USA. Now officially a dictatorship? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Informative

      The whole Trump is a Nazi thing is so played out. And yet there is no shortage of people willing to beat that drum. Obama started this tradition of ruling by decree instead of democratically, and yet we never heard a peep out of you then.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:USA. Now officially a dictatorship? by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Because of a shitty headline. Hell, even TFS says *ASKED*.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    9. Re:USA. Now officially a dictatorship? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      Germany here. This kind of ... well ... dictating, is when our government back then crossed the line into a dictatorship. Like with an event horizon, you aren't aware you crossed it, at the time of it happening. But later on, you realize that this was the point where you would have had to stop it or die trying.

      So please take care of yourselves over there. Especially the convenient scapegoat fringe groups. Don't believe what you are being told about "communists/socialists/democrats/republicans/libertarians/muslims/christians/jews".

      He filed an appeal in a court case.

      Do get a grip.

  4. Re:This is to stop the widespread sleep deprivatio by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

    Actually the players backing the repeal of Net neutrality want you to use the Internet as much as you want But they want to throttle the competition and keep you locked in their pay-walled garden

  5. Ask / Tell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A little editorial work done on the title of the post.
    The title and the first line of the linked article: "Trump administration asks Supreme Court "
    Title on Slashdot: "Trump Administration Tells Supreme Court "

    That one-word change is a big difference, suggesting one branch of the gov't telling the other what to do.

    1. Re:Ask / Tell by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's BeauHD, certified piece of shit.

  6. Re:That's odd... by mi · · Score: 2

    What ever happened to separation of powers between the three branches of government?

    What specific event or action has lead you to believe, the Separation is threatened in any way?..

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  7. End Run Around Free Speech ????? by msmonroe · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe this is an attempt to curb free speech on the internet. You could imagine a broadband company that doesn't like a certain type of content asking an outrageous amount to allow that content access to the fiber. Who could say that legislation couldn't be put in place as financial incentive to allow certain types of content to be allowed on the fiber either. Does that violate free speech? I think it's unclear, free speech is allowed in the scenario, you just have to pay a really high premium.

  8. Re:Democracy IS tyranny by Now15 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hence why a exceptionally good education system is necessary for a democracy to endure.

    --

    Computers are useless: they can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
  9. Yes, it's and End Run Around Free Speech. by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    I believe this is an attempt to curb free speech on the internet.

    That's exactly what it is. Too many people are becoming informed and educating themselves now policy decisions can be made to keep people wasting each others time watching cat vids on facebook whilst education and things important to running a free society are kept inaccessible.

    Your post should be MODed UP instead of down, however that really shows how this is going to work.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  10. Re:Democracy IS tyranny by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

    It's not any lack of education, it's base human nature that is the fly in the ointment of a direct democracy.

    I should have added that both socialism and communism also fail for the same reason...base human nature. Both socialism and communism are authoritarian by their very nature. Most major life decisions are made by those in power...where you work and at what sort of job, what kind and level of education you receive, where you'll live, how much you will earn, how much food you receive, even how many children you may have.

    Anytime you put people in authority over others without unavoidable and direct consequences for abusing that power, those people placed in authority will generally become increasingly authoritarian, capricious, and cruel as was shown by Milgram's experiment.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.