Slashdot Mirror
22 States Ask US Appeals Court To Reinstate Net Neutrality Rules (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A group of 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia late Monday asked a U.S. appeals court to reinstate the Obama administration's 2015 landmark net neutrality rules and reject the Trump administration's efforts to preempt states from imposing their own rules guaranteeing an open internet. The states argue the FCC reversal will harm consumers. The states also suggested the FCC failed to identify any "valid authority" for preempting state and local laws that would protect net neutrality. The FCC failed to offer a "meaningful defense of its decision to uncritically accept industry promises that are untethered to any enforcement mechanism," the states said.
The state attorney generals suing represent states with 165 million people -- more than half the United States population -- and include California, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The states argue the FCC action could harm public safety, citing electrical grids as an example. They argue "the absence of open internet rules jeopardizes the ability to reduce load in times of extreme energy grid stress. Consequently, the order threatens the reliability of the electric grid." Several internet companies also filed a legal challenge to overturn the FCC ruling, including Mozilla, Vimeo, Etsy, and numerous media and technology advocacy groups, reports Reuters. The group of 22 state attorneys general first filed their lawsuit in January after the Trump administration voted to repeal the net neutrality rules in December.
The state attorney generals suing represent states with 165 million people -- more than half the United States population -- and include California, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The states argue the FCC action could harm public safety, citing electrical grids as an example. They argue "the absence of open internet rules jeopardizes the ability to reduce load in times of extreme energy grid stress. Consequently, the order threatens the reliability of the electric grid." Several internet companies also filed a legal challenge to overturn the FCC ruling, including Mozilla, Vimeo, Etsy, and numerous media and technology advocacy groups, reports Reuters. The group of 22 state attorneys general first filed their lawsuit in January after the Trump administration voted to repeal the net neutrality rules in December.
What evil has happened because of the FCC's ruling?
That the US went from 12th fastest to 6th fastest country for internet speeds since the repeal of the rules?
Isn't "attorneys general" one of the most overused examples in English grammar lessons? How did everyone involved get this wrong?
Of the 22 states, how many of them actively prevent third party ISPs from entering their state? The reason we have no choice is most states are suing anyone who tries to enter their market. They use talking points straight from the telco lobby.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
This whole situation is so screwed up. ISP's use public resources (rights of way, eminent domain) to build their networks, reap 100% of the profits, and then claim they aren't a utility. It's such naked and obvious corruption when governments let them get away with this but it continues to go on no matter who is in power.
I am very interested in what might happen with a combination of lack of net neutrality and One Touch Make Ready rules imposed. If the last mile was considerably easier, and there was a financial or competitive incentive for new services, what might we see? It's not that hard to set up an ISP (e.g. http://blog.thelifeofkenneth.c...) but the last-mile problem kills any reason to do so. We could have lots of little ISPs like back in the 90s when dialup was the thing, but only serving an apartment building, or a few blocks, or many ISPs to choose from in a given area if the last mile was deregulated like with power. Fruit for discussion anyway.
12:50 - press return.
This really comes down to the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution...and when it boils down to that - the States loose the argument.
Here is the simple logic.
FCC was created by Congress as an independent agency which Congress has invested with the full authority of the Federal Government to manage all things Telecom. This makes sense when you consider radio propagation as the first reason for the FCC to exist, i.e. radio waves don't respect State boundaries. In a similar sense - long distance phone connections cross state boundaries - so any one state can't regulate this - it is Federally preempted. Finally - comes along the Internet - something invented by a US Government Agency as a side note. This entity crosses not just State borders but International borders... again the Federal Government is the only entity that has jurisdiction extra-territorially by the way the Constitution sets things up.
So - what have we learned... there is an already existent Federal preemption of Telecommunications, FCC wields this power, and FCC has full jurisdiction to make such rulings.
The only way you overturn something like this is if the FCC didn't Federal or its' own procedures in creating the regulation... it is even a question in my mind whether States have standing to challenge this!
All of the above is what I've learned from Groklaw ;-) IMNAL!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Ok you made me chuckle with dune coons.
Remember that dusty document that is largely ignored these days? There is enough support to amend it and thereby start the path of making it relevant again.
The Democrats have gotten so used to using the courts to implement policy that they do it instinctively. That's pathetic. Real change comes from the political process...you know, like how marijuana legalization is happening.
This is the same thing my Congressman did when NN got slammed. He put on a good front like he was fighting to get it back even though he knew it wasn't going to happen. Gives them a chance to look like they're working for the people. If our opinion actually meant something they'd let us vote on these things at the national level when enough dissent is registered to trigger that kind of vote (which clearly the backlash from NN would have).
For the 1,143,123,013th time since Nov 2016, WE ALL DIED!!!!!
You must have missed it.
The point of this is to turn Internet into a TV like model where they can sell you packages of various sites at various tiers while also charging those sites for access to "their" users. There's nothing quiet about that, they'll advertise it front and center. IIRC Portugal is already doing just that (might've got the country wrong, but there's one out there that never had NN)
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Well being from one of the 22 States, please don't include me on this list. I understand I'm "represented" in this way, but I'm totally not for this waste of time and money. This will amount to nothing. The FCC has the right to do this, if I like it or not.
This is all just political, and the "165 million people" represented get the bill.
Don't fall for this deception! :( Trump's whole plan is to devolve power from the federal government to the states. This kind of thing just empowers his MAGA agenda! Don't go along with it! We'll be sorry after he's out of office and we have 50 different standards designed by people who went to State U instead of a single standard designed by graduates of America's elite universities. This has the potential to poison the well of wise federal government control for decades to come. Don't let this transparent agenda fool you!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Regular americans like us voted to lock democrats up for there collusion and treason.
Da, Comrade! Regular Americanskis like us! Lock them up there! Where? There!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is just another example of the complete bullshit you get when you designate legislative power to the bureaucratic machine in an attempt to avoid making a convincing argument for your position.
Net Neutrality should have been an actual law, passed by Congress. And it could have been had it not been turned into some catch all measure to spread SJW to the internet. Holy Fuck those people can take a simple proposition like, "treat all the traffic the same" and turn it into some fucking entitlement to broadband access and a host of other bullshit rules.
I hear if the net neutrality rules are repealed, the conservative repugs will use it to get FB et al to be uncensored. Is that possible??
Thanks for that insight, Hillary
This but unironically
So if the 22 states succeed in re-instating the rules, can I look forward to 27 states suing to undo the re-enstatement?
Don't like federal rules pertaining to you, push for less federal power over you. Sounds plenty good to me.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Net neutrality law is anything but net neutral. It's a manufactures crisis that the government is more than happy to take advantage of. How did we survive without net neutrallity laws? (Hint: we never had it and we were fine!) What about company x that abuse y? (Hint: Yeah - keep digging. With very few exceptions, that activity was stopped by existing law)
So what does it really do?
Do you like Netflix? Yeah, well Netflix traffic will be given the same preference as catphoto.com. Right now, Netflix pays for special service to get a fast pipe or even cache engines in your ISP's data centers. That's gotta stop, right?
It sets the stage for internet taxes. Remember the most feared statement - "I'm from the givernment and I'm here to help." It reclassifies internet access as a common carrier telecommunications service. You know those weird taxes you get on your cell phone statement? Let's have them on our internet bill, too!
Oh, and fuck lots of hookers and porn stars! Forgot that one, sorry.
It's attorneys general, not attorney generals.