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?
You omitted the part about the internet prices in the US being some of the most expensive of the first world countries. Doesn't mean anything if one has the 6th fastest internet if one cannot afford any of the plans offered.
Needs more apostrophe for sure.
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
After Spectrum bought out Time Warner in my area internet speeds tripled.
However this was a deal that started during the Obama era. With promises of faster speed to allow the buyout.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Did you know that I don't give a shit how things are on average? Where exactly is my benefit if internet speeds just got higher for corporations?
In other words, since this is probably a crowd that does give a shit or two about internet and its speed, could we have a show of hands whose internet actually got faster since the repeal of rules? And while we're at it, how did prices develop?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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??
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).
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/
*How* could internet speeds have gone from 12th to 6th since NN was repealed?
What does it mean to have gone from 12th to 6th? Compared to what? What were the actual average speed changes?
Or was it just "creative mathematics"?
Are you saying that equipment was rolled out that upped speeds? Where, when?
Anecdotal, but my speeds have not changed appreciably.
And how is that tied to NN repeal?
NN's repeal could be argued as april to june of this year. Given the most favorable amount of time, carriers purchased and deployed sufficient equipment in 4 months to have made a difference ( and again, what is the difference? )?
emt 377 emt 4
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.
It did for me as well, but it had more to do with Google Fiber entering the marketplace.
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.'"
Don't fall for this deception! :( Trump's whole plan is to devolve power from the federal government to the states.
Right, that's why they're planning to not renew California's waiver to set its own emissions standards, because they want the power to lie with the states! Wait, what?
"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.
You neither addressed nor refuted the premise. You merely engaged in whataboutism. Please revise and resubmit.
I provided a concrete example which refutes the premise. They don't give one tenth of one fuck about states' rights, only what they want to do, and you're in denial.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Nobody is in denial about the unfortunate revival of States Rights, a discredited racist doctrine decisively refuted in the Civil War. This FCC nonsense is just a vehicle to revive this outdated idea. Don't fall for it! Keep the power to regulate in the federal government where it belongs! Don't be Russia's tool.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
That's awesome, where is that?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
or have a monthy limit so low where you can't use the connection.