Slashdot Mirror
Internet Groups Urge US Court To Reinstate 'Net Neutrality' Rules (reuters.com)
A coalition of trade groups representing companies including Alphabet, Facebook Inc and Amazon.com, urged a U.S. appeals court to reinstate landmark "net neutrality" rules adopted in 2015 to guarantee an open internet. From a report: In a legal filing Monday, the Internet Association, Entertainment Software Association, Computer & Communications Industry Association, and Writers Guild of America West urged the reversal of the Trump administration decision to overturn the rules in December. "Rules regulating the conduct of (internet providers) continue to be needed to protect and promote an open internet," the groups wrote in a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
There's a problem with all these court orders that few people realize, which is the separation of the three sections of government.
Consider the current situation: net neutrality was a policy created by a government agency without the force of law, in the sense that the policy didn't come from the legislative branch, and the same agency could choose to reverse its decision.
If the courts step in and order the policy reinstated, they are effectively enacting law from their own branch and circumventing the normal rules of how law gets enacted.
So far the executive branch has been very "polite" about these court orders by deferring to the order and possibly filing appeals, sometimes going as far as the supreme court.
A more serious situation happens with things like DACA and DAPA: these policies were implemented by the executive branch in direct contradiction of established law. These did not even have the weight of executive orders, they were "policy memos" issued from the executive branch.
If the courts step in and order the executive branch to reimplement DACA we have the special situation where the legislature wants the executive branch do one thing, and the courts want them to do the opposite.
The term for this situation is "constitutional crisis", and again the executive branch has been polite in obeying the orders (even the really obviously bad ones), but this doesn't necessarily have to happen. They could push the issue and it would have serious ramifications about the government in this country, most of which no one would like.
Honestly - using the courts to force your agenda is a really bad idea, and while it may *seem* like you are winning small points, the larger point keeps looming larger every day.
This is mentioned every. single. time. NN has come up on this forum, which is that NN was *not* axed due to technical merits, it was axed because it wasn't proper law. And people mention every. single. time. that the right way is to have the legislature pass a NN law, and the executive branch would happily implement it as written.
Similarly, for DACA and DAPA, Trump has been asking the legislature (clearly and explicitly) repeatedly for immigration reform, yet none is forthcoming.
Pass NN laws at the state level, let the carriers sort it out with the states.
But please stop asking the courts to implement your political agenda.
It's a run-around of the legislative branch, and literally threatens the stability of government.
an open internet that only we can censor, de-platform, shadow-ban, and control. We're "neutral" platforms after all.
With or without network neutrality, all those problems still exist. In fact, without network neutrality all those problem become even worse because giant corps can afford to pay off ISPs while your tiny startup would easily flounder under the weight restricted networking.
You can create your own totally open platform and put the server on the internet but what you cannot do is force people to use it. It might surprise you but it's not your everyday decent folk that are flocking to "gab.io".
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The Government was purposely designed to not work very well, requiring a lot of parts working together to actually change anything. This is not a flaw, it is a feature. The fact that this feature turns out to be flawed is no coincidence, and we can see the effects of stupid laws still to this day. See Prohibition for example.
Plenty of bad laws come from people shouting "We have to do something, this is something, therefore we ought to do it".
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we ought to do something.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The fact that it was arbitrarily passed by committee is a valid reason for the courts to undo it. Regulatory agencies can't arbitrarily change regulations just because they're not politically popular with the boss. They have to have some reason for doing so. If we allowed for just capriciousness in the regulations, it would be chaos. Businesses and private citizens alike would be unable to plan for the future because they'd have no way of knowing what the regulations would look like after the next elections.
Which is why those deplorables being assigned to run agencies that they've been working to destroy is so damaging, they don't have to change the regulations, they can just choose to re-categorize them or just not enforce them. For example asigning Mick Mulvaney to oversee the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, refusing to request any funds to perform it's duty and firing all sorts of people that were supposed to be protecting us from abuses by corporate interests.
This in spite of the fact that he can't legally run the agency as he hasn't been confirmed, in fact nobody has been confirmed, so it's legally supposed to be the previous 2nd in command that's to run things until a replacement is nominated and confirmed.
Guess you never heard of RINO's and DINO's.
"what you describe is an unfortunate result from government having too much power and the incentivation to hold/wield power."
You could not be more wrong. These things are never missing from any power structure and are inherent... though the excuse does make for a good scapegoat.
If the idea is democracy or republic, then a well informed and well intentioned electorate would demolish that problem. People can recall folks if they like, the problem is that everyone is too lazy to care and so socially weary and self defeating.
This is why democracy does not work. People would rather offload that responsibility than to tend to it. Why else do people like to call it victim blaming one someone wanders along and says... "it's your government, do something about it". We won't be doing anything about nothing... we are just going to vote on ideas, and no matter how many times the politicians lie, they remain secure in their seats... and THIS is why parties are there... to help keep those seats, because many would rather have a corrupt liar doing what they do like politically than risk having that other sides corrupt liar doing things they do not like politically. Parties keep this problem entrenched and difficult to solve.
No, the government is purposefully designed to not work fast or frequently, this is not the same thing as being purposefully designed to not work very well, and why there are a lot of working parts. Though, you are right that most of the bad laws come from the people shouting we have to do something, anything. Most times, nothing is the proper course of action. People just do not understand why, but the Declaration of Independence has something to say about that.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
A rapidly changing government executing laws as fast as we are now is going to doom the nation.
It was decided by Congress. Congress ruled that data traffic was no different from any other, placing the Internet under Title 2.
Bush decided unilaterally to overrule the law.
It is right and proper to overturn illegal decisions in the court. That is their function.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)