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.

Comments

an "Open" internet

[Anonymous Coward]

an open internet that only we can censor, de-platform, shadow-ban, and control. We're "neutral" platforms after all.

Re:an "Open" internet

[DirkDaring]

And we'll do it all under the guise that your ISP is slowing down your Netflix.

Re:an "Open" internet

[Gravis Zero]

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".

Really?

[zippo01]

If the rule was arbitrarily passed by a committee, (which at the time admitted may be overstepping bounds) what legal argument do you have when they undo it? its inconvenient? I understand it is a popular position, but this should be handled long term with legislation as several states have done.

Re:Really?

[SirAstral]

Because it is okay when we do it, just not okay when those other guys do it. The cornerstone of the us vs them political party system.

I wish people would view political parties with the same disdain that racism should be viewed. At the end of the day, the entire purpose of a political party is to keep the us vs them mentality going under the guise of strength through unity. What good is that strength when those divides create war? People die instead, wiping out any benefits gained!

If you want unity, you have to get rid of identity entirely, especially group based identities. But the tribalism inherent to the nature of humans makes this nearly impossible.

Re:Really?

[DaHat]

the entire purpose of a political party is to keep the us vs them mentality going under the guise of strength through unity

No... the entire purpose of a political party is to more easily differentiate candidates and their views and rally together for a common cause, as (unfortunately) most voters can't be bothered to verify individual things... what you describe is an unfortunate result from government having too much power and the incentivation to hold/wield power.

Re:Really?

[SirAstral]

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.

Re: Really?

[Rhipf]

This is actually the whole problem. Congress has not given the Internet common carrier status. When the Internet was primarily delivered over the telephone system (DSL and dial-up) the Internet was sort of given common carrier status only because the telephone system was classified as a common carrier. Cable systems never had common carrier status so ISPs that provided Internet access did not fall under common carrier rules.

In 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 codified a distinction that had already been essentially the practice of the FCC between 1980 and 1996. Services that rely on the existence of the network (e.g. websites and pay-per-call 900 services) were to be classified under Title I (information services); the transmission of those services over the existing telephone network would remain Title II (common carrier). This makes perfect sense: websites aren’t transporting your data anywhere—they receive your request and respond to it; the ISP transports those requests and responses. However, the 1996 act abstained from classifying the new cable broadband Internet Service Providers under Title II, leaving this new “high speed” Internet industry essentially unregulated. In addition to this lack of classification, the 1996 law sought to reduce regulatory barriers to entry in both telecom and broadband by softening the laws of the previous regime as set in the 1934 act.

https://medium.com/@TebbaVonMa...

Re: Really?

[ShanghaiBill]

The Internet is Common Carrier, by act of Congress.

Bullcrap. Cite the "act of Congress".

Re:Really?

[dgatwood]

This is why democracy does not work. People would rather offload that responsibility than to tend to it.

People would be more likely to tend to it if they had any real belief that their vote mattered. When you have a choice between two candidates, both of whom are long-term politicians with little concept of the real world outside of government, the best your vote can really do is get rid of the worst of the worst, and the best candidates you'll ever get are likely little better than a random number generator on most issues.

Re:Really?

[Highdude702]

The premise of the USA was to have each state have its own laws, and have a small set of Federal Laws.

Court decisions make lousy legislation

[magarity]

Repeat until you learn it properly: Court decisions are NOT the proper way to get what you want despite the promise of being the quick and easy way. Convince your congresscritter to legislate what you want.
Too many judges think they are the one person legislature who know what is right for everyone.

Re:Court decisions make lousy legislation

[SirAstral]

This is a failure of the legislature which has the power to strike these courts down when they make stupid rulings like this. American citizens are grossly ignorant of how much the American Government no longer works properly. But we intentionally ignore the legislatures at the state and federal levels and instead focus on individuals. This unhealthy focus creates "king complexes" where people continue to invest power into a single individual until a despotism forms.

The people are broken and therefore our government is broken.

Re:Court decisions make lousy legislation

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:Court decisions make lousy legislation

[SirAstral]

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.

Re:Court decisions make lousy legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but I don't have millions of dollars to contribute to his reelection fund. Do you have any ways of making these people listen when you don't hold a large bag of money?

Re:Any legal opinions?

[MrMr]

I think you made a smart choice to ask for advice here. /. is famous for its opinion on legal matters. Most posters are actually lawyers pretending to be geeks living in the basement.

Constitutional crisis

[Okian Warrior]

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.

Re:Constitutional crisis

[EndlessNameless]

There is so much wrong in this post that it's difficult to address properly. But I will try.

net neutrality was a policy created by a government agency without the force of law

Congress has routinely delegated regulatory authority to the executive branch. The FAA, FCC, FTC, EPA, etc were all established by Congress. If Congress dislikes a regulation, they can pass a bill to fix it. The ultimate power always lies with Congress on these matters. Congress could, in theory, disband any of these agencies.

[the courts would be] enacting law from their own branch and circumventing the normal rules of how law gets enacted

Not at all. Congress gave authority to the FCC to regulate certain things. But the FCC still must regulate things in accordance with the law and established rule-making procedures. If Pai's reversal of net neutrality did not adhere to these rules, then it should be thrown out. The court is acting as a proper check on the executive branch by reviewing it for compliance with the law.

NN was *not* axed due to technical merits, it was axed because it wasn't proper law.

The original Open Internet rules were partially tossed because the court decided that the FCC could only regulate companies like that under Title II (and ISPs were classified under Title I at the time). This was Verizon v FCC 2014, and Verizon won.

The FCC responded by reviewing the ISP industry and reclassifying it under Title II. There was another legal challenge, and the court decided that the FCC has the authority to classify telecommunications services as it sees fit, and the FCC did so properly. This was Verizon v FCC 2016, and the FCC won.

So net neutrality was legal in the end. There is a specific "right way" to implement it under existing law, and Verizon basically forced the FCC to do it properly.

Re: Constitutional crisis

[jd]

Network neutrality was created at the inception of the Internet, as it was classed as Title 2. Executive orders overrode Congress. No President, Bush or any other, had the authority to override Congress. The law is clear. Ignorance of it is not an excuse.

Re:States

[sconeu]

As I understand it [disclaimer I am not a lawyer], most state NN laws basically state, "if you wish to be elgible for state contracts, you must do X, Y, and Z", where X, Y, and Z are NN principles.

They don't (and can't, per the Commerce Clause) enforce neutrality by fiat, they say, "if you want to do business WITH THIS STATE*, you must be network neutral." ${TELECOM} is free to not implement NN, but don't bother coming to contract with us. A State may set whatever criteria it wishes for the entities it contracts with.

* "With this state" as opposed to "within this state". Key distinction.

Re:So much for belief in democracy

[Insanity Defense]

And the Right have been chanting "Family Values" for decades. Now they have their Chosen One in power. Multiply divorced. Multiple times an adulterer. Pussy grabber in Chief. Some family values they have.

Re: So much for belief in democracy

[jd]

Sorry, you're wrong. The Internet was created under Title 2. The distinction of data is by executive order, not law. Law requires net neutrality. The courts are entitled to impose law on the lawless. That is their job.

Re: eh?

[jd]

On the basis that the Internet was established in the 1970s under Title 2.

There is nothing else required. Bush had no authority to overrule Congress.

Re:eh?

[Dragonslicer]

On what legal basis, exactly?

If you read the article (I know, I know), you'll find:

The brief calls the FCC’s decision “unreasoned and unreasonable” and says its “flawed analysis runs counter to the record and departs from the (FCC’s) previous factual findings without explanation.”

There are defined (by Congress) rules for new regulations or changes to existing regulations. Among them is the rule that federal agencies must provide a factual basis for their actions, so that regulations aren't changed purely by political whim with every new administration. As far as I can tell, the lawsuit is challenging the FCC action for not having the required factual basis.

"Placed" comments?

[davecb]

The leading comments here are

• an attack on the open internet
• an attack on courts
• A attack on slashdot itself,
• And attack on political parties, and
• an attack on the balance of powers

If I were trying to disrupt a discussion of a political initiative, I'd generate astroturf in exactly that way...