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

[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?

[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?

[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

[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: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.

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: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.