Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Rejects Industry Challenge of 2015 Net Neutrality Rules (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the interesting-turn-of-events dept.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused a request by the Trump administration and the telecommunications industry to wipe away a lower court decision that had upheld Obama-era net neutrality rules aimed at ensuring a free and open internet. The justices' action, however, does not undo the 2017 repeal of the policy. A report adds: The Federal Communications Commission's 2015 order to impose net neutrality rules and strictly regulate broadband was already reversed by Trump's pick for FCC chairman, Ajit Pai. But AT&T and broadband industry lobby groups were still trying to overturn court decisions that upheld the FCC order. A win for the broadband industry could have prevented future administrations from imposing a similarly strict set of rules. The Trump administration supported the industry's case, asking the US Supreme Court to vacate the Obama-era ruling.

But the Supreme Court today said it has denied petitions filed by AT&T and broadband lobby groups NCTA, CTIA, USTelecom, and the American Cable Association. Four of nine justices must agree to hear a case, but only three voted to grant the petitions. Further reading: Reuters and Variety.

56 comments

  1. Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is net neutrality the law of the land or not?

    1. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      No. But nor is it beyond the reach of the FCC to add it (again), which was the point of this ruling.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      No. The 2017 repeal stands but the lawsuit that tried to force the government from implementing NN failed.

      The FCC can do NN if it wants and is not bared by the courts is what this decision means. This has no effect on the 2017 FCC decision to repeal it.

    3. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Informative

      tl;dr
      The courts said the government had the power to enact Net Neutrality through the FCC (without an actual law). Now that never got argued up through to the supreme court yet and the attempt here was to get the SC to decide one way or the other but the SC declined because the issue no longer applies as the FCC reversed direction (which is typical for the FCC).
      It's a nothing burger.

    4. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. But nor is it beyond the reach of the FCC to add it (again), which was the point of this ruling.

      There was no "ruling". The SCOTUS simply declined to hear the case. This lets the lower court decision stand, but sets no precedent. The lower court decision only has precedent in the DC circuit.

      The SCOTUS can only hear a limited number of cases each year, and they likely declined to hear this case since it is pointless because the regulation in question has already been repealed.

    5. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SC only addressed a narrow legal argument on whether to uphold a lower court ruling. The SC was not dealing with the legal arguments to declare the entire NN regulations illegal. This ruling benefits the states who are enacting their own NN regulations and not imposing the Federal NN regulations in their particular state. When the Federal government moves to sanction any state refusing to follow federal regulations this current ruling will end up in the SC again but the legal arguments will focus entirely on whether or not the federal government can impose their will on the states in regards to the NN regulations. The legal argument will be focused on whether or not the governments actions are Constitutional. Dealing with constitutional matters is what the SC does. If the case makes it to the SC the government will most likely lose. And if they lose this case there are plenty more areas where the federal government are usurping the power of the individual states. NN would not exist if not for the communication corporations who basically authored the NN regulations and got their paid for politicians in Washington to put them inaction. The corporations who want NN to go away are some of the wealthiest and profitable companies in the country. There are no benefits what so ever to their customers by getting rid of NN. It's the actual customers who will get screwed while the corporations add a few more billion dollars worth of profit to the corporation coffers. How many billions of dollars of pure profit do these corporations need to add to their balance sheets before they stop screwing their customers sideways?

    6. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Neutrality is not the law of the land, but that wasn't good enough for ATT and various lobbyists groups ---
      they wanted to appeal to the Supreme Court seeking a ruling that it is not within the FCC's power to impose network neutrality, or, essentially that it is beyond the FCC's power to regulate their industry in the first place.

      However, the Supreme Court's time is precious, therefore, they are one of the only courts in the US that gets to decide whether they will
      hear a case in the first place.... Those that want to appeal to the court must make a petition for certiorari.

      The Supreme Court decided that this wasn't even worth hearing and denied their application for certiorari, therefore:
      the supreme court declines to even consider their case, at least for now, therefore they are unable to appeal the lower court's ruling,
      therefore, the lower court's 2015 ruling in favor of the FCC stands --- even if the FCC doesn't want to right now: A future administration retains the power to restore the Network Neutrality regulations.

    7. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Is net neutrality the law of the land or not?

      Not...

      It was never a law anyway, it was a regulation.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You start out making sense... but then there's this:

      NN would not exist if not for the communication corporations who basically authored the NN regulations and got their paid for politicians in Washington to put them inaction.

      You make it sound like it's BECAUSE of (now cancelled) Net Neutrality that corporations are enriched, and able to overcharge their customers. Yet, after repealing NN we have seen REDUCED investment in broadband deployment, OPAQUE and INCREASING customer pricing, exactly the opposite of what promises repealing NN would accomplish according to FCC Chairman Pai (most certainly the most bought-and-paid-for politician in the FCC by even his own "joking" admission.)

      No doubt the argument ISPs are making now that state net neutrality regulations violate the interstate commerce clause are ridiculous on their face, insofar as:

      1) I do not want my ISP to modify my content as it passes through their network (rendering it "speech" and an "information service"

      2) I pay for the connection between my endpoint to the ISP backbone - that's VERY local! - I don't need to nor do I care where a server is located, although I do not doubt that ISPs will go to rdiciulous lengths to slowly route traffic across state lines just to justify their legal arguments and to enable another path to overcharge customers for "fast lane access" which was explicitly prevented in now-repealed NN regulation.

    9. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a private company ran business like the government, the shareholders would have fired the CEO and executive staff by now.

    10. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by duckintheface · · Score: 4, Informative

      Justice Roberts and Kavenaugh recused themselves. That's the only reason that there were not enough votes (4 required) to hear the appeal from the DC Circuit. No guarantee they will recuse themselves again in the future.

      --
      "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    11. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by youngone · · Score: 1

      Private companies are just as shambolic and bone-headed as government.

    12. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private companies usually die when they fail, or are absorbed by successful companies.

      Sometimes you get companies that are too powerful to die quickly even with gross incompetence. GE is only now facing the consequences of decades of bad decisions, expect them to crumble apart over the next decade.

    13. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by Pseudonym · · Score: 0

      Sometimes you get companies that are too powerful to die quickly even with gross incompetence.

      Occasionally the government steps in to save them and the incompetent people who ran it get away without consequence. I believe the term is "too big to fail".

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    14. Re: Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The laws are for sale, bitches!!

    15. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      basically it would have to be challenged in every district and then the precedent would be referenced for consideration. Its not binding since its a different district but decisions do carry some weight.

    16. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 2

      Uhh.....the DC Circuit has authority over all US government administrative agencies so this does set precedence for how the FCC can govern it's domain into the future.

    17. Re:Gimme a summary without the double-negatives by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      who is going to bring a suit? the DC Circuit already ruled and they are the circuit court with authority to hear cases about administrative agencies of the US government.

  2. The way it should be, I suppose by MaryannG · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The court simply decided to not determine which way NN will be implemented (if it's implemented at all). It allows for the FCC to enact a NN rule administratively. This is good for the functioning of the government while it could be potentially bad for the topic at hand (NN). This is appropriate though as NN really ought to be a law (coming from Congress) and not an administrative ruling.

    --
    Social Media Handywoman at Texas Boys Balloo
    1. Re:The way it should be, I suppose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we wait for Congress, it will never get done.

    2. Re:The way it should be, I suppose by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      NN is not "implemented" in the common way: it only forbids traffic shaping use by ISPs :P

    3. Re:The way it should be, I suppose by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Is that a problem in a democracy? Normal laws people go to jail for should be done in ways that "get the politics out of it?"

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:The way it should be, I suppose by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Only forbids traffic shaping on similar content.

      Net neutrality does not make QoS illegal, just puts QoS's definition in the hands of lawyers...What could go wrong?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. Zero rating for WhatsApp: negative efects by fbobraga · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It does not infringe NN? I think it does... besides this, zero rating for WhatsApp is very common here in Brazil (all popular cellphone carriers do it here...), and, I think, it have a very negative impact on elections here, collaborating to "fake news" spread: it's very difficult to verify sources, when the internet access is limited only to this app...

    1. Re:Zero rating for WhatsApp: negative efects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Brazilian elections are a perfect example of why p2p communications are dangerous. Without someone overlooking what's being said, it's easy for fascists to spread their hate without consequence, to the point they managed to get a fascistic homophobe, transphobe and racist elected president. Right-wing hate groups need to be stopped at the root and all means of communications should be denied to them, having an unsupervised distributed messaging system like WhatsApp is just allowing these hate groups to recruit more "people".

    2. Re: Zero rating for WhatsApp: negative efects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We talking about Brazil or America?

      Baaaa ching!!!! I'll be here for another hour.

    3. Re:Zero rating for WhatsApp: negative efects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Brazilian elections are a perfect example of why p2p communications are dangerous. Without someone overlooking what's being said, it's easy for fascists to spread their hate without consequence, to the point they managed to get a fascistic homophobe, transphobe and racist elected president. Right-wing hate groups need to be stopped at the root and all means of communications should be denied to them, having an unsupervised distributed messaging system like WhatsApp is just allowing these hate groups to recruit more "people".

      Wait? What?

      Democrat National Committee #2 Keith Ellison hasn't been elected yet.

      Oh, this is Brazil last week, and not Minnesota tomorrow?

      Damn, so hard to keep my homophobic, sexist, abusive racists separate.

    4. Re:Zero rating for WhatsApp: negative efects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a division-infusing rußki trollbot bcuz you also just described 90% of the white male Rapuglicans up for election in the US tomorrow:

      Damn, so hard to keep my homophobic, sexist, abusive racists separate.

      Clip-clop clip-clop billy goats gonna getcha!

    5. Re:Zero rating for WhatsApp: negative efects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ Trollbot detected. Not actual antifa.

    6. Re:Zero rating for WhatsApp: negative efects by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      remember the joke 'everything you read on the internet is true. I read that on the internet somewhere' ? Nowadays I have to assume most of the shit I read is either outright fake, or seriously worded in a way to discourage critical thought.

  4. Re:Doesn't Trump benefit from Net Neutrality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    NN is not about the Internet being neutral towards nazis, thankfully. Think of this as having two levels: on the first level you have ISPs that control the basic infrastructure for the Internet, then on the second level you have service companies like Facebook, Google, PayPal, etc. that provide the "socioeconomic infrastructure", so to speak. NN is about the first level not being able to throttle or restrict access to the second, but the second level can (and should) still deny infrastructure to white supremacists and Trump voters.

  5. This little nugget stood out for me by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Kavanaugh dissented from the ruling upholding net neutrality rules in 2017, arguing that the rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content.

    The RIAA/MPAA would have a field day with this. If you've got editorial control then you're no longer a common carrier. Of course I'm not convinced the current Supreme Court wouldn't let them have it both ways. The above is so crazy on the face of it. "exercising editorial control"? ISP and phone companies don't have editorial control. They're a pipe. If they don't like that they can give up their monopoly to somebody who wants to follow the rules.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This little nugget stood out for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If money is speech, then their billing me for a specific amount each month violates my right to exercising editorial control over how much I pay them.

      Ludicrous, I know, but it makes exactly as much sense as their claim.

    2. Re: This little nugget stood out for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love it! Anyone making a profit off of my purchases is curtailing my speech. Let's take the 1st amendment to a new level.

    3. Re:This little nugget stood out for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one has EVER ruled that "money is speech".

      Instead, the Supreme Court has recognized that the ability to spend money is essential in spreading your speech to others. This does guarantee that you will find a listener - just that the government cannot prevent you from spending that money looking.

      Seriously - even the ACLU supports Citizen's United. Only the most ignorant or biased people do not.

  6. Chevron Deference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not 100% sure it applies here, but there's a legal concept called Chevron deference. Basically it means the court system stays out of regulatory actions. If you have a problem with a regulation by the executive branch of the government, you take it up with the executive branch. Unless the regulation infringes on constitutional rights or is beyond the scope of regulation as set out by laws passed by congress, you can't go to court over it.

    The right way to fix it is for congress to pass a law saying FCC must regulate net neutrality. Ideally it would set up broadband internet access under it's own rubric of regulation, as right now the FCC is essentially pretending that the internet is a phone service, ignoring hundreds of regulations so it can enact a few dozen.

  7. ??CONFUSED?? by domainuknown · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that we will keep Net Neutrality in place? Does it mean nothing? Does it mean that we may be able to repeal the FCC rules that overturned net neutrality under the heavily bribed and set for life because of industrial lobbying and then congressional appointment staff person known as Ajit Pal?

    1. Re:??CONFUSED?? by bobbied · · Score: 3, Informative

      Does this mean that we will keep Net Neutrality in place? Does it mean nothing? Does it mean that we may be able to repeal the FCC rules that overturned net neutrality under the heavily bribed and set for life because of industrial lobbying and then congressional appointment staff person known as Ajit Pal?

      It means nothing really. It has zero impact on anything about NN, it doesn't force the FCC to enforce NN, undo the repeal or affect any future regulations the FCC may or may not choose to enforce in the future. About the ONLY thing I can imagine this does is give us a pretty good picture of how the SC would chose to not be involved in other such cases. 6 to 3 is pretty open and shut.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:??CONFUSED?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Net Neutrality has been gone and will stay gone. I know, you read the sky will fall and the seas will boil and jack booted thugs will march through your browser history if Obama's Net Neutrality ever goes away... It went away. It got Trumped. The Internet went right back the the way it was before Net Neutrality, during Net Neutrality, and will be after this stupidity rears it's Chicken Little - over regulated - government empowering - utopia guarantying head again.

    3. Re:??CONFUSED?? by domainuknown · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your response. Your answer seems complete and accurate. I just don't like it because it is probably true.

    4. Re:??CONFUSED?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except of course, the decision to not hear the case was 4-3, not 6-3. Two Justices who are almost certainly on the side of the 3 recused themselves.

    5. Re:??CONFUSED?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably nothing... Just a guess.

  8. That's now how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Section 230 of the CDA explicitly allows ISPs to edit content without becoming "publishers."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

  9. A perfect description by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very similar to how I explained it to others over the past years. Nothing more than FANG saying: "Rules for thee, but not for me!"

  10. The TDS hysteria continues... by bblb · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    So, the petition is put forth by AT&T along with broadband lobbyist groups NCTA, CTIA, USTelecom, and the American Cable Association... but you're gonna headline this as the SCOTUS rejecting a request by the "Trump administration"?

    1. Re: The TDS hysteria continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats, Republicans, corporations... it is all the same.

    2. Re:The TDS hysteria continues... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The Trump administration supported the industry's case, asking the US Supreme Court to vacate the Obama-era ruling.

      Reading past the headlines can be pretty tricky for some folks. But it turns out there's more information there.

    3. Re:The TDS hysteria continues... by bblb · · Score: 1

      Article says "refused a request by the Trump administration"... the request didn't come from the Trump administration so that statement is untrue and, whether or not they supported it isn't relevant to anyone but the legion of snowflakes looking to blame Trump for everything. The request came from AT&T and the lobbyist groups NCTA, CTIA, USTelecom, along with the American Cable Association. So the article should have said "refused a request by AT&T, the NCTA, CTIA, USTelecom, and the American Cable Association". English is hard I know...

  11. Re:Doesn't Trump benefit from Net Neutrality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If InfoWars started their own video streaming service and was forced to pay an ISP for prioritisation, they would have to pay rates similar to what Google can afford.

    Which is what the point being made was. NN benefits InfoWars because it makes it easier for InfoWars to disseminate its data to people. This has nothing to do with censorship.

  12. What about the guys with knives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > The Brazilian elections are a perfect example of why p2p communications are dangerous.

    Socialists with knives are even more dangerous, just ask Bolsonaro, who was nearly murdered by one before winning the presidency. Oh, but somehow the fake news about him is not dangerous, right? But I guess someone giving an opinion on WhatsApp that you don't agree with is somehow less concerning than attempted murder of the president of Brasil?

    Anyhow, you can't use WhatsApp without internet access, so I have no idea what the GP poster was going on about. WhatsApp is commonly used because there are insane charges for text messages. Bolsonaro won because Lula is in jail for corruption, Dilma was impeached, and Haddad wasn't even popular in SP, not because of random messages on an app.

    PT has no one but itself to blame for what they did to Petrobras and how they robbed Brasil. The fact that you worry that free communication will be your undoing only shows the depth of corruption here. Your ideas don't stand up to scrutiny and it prevents you from hiding your corruption.

  13. HA HA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HA HA.

  14. Re:Doesn't Trump benefit from Net Neutrality? by dryeo · · Score: 1

    NN is not about the Internet being neutral towards nazis, thankfully.

    In a sense it is, it stops your ISP from routing nazis or anyone else the ISP doesn't like, to /dev/nul.
    You're right that it doesn't stop private sites from discriminating, but there are lots of sites and few ISP's. I personally have one practical choice to get on the internet and that choice should just transmit packets.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  15. Whose platform is it anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Kavanaugh dissented from the ruling upholding net neutrality rules in 2017, arguing that the rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content.

    You do realize that's what you support every time you tell us that online monopolies have a right to deplatform, right?

  16. The SJC reaffirmed the authority Congress gave it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saying basically, that they had the authority to make the rulings under discussion, as granted by Congress, and that the authority did not lie in the courts.

  17. People really need to read the FCC's regulations by craighansen · · Score: 1

    Ajit Pai's FCC's definition of internet service as an "enhanced service" relies upon a ludicrous claim that DHCP service, which advertises a DNS service, that a user has no obligation to use whatsoever, qualifies it. Everyone is free to use whatever DNS service they wish just by sending DNS requests to someone else, but the FCC definition assumes that an ISP's DNS service is irrevocably bundled with the handling of IP packets. The FCC is simply wrong, and someone, someone, anyone, please, with enough legal savvy and authority to call them out on their false assumptions needs to do so to resurrect common carrier protections and network neutrality.

    Anyone who configures their router or computer already has the capability to send their DNS service requests to anyone other than the ISP, and the recognition of that simple fact blows a giant hole in the FCC's justification for their inability to support network neutrality.