Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rejects FCC Request To Delay Net Neutrality Case (thehill.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the full-steam-ahead dept.

A federal appeals court denied the FCC's request to postpone oral arguments in a court battle over the agency's decision to repeal its net neutrality rules. The FCC had asked for the hearing to be postponed since the commission's workforce has largely been furloughed due to the partial government shutdown. The hearing remains set for February 1. The Hill reports: After the FCC repealed the rules requiring internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally in December of 2017, a coalition of consumer groups and state attorneys general sued to reverse the move, arguing that the agency failed to justify it. The FCC asked the three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to delay oral arguments out of "an abundance of caution" due to its lapse of funding. Net neutrality groups opposed the motion, arguing that there is an urgent need to settle the legal questions surrounding the FCC's order.

7 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Summary? by JBMcB · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've poked around and I can't find a good summary of the lawsuit. The claimants are saying it was unlawful for the FCC to repeal the network neutrality rules? Under what basis? There weren't rules, then there were, then there weren't. Did congress pass something instructing them to regulate network neutrality? Otherwise it seems pretty clear it's entirely up to the FCC.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are quite a number of lawsuits pending on the subject, I'm not sure which one this story applies to.

      But most of them seem to hinge on arguing that (1) the FCC has a duty to protect consumers (the FTC having already announced that it can't do it, contrary to the FCC's assertion), and (2) it failed to follow proper procedures when it repealed the former regulation. At least one claimant also argues that (3) the FCC's justifications for abandoning NN vary from meaningless gibberish to outright lies, although it's not quite clear to me why that should be considered as a legal point rather than a political one.

      Whether these complaints have legs, I guess we'll find out - eventually.

    2. Re:Summary? by SirAstral · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The first problem is tribalism. It's okay when their side illegally or unconstitutionally does something... just not okay when those not on their side do the same.

      The second problem is...
      Congress cannot constitutionally grant any agency power to write regulations... they may only regulate with the laws congress wrote.

      Agencies at best can only ask/recommend for Congress to make regulations for them to enforce.

      Article 1 section 1
      "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

      Many people have ignorantly and maliciously caused people to think that section 8 sub-section 18 allows congress to let agencies like the FCC to actually create regulation they can then enforce without Congress having to pass them and signed by the President.

      It is pretty much the same as if the Police were allowed to create laws to enforce whenever they like. Just imagine how much value there would be in corporations to buy police departments... like they currently like to "buy" agencies like the FCC?

    3. Re:Summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why are you idiots playing sides with this issue when Net Neutrality was found to consistently have bipartisan support in many polls, unlike so many other current issues?

      We've all lost if we can't actually talk about issues anymore without saying "go away, [PERSON/GROUP I DON'T LIKE HERE], you're fucking crazy and you always will be."

    4. Re:Summary? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've poked around and I can't find a good summary of the lawsuit. The claimants are saying it was unlawful for the FCC to repeal the network neutrality rules? Under what basis? There weren't rules, then there were, then there weren't. Did congress pass something instructing them to regulate network neutrality? Otherwise it seems pretty clear it's entirely up to the FCC.

      The Administrative Procedure Act defines the rules and processes for an executive agency to enact, modify, or repeal regulations. If an agency does not follow the APA, the changes can be struck down by a court. That's why, for example, the EPA's removal of certain regulations was reversed by the courts; the EPA failed to show any fact-based reasoning for the changes. Whether or not the courts will rule same way regarding these changes by the FCC remains to be seen.

    5. Re:Summary? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Informative

      The second problem is... Congress cannot constitutionally grant any agency power to write regulations... they may only regulate with the laws congress wrote.

      Agencies at best can only ask/recommend for Congress to make regulations for them to enforce.

      Reality disagrees with you. Congress has, through laws legitimately passed by Congress, delegated the authority to make certain rules to executive agencies. You can go ahead and file lawsuits to get courts to agree to dissolve every executive agency, but I wouldn't bet any money on your success.

  2. Re:Coming next... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    There are not essential people available to approve food labeling changes so companies are making the case that regulatory agency cannot put them on hold as it impacts freedom of speech.

    I predict "the same side" arguing the op topic should proceed also argue the government should be able to stop the latter in its tracks.

    Commence sophistry at this point.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.