23 Attorneys General Refile Challenge To FCC Net Neutrality Repeal (engadget.com) 41
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A coalition of 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia on Thursday refiled legal challenges intended to block the Trump administration's repeal of landmark rules designed to ensure a free and open internet from taking effect. The Federal Communications Commission officially published its order overturning the net neutrality rules in the Federal Register on Thursday, a procedural step that allows for the filing of legal challenges. The states, along with web browser developer Mozilla and video-sharing website Vimeo, had filed petitions preserving their right to sue in January, but agreed to withdraw them last Friday and wait for the FCC's publication. The attorneys general argue that the FCC cannot make "arbitrary and capricious" changes to existing policies and that it misinterpreted and disregarded "critical record evidence on industry practices and harm to consumers and businesses." The White House Office of Management and Budget still must sign off on some aspects of the FCC reversal before it takes legal effect. That could take months.
Re:Not enough actual crimes (Score:4, Informative)
I guess. Abuses of power? Nothing else going on? Gotta fight for the future crimes?
Come on, think about this.. It's an election year! I call it the political silly season. We are going to see all sorts of useless politically charged things said and done over the next few months. One has to make political hay as the opportunity presents itself and this NN issue plays well with specific groups.
So who are those groups being manipulated by this vain attempt to resurrect NN? Just look at which states are doing this and figure it out for yourself..
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Free and open internet?! BULLSHIT (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sick of lying trolls like that. Everyone sees right through you. When a regulation doesn't go far enough, or a law should address it (because team (R) is in power and you actually want anti-NN to be the law), you don't strip all protections in the mean time. That's being disingenuous, you want full repeal and no NN regs and you damn well know it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You make a very convincing argument, but I think there's one important fact that you haven't considered: fartbagel.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL, You do understand that some folks over at the FCC already HAVE them right? (and I do believe they are loaded)
Re: Simple Solution (Score:1)
Every person who works for the government thinks they should have a gun.
To keep the common people away and âoedonâ(TM)t you know who I am!?â
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Networks can't "compete" - not when right of way on the last mile is a public resource. The best you can do is keep providers from taking untoward economic advantage of their natural monopoly. Network neutrality is a part of that, keeping from from double dipping.
What will this really do. (Score:2)
I guess I'm putting more of a question out to readers who understand this. So 22 state AGs are going to sue the FCC because they can't 'arbitrary and capricious changes to existing policies and misinterpreted and disregarded "critical record evidence on industry practices and harm to consumers and businesses'.
Ok, so what will this do? Is there a way this will do anything beside a "dog and pony show"? Is this just political posturing or can the AGs tell the FCC what to do?
Personally, in all of these discu
Re:What will this really do. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe just Maybe they actually believe that Healthcare IS a fundamental right.
Crazy Right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
242 years ago a bunch of wackos published a manifesto. Several years later they amended it with crazy shit like Free Speech and trial by juries were rights. And the rest of the world looked on and said "What is this crazy shit. Free Speech and freedom of religion? That's just nuts." Years later those crackpots went further and said blacks couldn't be enslaved. And the rest of the world said "What are those guys smoking over there." Actually that's false. The rest of the civilized world had already eliminate
States should create consequences (Score:1)
If AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and all the rest want to abandon the principles of net neutrality, they are free to do so... HOWEVER, it means they will give up any and all tax breaks and other incentives given to them by the state, and then any legalized monopoly agreements they may have within the state are immediately null and void, so communities can decide to create their own ISP and there won't be anything the established players can do about it.
This is just another case of being careful what you wish
I love this is the telecoms worst nightmare (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: I love this is the telecoms worst nightmare (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, they all love it. A patchwork of regulations is great to prevent unwanted competition by small ISPs. The cost of lawyers and/or politicians can then be passed to the consumer - with an extra surcharge.
"Attorneys General"? (Score:2)
That's surprisingly literate for a millennial.
FCC is not part of the administration (Score:2)
It need to be stressed that the FCC is an independent commission of the United States and is therefore not part of the administration.
It is not part of the executive branch, and so no president has authority over it. It's not in the executive branch chain of command.
This may sound like a minor detail, but I think it's worthwhile for us to insist that the FCC remain independent of the president as it was designed. No matter who is in the White House, the FCC was set up to prevent any president from having au
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the fact that the President appoints the members of the FCC and the chairman of the FCC (well and they have to be confirmed by the Senate).
Re: (Score:2)
Gonna be funny watching NN proponents get more and more desperate as the world doesn't end.