22 States Ask US Appeals Court To Reinstate Net Neutrality Rules (reuters.com) 125
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A group of 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia late Monday asked a U.S. appeals court to reinstate the Obama administration's 2015 landmark net neutrality rules and reject the Trump administration's efforts to preempt states from imposing their own rules guaranteeing an open internet. The states argue the FCC reversal will harm consumers. The states also suggested the FCC failed to identify any "valid authority" for preempting state and local laws that would protect net neutrality. The FCC failed to offer a "meaningful defense of its decision to uncritically accept industry promises that are untethered to any enforcement mechanism," the states said.
The state attorney generals suing represent states with 165 million people -- more than half the United States population -- and include California, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The states argue the FCC action could harm public safety, citing electrical grids as an example. They argue "the absence of open internet rules jeopardizes the ability to reduce load in times of extreme energy grid stress. Consequently, the order threatens the reliability of the electric grid." Several internet companies also filed a legal challenge to overturn the FCC ruling, including Mozilla, Vimeo, Etsy, and numerous media and technology advocacy groups, reports Reuters. The group of 22 state attorneys general first filed their lawsuit in January after the Trump administration voted to repeal the net neutrality rules in December.
The state attorney generals suing represent states with 165 million people -- more than half the United States population -- and include California, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The states argue the FCC action could harm public safety, citing electrical grids as an example. They argue "the absence of open internet rules jeopardizes the ability to reduce load in times of extreme energy grid stress. Consequently, the order threatens the reliability of the electric grid." Several internet companies also filed a legal challenge to overturn the FCC ruling, including Mozilla, Vimeo, Etsy, and numerous media and technology advocacy groups, reports Reuters. The group of 22 state attorneys general first filed their lawsuit in January after the Trump administration voted to repeal the net neutrality rules in December.
It's been months (Score:1)
What evil has happened because of the FCC's ruling?
Re:It's been months (Score:5, Insightful)
Hard to tell, ISP are for the most part unregulated, so how do we know if we are being throttled, or just their site is slower then others?
Being that ISP would want to keep this quite, they probably will make sure not to throttle internet speed tests, heck they may put them on the fast lane.
See we sold you 100mbs connection and run these speed tests and you are getting 105mbs.
The reason for Net Neutrality, is because ISP today are rarely just an ISP, but a media conglomerate. So we are using their infrastructure to access competitors, and new technology and sites which may require more bandwidth or different types of connections that the ISP may just not want to do. Because it is expensive.
Re:It's been months (Score:5, Insightful)
Live by the Rule, Die by the Rule (Score:2, Interesting)
This is just another example of the complete bullshit you get when you designate legislative power to the bureaucratic machine in an attempt to avoid making a convincing argument for your position.
Net Neutrality should have been an actual law, passed by Congress. And it could have been had it not been turned into some catch all measure to spread SJW to the internet. Holy Fuck those people can take a simple proposition like, "treat all the traffic the same" and turn it into some fucking entitlement to broadb
Re: (Score:2)
It really doesn't help when the article post crap like "The state attorney generals suing represent states with 165 million people -- more than half the United States population", this kind of hyperbole doesn't take into account that not all 165 Million people in those states agree with the actions taken by those states.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Carriers should never have been able to control the entire media chain from the shooting stage to the living room.
Meanwhile, car makers have to sell cars through dealerships and breweries have to sell their beer through privately-owned bars.
Re: (Score:2)
But you don't need to buy your Toyota by going on a road owned by General Motors.
Re: (Score:1)
ISPs won't keep it quiet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's been months (Score:4, Interesting)
Story [dailycaller.com] that shows US internet speeds went from 12th to 6th fastest since NN repealed.
So, it appears internet traffic in the US has increased significantly, a horrible thing to happen since it undercuts all the NN supporter claims. Let the NN anti-science anti-fact people rage away at another Trump success.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's been months (Score:5, Insightful)
I call BS.
*How* could internet speeds have gone from 12th to 6th since NN was repealed?
What does it mean to have gone from 12th to 6th? Compared to what? What were the actual average speed changes?
Or was it just "creative mathematics"?
Are you saying that equipment was rolled out that upped speeds? Where, when?
Anecdotal, but my speeds have not changed appreciably.
And how is that tied to NN repeal?
NN's repeal could be argued as april to june of this year. Given the most favorable amount of time, carriers purchased and deployed sufficient equipment in 4 months to have made a difference ( and again, what is the difference? )?
Re: (Score:2)
The first month since the announcement of the repeal saw an increase in US average broadband download speeds from roughly 78mbps to about 82mbps.
Alright, so one month goes by. They sure didn't lay down any lines in a month. Unless they pre-planned to turn on some pathways in just such an event. In which case this smells more like political maneuvering than a technological success story.
So what did they do? How did they increase those speeds? If they could simply choose to increase the speeds across the board simply because "NN was stopping them" how exactly did they break NN to increase the speeds?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Re: (Score:2)
I indeed did not read your link. I did not disbelieve that your link showed what you claimed, though.
I do not believe that any increase in download speed had anything to do with NN repeal.
I do not believe that any of the capital intensive measures that would increase download speeds where
Decided by management
Budgeted
Approved to order
Ordered
Delivered
Installed and made operational
within the time frame. You could argue
Re: (Score:3)
Story [dailycaller.com] that shows US internet speeds went from 12th to 6th fastest since NN repealed.
So, it appears internet traffic in the US has increased significantly, a horrible thing to happen since it undercuts all the NN supporter claims. Let the NN anti-science anti-fact people rage away at another Trump success.
I wouldn't call it a significant speed increase, but I would note that the average internet speed increase in the USA was on the rise before NN, during NN, and since NN's repeal. The obvious conclusion is that NN didn't have any effect on this. Looking at the chart, it seems that the repeal of NN may have improved the rate of increase, but I don't think we have enough data yet to say that for sure.
What IS clear from this information is NN didn't really affect internet speeds all that much either way. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Except that if true, the story is actually undeniable proof that the NN supporters were correct:
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you didn't actually check the sources your article used? Because the links they cite in their very first sentence contradict what that sentence says. They said:
Since the repeal of “net neutrality” took effect on June 11, the U.S. internet speed has gone from 12th [archive.org] to 6th [speedtest.net] fastest in the world
But if you follow those links, you'll see that the "12th" link goes to December 2017—seven months prior to the repeal of net neutrality taking effect—rather than to June 11th, when it actually happened. On June 11th, the US was ranked 9th, not 12th.
Now, you might argue that 9th to 6th is still a big improvement, but it really is
Re: (Score:2)
This have been covered before with "what's going to happen" articles. Conclusion was that it's obviously not like an Evil Switch being flicked, companies are not that dumb after all. Instead changes are slowly going to creep up on Americans over time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
After Spectrum bought out Time Warner in my area internet speeds tripled.
However this was a deal that started during the Obama era. With promises of faster speed to allow the buyout.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that I don't give a shit how things are on average? Where exactly is my benefit if internet speeds just got higher for corporations?
In other words, since this is probably a crowd that does give a shit or two about internet and its speed, could we have a show of hands whose internet actually got faster since the repeal of rules? And while we're at it, how did prices develop?
Re: (Score:2)
That's awesome, where is that?
Re: (Score:1)
Without a citation, some AC spouting "facts" is justifiably ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
*How* could internet speeds have gone from 12th to 6th since NN was repealed?
What does it mean to have gone from 12th to 6th? Compared to what? What were the actual average speed changes?
Or was it just "creative mathematics"?
Are you saying that equipment was rolled out that upped speeds? Where, when?
Anecdotal, but my speeds have not changed appreciably.
And how is that tied to NN repeal?
NN's repeal could be argued as april to june of this year. Given the most favorable amount of time, carriers purchased and
Re: (Score:1)
Needs more apostrophe for sure.
Curious (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Of the 22 states, how many of them actively prevent third party ISPs from entering their state? The reason we have no choice is most states are suing anyone who tries to enter their market. They use talking points straight from the telco lobby.
The Republicans are fixing this. They are all about State's Right's, and will use the Federal Government to control the states.
What a joke (Score:3, Informative)
This whole situation is so screwed up. ISP's use public resources (rights of way, eminent domain) to build their networks, reap 100% of the profits, and then claim they aren't a utility. It's such naked and obvious corruption when governments let them get away with this but it continues to go on no matter who is in power.
I am very interested in what happens with OTMR (Score:4, Interesting)
FCC wins - States will loose (Score:5, Interesting)
This really comes down to the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution...and when it boils down to that - the States loose the argument.
Here is the simple logic.
FCC was created by Congress as an independent agency which Congress has invested with the full authority of the Federal Government to manage all things Telecom. This makes sense when you consider radio propagation as the first reason for the FCC to exist, i.e. radio waves don't respect State boundaries. In a similar sense - long distance phone connections cross state boundaries - so any one state can't regulate this - it is Federally preempted. Finally - comes along the Internet - something invented by a US Government Agency as a side note. This entity crosses not just State borders but International borders... again the Federal Government is the only entity that has jurisdiction extra-territorially by the way the Constitution sets things up.
So - what have we learned... there is an already existent Federal preemption of Telecommunications, FCC wields this power, and FCC has full jurisdiction to make such rulings.
The only way you overturn something like this is if the FCC didn't Federal or its' own procedures in creating the regulation... it is even a question in my mind whether States have standing to challenge this!
All of the above is what I've learned from Groklaw ;-) IMNAL!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First - my argument specifically refers to how the Court is likely to view the issue.
Second - do you believe in the Tooth Fairy too? The last time the US Constitution was amended was in the 1970s (I am old enough to remember the ERA, etc..) Not going to happen over this issue.
You are MUCH more likely to get Congress to intervene. That is the best way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Strictly speaking the states do amend the constitution (well are part of the process at least). No amendments to the constitution can be passed without the states involvement.
There are actually four ways. (1) Both houses propose an amendment with a two-thirds vote, and three-fourths of the state legislatures approve. Twenty-six of the 27 amendments were approved in this manner. (2) Both houses propose an amendment with a two-thirds vote, and three-fourths of the states approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. Only the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, was passed in this manner. (3) Two-thirds of the state legislatures call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention, and three-fourths of the state legislatures approve the amendment. (4) Two-thirds of the state legislatures call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention, and three-fourths of the states approve the amendment via ratifying conventions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Congress can only propose amendments with a super majority (2/3 in each house) and an amendment can only take effect with a super majority of the states (3/4). Further, the states can actually bypass the congress completely to propose amendments (never been done).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the throttling itself happens within the state, that is not interstate commerce and remains under state jurisdiction. The FCC can regulate quite a few parts of telecom (majority), sure, but some things are simply plain old same-state commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally that is the case but that ship sailed long ago when the SCOTUS ruled that growing wheat on your own land for your own use was illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Regular americans like us voted to lock democrats up for there collusion and treason.
Da, Comrade! Regular Americanskis like us! Lock them up there! Where? There!
How many for a Constitutional amendment again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lame attempt at bypassing the process (Score:5, Informative)
The Democrats have gotten so used to using the courts to implement policy that they do it instinctively. That's pathetic. Real change comes from the political process...you know, like how marijuana legalization is happening.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that this is strictly a R vs. D problem, as both side are guilty of abusing the courts in this manner. That said your sentiment is correct. Rules issued by executive order, and other similar vehicles can be quickly reversed when the administration changes. This is good in that the executive branch can respond quickly to changing trends, and to some extend the will of the people (or the will of the folks who voted for you). A more permanent change is through legislation, to check the executi
Re: (Score:1)
The Democrats have gotten so used to using the courts to implement policy that they do it instinctively. That's pathetic. Real change comes from the political process...you know, like how marijuana legalization is happening.
But . . . it's the Dems who are responsible for getting marijuana legalized.
Just doing it for the PR (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
22 States Representing 165 Million people (Score:3)
Well being from one of the 22 States, please don't include me on this list. I understand I'm "represented" in this way, but I'm totally not for this waste of time and money. This will amount to nothing. The FCC has the right to do this, if I like it or not.
This is all just political, and the "165 million people" represented get the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't fall for this deception! :( Trump's whole plan is to devolve power from the federal government to the states.
Right, that's why they're planning to not renew California's waiver to set its own emissions standards, because they want the power to lie with the states! Wait, what?
Re: (Score:2)
You neither addressed nor refuted the premise. You merely engaged in whataboutism. Please revise and resubmit.
I provided a concrete example which refutes the premise. They don't give one tenth of one fuck about states' rights, only what they want to do, and you're in denial.
Re: (Score:1)
The path to madness (Score:2)
So if the 22 states succeed in re-instating the rules, can I look forward to 27 states suing to undo the re-enstatement?
Don't like federal rules pertaining to you, push for less federal power over you. Sounds plenty good to me.