Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Government The Courts The Internet United States

22 States Ask US Appeals Court To Reinstate Net Neutrality Rules (reuters.com) 125

Posted by BeauHD from the Ctrl-Z dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

22 States Ask US Appeals Court To Reinstate Net Neutrality Rules More

22 States Ask US Appeals Court To Reinstate Net Neutrality Rules

Comments Filter:

  • It's been months (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    What evil has happened because of the FCC's ruling?

    • Re:It's been months (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @08:25AM (#57166274)

      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)

        by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @08:42AM (#57166384)
        We already have seen what happens without net neutrality, Verizon, Comcast, and others have already throttled Netflix - the only difference is they were caught at a time when it wasn't legal. Now that it is legal, this kind of activity aimed at locking the consumer in and stripping their choices so they can increase profits and stop new competition is just going to expand. My reason for the very gradual changes are two fold. First, if every ISP started massively screwing customers day 1, there would be a massive blowback possibly undoing the whole thing. Far "better" to boil the frog slowly to avoid the backlash. Second, this only just went into effect and cases like this one, or if the senate flips blue, could undo it all. So ISP are approaching this cautiously. I can't think of a single time removing customer protections in the name of "companies are free to shaft steal and grift or treat customers right, so highly informed customers with tons of options will weed them out" ever worked for anyone but the shareholders of the few remaining borderline criminal enterprises.

        • Live by the Rule, Die by the Rule (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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)

            by Q-Hack! ( 37846 )

            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.

          • I meant to post congress and not senate. I should have learned by not not to post pre-coffee.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ddtmm ( 549094 )
        This! Exactly. It's amazing that so many people just can't accept this and are more than happy to sit back and watch their rights slowly erode. Carriers should never have been able to control the entire media chain from the shooting stage to the living room.

        • 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.

        • Don't fall for it! The plan is to outrage people and use that to devolve federal power to the states. Keep the control in the federal government where it belongs! Admiral Ackbar says it's a trap!
      • The point of this is to turn Internet into a TV like model where they can sell you packages of various sites at various tiers while also charging those sites for access to "their" users. There's nothing quiet about that, they'll advertise it front and center. IIRC Portugal is already doing just that (might've got the country wrong, but there's one out there that never had NN)

    • Re:It's been months (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @08:54AM (#57166454)

      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.

      • Except for the fact that speed tests are orthogonal to the concerns of Net Neutrality, and a single one is not going to be horribly representative. Also, said article ignores that there was a roughly equivalent rate of increase BEFORE Net Neutrality repeal was announced. You haven't demonstrated anything other than something roughly equivalent to Moore's law.

      • Re:It's been months (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Duhavid ( 677874 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @09:21AM (#57166624)

        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? )?

      • 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)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        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.

        Except that if true, the story is actually undeniable proof that the NN supporters were correct:

        • New fiber optic lines don't just appear overnight. Therefore, a dramatic speed increase on a nationwide scale over such a short period of time cannot possibly have been caused by infrastructur

      • 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)

      by jimbo ( 1370 )

      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.

  • Curious (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ArhcAngel ( 247594 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @08:29AM (#57166300)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 )

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @08:33AM (#57166326)

    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)

    by kalpol ( 714519 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @08:34AM (#57166340)
    I am very interested in what might happen with a combination of lack of net neutrality and One Touch Make Ready rules imposed. If the last mile was considerably easier, and there was a financial or competitive incentive for new services, what might we see? It's not that hard to set up an ISP (e.g. http://blog.thelifeofkenneth.c... [thelifeofkenneth.com]) but the last-mile problem kills any reason to do so. We could have lots of little ISPs like back in the 90s when dialup was the thing, but only serving an apartment building, or a few blocks, or many ISPs to choose from in a given area if the last mile was deregulated like with power. Fruit for discussion anyway.

  • FCC wins - States will loose (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stevew ( 4845 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @08:36AM (#57166350) Journal

    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!

    • No, there is a way to overturn this. The states can amend the constitution.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by stevew ( 4845 )

        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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

  • Remember that dusty document that is largely ignored these days? There is enough support to amend it and thereby start the path of making it relevant again.

  • Lame attempt at bypassing the process (Score:5, Informative)

    by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @08:52AM (#57166438)

    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.

    • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

  • This is the same thing my Congressman did when NN got slammed. He put on a good front like he was fighting to get it back even though he knew it wasn't going to happen. Gives them a chance to look like they're working for the people. If our opinion actually meant something they'd let us vote on these things at the national level when enough dissent is registered to trigger that kind of vote (which clearly the backlash from NN would have).
    • Don't walk into the trap! This is all a plan by Trump to take power away from the federal government and give it away to the states. Don't let the discredited, racist doctrine of States Rights get popular! We crushed this idea in the Civil War, remember your high school history classes? If you go along with Trump's plan, the toxic after effects will long outlast his impeachment and dying in prison. Don't let states take control of powers that are rightly the preserve of the federal government, no matter how

  • 22 States Representing 165 Million people (Score:3)

    by GregMmm ( 5115215 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @09:47AM (#57166788)

    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.

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can be replaced by this computer.

Close