Federal Court Blocks Net Neutrality Rules (theverge.com) 54
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: A federal appeals court has agreed to halt the reinstatement of net neutrality rules until August 5th, while the court considers whether more permanent action is justified. It's the latest setback in a long back and forth on net neutrality -- the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) should not be able to block or throttle internet traffic in a discriminatory manner. The Federal Communications Commission has sought to achieve this by reclassifying ISPs under Title II of the Communications Act, which gives the agency greater regulatory oversight. The Democratic-led agency enacted net neutrality rules under the Obama administration, only for those rules to be repealed under former President Donald Trump's FCC. The current FCC, which has three Democratic and two Republican commissioners, voted in April to bring back net neutrality. The 3-2 vote was divided along party lines.
Broadband providers have since challenged the FCC's action, which is potentially more vulnerable after the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down Chevron deference -- a legal doctrine that instructed courts to defer to an agency's expert decisions except in a very narrow range of circumstances. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Matt Schettenhelm said in a report prior to the court's ruling that he doesn't expect the FCC to prevail in court, in large part due to the demise of Chevron. A panel of judges for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said in an order that a temporary "administrative stay is warranted" while it considers the merits of the broadband providers' request for a permanent stay. The administrative stay will be in place until August 5th. In the meantime, the court requested the parties provide additional briefs about the application of National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services to this lawsuit.
Broadband providers have since challenged the FCC's action, which is potentially more vulnerable after the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down Chevron deference -- a legal doctrine that instructed courts to defer to an agency's expert decisions except in a very narrow range of circumstances. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Matt Schettenhelm said in a report prior to the court's ruling that he doesn't expect the FCC to prevail in court, in large part due to the demise of Chevron. A panel of judges for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said in an order that a temporary "administrative stay is warranted" while it considers the merits of the broadband providers' request for a permanent stay. The administrative stay will be in place until August 5th. In the meantime, the court requested the parties provide additional briefs about the application of National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services to this lawsuit.
Legislation is Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is something that really needs legislation passed specifically to address so it won't keep flopping back and forth when different administrations take over.
Unfortunately, it's a complex issue that's not easy to explain so not a great political platform and of course the Republicans will vote against anything that would go against what corporations want.
Legislation won't protect you from the courts (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are coming but a lot of damage is going to be done on the way out the door. It's classic smash and grab politics. While you're in power you grab as much as you can and when you're not is smash as much as you can. It's why the Republican party tries to shut down the government every time they're not in control of the White House. They know full well it would crash the economy and they're counting on you to blame somebody else for it.
Same deal here you can no longer count on the courts to accurately interpret law so they're counting on you to not blame out of control partisan courts but to blame Congress for not passing laws. Not that it does Congress any good to pass laws if the supreme Court has just going to veto them on flimsy grounds
Re:Legislation won't protect you from the courts (Score:-1, Troll)
You mean The US Constitution gave the US Courts the right to review laws passed in the USA ? Right ? The entire "checks & balances" form of US government, when it works as designed, was created by that document.
The US Constituion has only been around since March 1789. It is usually a requirement taught in US high school history or government classes - the classes we all slept through back in those days.
If you don't like how the US Constitution works there is a framework for changing it included in the current US Constitution. You are welcome to start there.
As for the current majority of justices sitting on the US Supreme Court - they are "textualists". Said another way, and what the recent Chevron ruling is saying, "If Congress did not clearly give an agency the power to do something, then that agency cannot do that thing." The previous US Supreme Court ruling that established the Chevron Deference presupposed that Congress deferred to the agency because the agency would have experts that know more & better than Congress. That ruling allowed Congress to delegate much of it's Constitutionally vested authority to agencies rather than taking the time to create properly crafted laws that define what is & isn't allowed by that law. Now the US Congress, sad to say, has to stop slacking off ("mailing it in" as it were) and actually do the job of crafting & considering proper US laws rather than passing "frameworks" that direct and-or control agencies in some weakly-defined way. A lot of current Congress people, and Senators too, do not know the first thing about crafting proper laws as they lack that background, but oh do they know how to solicit donations, get re-elected, and "bring home the pork" for their districts & states.
The only thing worse than watching sausage being made is watching the US Congress craft, debate, and enact (pass) laws.
Re:Legislation won't protect you from the courts (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the current majority of justices sitting on the US Supreme Court - they are "textualists"
They are not.
This is the kind of claim whackjob judges use to justify whackjob rulings. All of them are there to interpret the text. That's literally their job.
Anyway seems you think they've done a great job, don't forget to tip them for it.
Re:Legislation won't protect you from the courts (Score:2, Insightful)
So now, instead of Congress passing the work off to agencies, they will pass the work off to lobbyists. Rules will no longer be written by "government" experts in a way that benefits customers, but will instead be written by corporate experts in a way that benefits corporations.
Re:Legislation won't protect you from the courts (Score:2)
So now, instead of Congress passing the work off to agencies, they will pass the work off to lobbyists...
Even if the lobbyists write the bills, the sponsors and those who vote for them will be known. When Congress cedes its power to the executive branch, there's far less accountability to elected officials.
Re:Legislation won't protect you from the courts (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the current majority of justices sitting on the US Supreme Court - they are "textualists".
That might be what they claim, but in reality they've just been ruling on cases in favor of views that suit the people that give them "gratuities" even based on flimsy precedence unrelated to the constitution
Re:Legislation won't protect you from the courts (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you actually believe that delegating is "slacking off" or are you just trolling?
Re:Legislation won't protect you from the courts (Score:3)
I disagree with the recent overturning of Chevron, but Congress certainly should assume some blame. There are many, many pressing issues that Congress rightly should be legislating about, rather than letting regulatory agencies take a lead. But Congress has been getting less and less productive for decades. They can't agree on what to eat for lunch, let alone pass the annual appropriations bills on time, let alone understand complex topics and craft sensible legislation. In the absence of clear direction from the Legislature to deal with evolving challenges, executive agencies have been doing what they can* via regulation. And, yes, sometimes stretching the letter of the law in the process.
Congress could jump in and restrain or redirect these agencies at any time. But for its part, Congress appears to be happy with sitting back and deferring to the Executive: when their preferred guy is running things, everything's great; when the other guy is running things, all the bad regulatory actions make great fodder for committee hearings, fundraising, grand-standing, and ad campaigns. But actually lift a finger to craft sensible legislation to deal with a host of problems? Nah.
* "What they can" has an intentional double meaning. It can mean "well, this is an imperfect solution to this particular problem, but it is the best this agency can do without clear authority from Congress". It can also mean "the law doesn't say we can't do this, so let's go ahead anyway and see if we get away with it."
So the courts get to interpret the law (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is when you have a rogue court full of corrupt and obviously bribed partisans what's supposed to happen is that the other two branches of the government are supposed to work in tandem to bring the courts back to the control of the voters.
The Democrats have made it crystal clear they intended to do this by impeaching the two most obviously corrupt supreme Court justices and adding more supreme Court justices to balance the court out against the current pack of obviously corrupt judges.
Now what I think we should be able to do is vote to remove the judges like most state supreme courts can. But the founders were intensely conservative and they wanted to make sure their land rights were protected so they had lifetime appointments in order to slow legislative processes in progresses that might directly affect them and their immediate heirs.
You can find all sorts of this in their writings where they talk about doing it and how they know it's fucked up and they were looking the future generations to make up for their weakness. Well congrats we're that future generation and it's time to fix the problems they gave us. That starts by impeaching "justices" Thomas and Alito and adding several more judges
Re:So the courts get to interpret the law (Score:2)
You are misunderstanding the situation.
You have to realize that the court is not corrupt. No one is being paid off.
The justices actually believe that their views are "correct". They all believe they are doing the right thing.
What I hope people would realize is that this is dangerous. The base of both the politics and the constitutional theories they hold are extreme.
This isn't going to change. When it does it will be after some kind of earth shaking tragedy. History teaches us a lot...
Re:So the courts get to interpret the law (Score:2)
You have to realize that the court is not corrupt. No one is being paid off.
Sue, Thomas is as innocent as a new born babe.It's perfectly moral to accept uncountable emoluments and refuse to recuse himself...
Re:Legislation won't protect you from the courts (Score:4, Informative)
Please point to where, in the text of the Constitution, the President has absolute immunity regarding their Article II powers, and presumptive immunity for every other quasi-Presidential action up-to-and-including taking a piss on the White House lawn, no matter how corrupt or inimical to the rule of law.
Above the columns of the Supreme Court building is inscribed "Equal Justice Under Law". I don't recall seeing any asterisk * indicating exceptions. But the conservative majority has just created an enormous one, whole cloth, without basis in the text or history of the Constitution.
The current majority are textualists only when it pleases them. A lot of the time, they're just makin' shit up.
Re:Legislation won't protect you from the courts (Score:2)
This is the most uncontroversial part of the decision. For example, when the Constitution says the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.", Congress can't take that power away by passing a law making it a criminal offense for the President to pardon someone. It's basic constitutional law that the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land and can't be overridden by Congress.
Re:Legislation won't protect you from the courts (Score:2)
It's basic constitutional law that the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land
Correct.
and can't be overridden by Congress.
WRONG. Congress certainly can override the Constitution by passing an amendment. Regardless as to whether or not the Courts are willing to honor such.
Re:Legislation won't protect you from the courts (Score:2)
Congress can pass a law, which can't override the constitution. They can only propose an amendment to the the constitution, after which it may be passed by the states. If the amendment passes, then it of course becomes part of the constitution and part of the highest law of the land.
Re:Legislation is Needed (Score:5, Informative)
And because of recent Supreme Court decisions, it used to be left up to the agencies to decide, because in a fit of clarity, government decided it might not know everything and thus tasked the various agencies to come up with rules using experts in their respective fields to help write them.
But of course now, it's all be upended and now judges have to be the expert in everything because their decisions on the most mundane of things can have serious ripple effects. It could be a simple as deciding if a molecule is considered a protein to many other things.
Lawsuits will now have to include crash courses in very esoteric topics. It won't be long before the courtroom is used to give courses in higher level math just so the judge and jury can understand the matter at stake, rather than rely on an agency who has such subject matter experts on hand to understand what's going on.
The prosecution of Boeing will now take another 10 years because the judge and jury need an education of aerodynamics, calculus, physics and other things. At the end each juror should be able to walk out with at least a masters in aerospace engineering.
Re:Legislation is Needed (Score:-1, Troll)
...and now judges have to be the expert in everything....
The Judiciary literally exists to do exactly what Chevron gave the agencies power to do: decide how laws are to applied according to Congress' intent. Federal agencies were never empowered by the Constitution to interpret law. That's the power of the Judiciary.
Chevron was always wrong and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court FINALLY got rid of it, and we're a better country now that it's gone; even when it adversely affects the good things some agencies did with it. But the bad things agencies did with it FAR outweigh the good.
Re:Legislation is Needed (Score:3, Insightful)
...and now judges have to be the expert in everything....
The Judiciary literally exists to do exactly what Chevron gave the agencies power to do: decide how laws are to applied according to Congress' intent. Federal agencies were never empowered by the Constitution to interpret law. That's the power of the Judiciary.
Chevron was always wrong and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court FINALLY got rid of it, and we're a better country now that it's gone; even when it adversely affects the good things some agencies did with it. But the bad things agencies did with it FAR outweigh the good.
Please name some of the bad things agencies did. Also, please show how those agencies were interpreting law. From what I've seen, agencies were using their very specific knowledge about a subject to administrate how various corporations could work within particular fields. For example, OSHA has rules governing safety, the FAA has rules governing aerospace and the FCC has rules governing telecommunications.
Re:Legislation is Needed (Score:2)
Please name some of the bad things agencies did.
Lookup the WHOLE REASON Chevron got overturned. The agency was forcing fishermen to have agents on board their ships to oversee their activities, which the fishermen had to pay for. Congress never passed such a law.
The ATF is regularly changing definitions of terms beyond Congressional approval.
Do some research, and you'll find myriad ways the agencies have acted well outside the scope of their congressionally approved authorities.
Re:Legislation is Needed (Score:1)
Re:Legislation is Needed (Score:2)
The enabling legislation all but required the fishermen to pay for the observers, and the lawsuit was essentially bankrolled by the Koch brothers. Check out Legal Eagle's video breakdown on this series of judicial missteps.
Re:Legislation is Needed (Score:1)
And because of recent Supreme Court decisions, it used to be left up to the agencies to decide, because in a fit of clarity, government decided it might not know everything and thus tasked the various agencies to come up with rules using experts in their respective fields to help write them.
The people appointed to decide are not experts, and they vote and decide on whatever the issue is. It's all political - or else they will not be voting on same issues everytime there is a change in administration and changing the rules.
Having "experts" to decide on whatever (at least in the FCC's case) is all BS. And I think the FDA is also infected with the same.
https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
No idea about the other agencies like the FAA, etc.
Re:Legislation is Needed (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it's a complex issue that's not easy to explain so not a great political platform and of course the Republicans will vote against anything that would go against what corporations want.
Don't know why you're being modded down, it's the absolute truth. Can't have municipal broadband either, it makes Comcast weep. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Something something states rights.
The Greater Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Net Neutrality is plainly and obviously in the best interests of consumers, and that is exactly why the large ISP's don't like it.
They have a lot of money, which means they have a lot of political influence. We will never get good legislation like this without a fight.
Re:The Greater Good (Score:3)
Other countries have tried this with great success.
Me I have Fibre 900/600 Mbs
I also have access to over a dozen different ISPs and can switch to any of them, I also am not obligated to have a fixed term account, and can supply my own router
If I wanted more speed I can upgrade (for more $) to 2Gb/4Gb if I so choose.
We've got the legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
When the people in charge of interpreting the law no longer care what the law is as long as the check cashes it doesn't matter what laws you pass. If all else fails no quote a which finder general from the 1600s and use that to strike down anything you do. They literally do not give a fuck what the founders intended or the Constitution says let alone what the people who wrote the amendments cared about. All they carries if the check cashes.
There's impeachment proceedings going on for two of them in the supreme Court. It's not going to go through of course but the added scrutiny will make it just a little harder for them to keep taking bribes and they might retire and get replaced. It depends on what happens in November. At the very least one of the two corrupt judges has just flat out said they'll quit if they can't get bribes so there's that
Re:We've got the legislation (Score:2, Funny)
The problem is we have a partisan court bought off with luxury motor coaches and million-dollar vacations.
Those were gratuities! That's totally different than buying a judge off!
/s
Tell that to the judge (Score:2)
Re:Tell that to the judge (Score:5, Insightful)
The American public is too dumb to understand the implications. Life in this country would have to get a lot worse before any real change happens. Unfortunately the quote "weak men bring hard times" is modern conservatism in a nut shell.
Re:We've got the legislation (Score:2)
You mean bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H tips for their good service.
Sorry, my VT100 jokes are kind of old.
Re:The Greater Good (Score:-1, Troll)
How is stopping school ISPs from placing filters in the public best interest?
How is a medical ISP prioritizing telemedicine vs other traffic not in the public best interest?
How is preventing ISP from offering non-unlimited plans for sale and then providing some sites with unlimited access not in the best interest?
Net Neutrality as the laws are being pushed prevent all those those things but you are saying are in the best interest of the consumer.
Net Neutrality is not just about preventing a change in speed, slowing sites, or charging higher fees for select online content like the people pushing it are claiming. the laws they are actually pushing would do all the things I listed above and more.
How many years have we been without net neutrality laws and the conspiracy theories the people pushing for these limitations via the net neutrality laws have not happened.
Re:The Greater Good (Score:5, Informative)
How is stopping my email provider from providing SPAM filter in my best interest?
Net Neutrality does not prevent this. What a bizarre interpretation.
How is stopping school ISPs from placing filters in the public best interest?
Net Neutrality does not prevent this. What a bizarre interpretation.
How is a medical ISP prioritizing telemedicine vs other traffic not in the public best interest?
Net Neutrality does not prevent this. What a bizarre interpretation.
How is preventing ISP from offering non-unlimited plans for sale and then providing some sites with unlimited access not in the best interest?
Net Neutrality does not prevent this. What a bizarre interpretation.
Net Neutrality is not just about preventing a change in speed, slowing sites, or charging higher fees for select online content like the people pushing it are claiming. the laws they are actually pushing would do all the things I listed above and more.
Net Neutrality does none of the things you listed. Net Neutrality's central tenet is that ISP's should not be able to throttle traffic going to or coming from a site (say YouTube) based on how much any given customer is paying. Traffic is traffic, and all traffic is equal. ISP's are data pipes.
How many years have we been without net neutrality laws and the conspiracy theories the people pushing for these limitations via the net neutrality laws have not happened.
It's already happening. [arstechnica.com]
Re:The Greater Good (Score:-1)
The one example is a ISP that is offering faster service if you pay more. If you don't pay more then your speed is not affected. So how is preventing the ISP from offering this extra service not a benefit to the public?
Re:The Greater Good (Score:2)
How is preventing ISP from offering non-unlimited plans for sale and then providing some sites with unlimited access not in the best interest?
Net Neutrality does not prevent this. What a bizarre interpretation.
yes it would, and that's a good thing. If "Traffic is traffic, and all traffic is equal." then it should all be metered the same
Re:The Greater Good (Score:2)
If "Traffic is traffic, and all traffic is equal." then it should all be metered the same....
Net Neutrality has NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, ZILTCH to do with how traffic is metered or how ISP's charge customers, UNLESS a customer is charged a higher price for YouTube/Facebook etc. access vs. not accessing specific sites.
You are reading things that are not there.
Cable (Score:3)
You'll all be getting cable branded as Internet from now on...
Re:Cable (Score:2)
Nobody needs more that 5Mbit upload!
Not really still true, but under Ajit Pai I had one option for high speed internet, an extremely overpriced and competition rigged price from Comcast, which used the WalMart model to destroy competition (raise prices in areas you control, lower them in areas you don't). In fact, they got sued by multiple attorney generals over it. $1000 a month for GB download and 5Mbit upload in monopoly markets (business service costs)? Wow what a steal!
I keep getting confused... (Score:-1)
are net neutrality laws meant to give us internet neutrality, or is it to make sure they are not neutral but calling it neutral to fool people?
Re:I keep getting confused... (Score:3)
Re:I keep getting confused... (Score:1)
I see what you did there! :)
Clearance Thomas, 'cos he's FOR SALE, amirite?
Re:I keep getting confused... (Score:0)
Unreal (Score:2)
Given the current state of the Internet, even uttering the words "net neutrality" is hypocritical enough to bend space-time.
which is why (Score:0)
I can only bring up Slashdot on my cell phone where I pay for Unlimited data and get a fast lane....
The Internet, eh? (Score:-1)
No biggie (Score:2)
Biden snaps his fingers, says it’s an official act and must be enforced. Worst punishment is an impeachment vote.
Re:No biggie (Score:1)
and the carriers tell Biden to stick it. Now what? It goes to the courts
State level? (Score:1)
Since the GOP SCOTUS is turning the Federal level into a corporate Mad Max world, can states enact their own limits on hogging market share?
Competition is the real answer (Score:3)
Everywhere that the last-century dinosaur ISPs have faced competition from new players, outcomes for consumers have improved. Get rid of all the laws, rules, regulations and deals that constrain competition and the problems will go away.
Re:Competition is the real answer (Score:2)
Re:Competition is the real answer (Score:0)
Re:Competition is the real answer (Score:2)
Joe Biden kills his own party (Score:1)
by refusing to step down. Pretty soon, there will be Republican Congress, Republican Senate, Republican FCC, Republican SCOTUS, Republican POTUS. Just wait a little. The game is over. Love it or hate it, MAGA won decisively, not least by the laughable impotence of its opponents to mount any sensible defense.
Net Neutrality Doesn’t Matter Anymore (Score:1)