Big Loss For ISPs as Supreme Court Won't Hear Challenge To $15 Broadband Law (arstechnica.com) 30
The Supreme Court has rejected the broadband industry's challenge to a New York law that requires Internet providers to offer $15- or $20-per-month service to people with low incomes. From a report: In August, six trade groups representing the cable, telecom, mobile, and satellite industries filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that upheld the state law. But the Supreme Court won't take up the case. The Supreme Court denied the telecom groups' petition without comment in a list of orders released yesterday.
Although a US District Court judge blocked the law in 2021, that judge's ruling was reversed by the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in April 2024. The Supreme Court's denial of the industry petition leaves the 2nd Circuit ruling in place. The appeals court ruling is an important one for the broader question of how states can regulate broadband providers when the Federal Communications Commission isn't doing so. Trade groups claimed the state law is preempted by former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's repeal of net neutrality rules, which ended Title II common-carrier regulation of ISPs.
In a 2-1 opinion, a panel of 2nd Circuit appeals court judges said the Pai-era FCC "order stripped the agency of its authority to regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet, and a federal agency cannot exclude states from regulating in an area where the agency itself lacks regulatory authority."
Although a US District Court judge blocked the law in 2021, that judge's ruling was reversed by the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in April 2024. The Supreme Court's denial of the industry petition leaves the 2nd Circuit ruling in place. The appeals court ruling is an important one for the broader question of how states can regulate broadband providers when the Federal Communications Commission isn't doing so. Trade groups claimed the state law is preempted by former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's repeal of net neutrality rules, which ended Title II common-carrier regulation of ISPs.
In a 2-1 opinion, a panel of 2nd Circuit appeals court judges said the Pai-era FCC "order stripped the agency of its authority to regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet, and a federal agency cannot exclude states from regulating in an area where the agency itself lacks regulatory authority."
Incredible irony (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Incredible irony (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't going to be a 1:1 calculation whereby those who are eligible for discounted rates have the collective difference pooled up and spread out among those who are not eligible. Instead, rates will go up, as they always do, but with an additional red herring about how it's not the ISPs fault the rates are going up, it's the damn government. You know, unlike all those other rate increases over the years.
Admittedly, I'd be curious to know what the 1:1 calculation would look like, but I'm certain we'll never be given that information, because it would (I speculate) likely be such a tiny percentage of the overall rate increase that it would throw into question whether or not it was worth chasing the herring.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Comcast will be just fine. https://www.cmcsa.com/news-rel... [cmcsa.com]
Re:Incredible irony (Score:5, Insightful)
They were going to go up anyway. Pretending this is the reason is juvenile. Are we happy more people can participate in the real economy? Yes. And we should be.
Re: (Score:2)
So the industry puppet Pai's own defanging of the FCC actually prevented it from defending his owners from states' own initiatives. Love it!
This is probably the right result under the existing regulations. However this is almost certainly not the end of the story, just the end of this particular chapter. I expect changes in regulations and laws in the next few years, not all of which may be net positives to consumers.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck changing NY price control laws. There's about 100 years of precedence and rulings that the ISP's are trying to circumvent which SCOTUS will more than likely just ignore and let the law stand on merit.
Re: (Score:2)
This NY based law has nothing to do with the FCC. NY has a long history of price control (section 396-r) it's about the only thing they get right for low income family housing.
The new broadband law is just using nearly 100 years of price control as a legal benchmark which any reasonable federal court would honor (and they did) SCOTUS is unlikely to even rule on this as it's fair and legal. Not everything is about the belt way.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I misunderstood, what is the significance of the last paragraph quoted in the summary?
"a panel of 2nd Circuit appeals court judges said the Pai-era FCC "order stripped the agency of its authority to regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet"?
Re:Incredible irony (Score:4, Informative)
"The people who hate him are the communists who feel "It's NOT FAIR" that a local hospital could pay the local ISP"
Can you give me one real world example of this constraining a hospital? Prioririzing a hospital's network traffic is not a violation of network neutrality.
Crying about communist this and that is Russiagate for conservatives. Communists aren't represented in American politics. You should ask them about it.
"We are lucky"
Mmmmm, boot! Tastes delicious
Re:Incredible irony (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps I misunderstood, what is the significance of the last paragraph quoted in the summary?
"a panel of 2nd Circuit appeals court judges said the Pai-era FCC "order stripped the agency of its authority to regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet"?
They were suing in Federal court to overturn the State of NY regulation on the basis of Federal pre-emption. According to the US Constitution, the things that the Federal Government does not have the authority to regulate are reserved to the States to regulate. The FCC had previously said "We do not have regulatory authority over this" -ergo the state does have the regulatory authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So without Pai's prior decision as FCC head, a similar republican chair could have used the FCC's authority to act on behalf of ISPs and resist state-based legislation. Am I missing something?
Possibly. This was a court case between the State of NY and the ISPs. The FCC was not involved. A statement previously made by the FCC chair when making an agency policy ruling was introduced as evidence to support the State of NY in defending its position. The judges cited the statement as part of the justification for their ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
*nom nom nom* (~ the sound of a leopard eating someone's face)
Re: (Score:2)
The better option would just be to force competition in the market. Something like "Every residence must be serviceable by at least three different ISP of the same caliber and capabilities." Slow satellite as an option vs high speed cable option does not equal competition. If ISPs have to spend a fuckton of money to build out network capability just to not get chosen for service, then that's their own problem. In most places in the US, ISPs have zero real competition. It's either this, or you force all ISPs
Re: (Score:2)
> Telling an American company "hey, charge exactly this much because these people are poor" is some commie bullshit
What world do you live in?
Be careful what you wish for (Score:4, Interesting)
A better solution (Score:3)
It's time to break these monopolies up. Cable companies already shit their beds offering less service for more money, now they're doing the same to internet.
Re: (Score:2)
You speak as if these people aren't human.
How about let's make it easier for them to enter legally, so they can pay taxes and participate in the economy to its fullest. That $2.1 billion will quickly be offset by the productivity and tax payments and economic input of these hard-working people.
The reality is, people who throw around the word "illegal" all the time, are trying to make it sound like it's about the law. But the minute someone suggests reforming the law so they can be legal, nope, that is NOT a
They'll have to take it (Score:2)
As much as I champion the utility and efficiency of broadcast radio systems; the terrestrial and satellite providers, at least here in the UK, are trying to eventually force everyone to use broadband to receive their offerings; IPTV that is.
Although some of our ISP's here in the UK already offer £15 p/m low income offerings, which you can only get if you prove to them you receive state benefits, I think they have to go further eventually. All homes should get a basic bandwidth for free, paid for by t
Alt title: Big Win for Low Income Families... (Score:1)
Missing out of _potential_ profits isn't a loss when it comes to corporations.