Federal court upholds net neutrality repeal, but rules that the FCC can't block state...

[Polycount]

The fight for net neutrality regulations at the federal level may be all but lost at this point, but that hasn't stopped individual states from coming up with their own alternative rules. Indeed, the likes of California and Washington have already passed their own net neutrality variants, much to the chagrin of the FCC; the organization responsible for repealing the federal rules back in 2017.

Recently, the FCC earned a win (of sorts) after a federal court ruled in favor of the regulatory board's decision to end US-wide net neutrality. However, the victory was bittersweet, as the ruling also says the FCC doesn't have the authority to block individual states from passing their own net neutrality-related legislation. This could mean the ongoing Department of Justice lawsuit against California (which was temporarily put on hold) will be dropped outright.

The court ruling also points out a few other flaws in the FCC's original net neutrality-repealing "Restoring Internet Freedom Order." For example, the agency will be required to adjust the Order to better address the implications it might have for public safety, as well as concerns about the "effects of broadband reclassification on the Lifeline program."

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai -- the individual responsible for the Restoring Internet Freedom Order -- is quite happy with the court's recent ruling.

"Today's decision is a victory for consumers, broadband deployment, and the free and open Internet... Since we adopted the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, consumers have seen 40% faster speeds and millions more Americans have gained access to the Internet," he said in a statement. "A free and open Internet is what we have today and what we’ll continue to have moving forward. We look forward to addressing on remand the narrow issues that the court identified."

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/82154-federal-court-upholds-net-neutrality-repeal-but-rules.html

 

[Ravalo]

Is this meme going to revive again?

 

[cliffordcooley]

Sometimes I wish California would just break off and sink. But then I start thinking of all the innocent people who live there.

 

[OutlawCecil]

Sometimes I wish California would just break off and sink. But then I start thinking of all the innocent people who live there.

You want them to break of and sink because they are preventing big corporations from screw1ng over customers? Every state should now create their own NN laws. If you don't support NN, you either don't understand it or are with a monopoly. The loss of NN is a prime example of the power corrupt money has.

 

[wiyosaya]

Indeed, the likes of California and Washington have already passed their own net neutrality variants, much to the chagrin of gigantic internet service providers and their minion, Ajit Pai; the greedy scum responsible for repealing the federal rules back in 2017.

So much better when put in plain language!

 

[Evernessince]

Sometimes I wish California would just break off and sink. But then I start thinking of all the innocent people who live there.

That's 1/5th the USA's GDP.

 

[wiyosaya]

Sometimes I wish California would just break off and sink. But then I start thinking of all the innocent people who live there.

So has the repeal of net neutrality brought corresponding improvements in your internet service yet?

 

[Nocturne]

That isn't quite the whole story, and it's incredibly misleading.

The Judges ruled the FCC couldn't challenge all the States Net Neutrality Laws at once, and they would have to take them on in a case by case fashion. To do so they also were quoted 3 points that they would have to answer properly as Federal deregulation may require them to give up the right to challenge States sovreignty.

 

[cliffordcooley]

So has the repeal of net neutrality brought corresponding improvements in your internet service yet?

Neither presence or absence has made improvements to our service. My opinion of California as a state does not solely rest on NN either.

 

[raydpratt007]

That isn't quite the whole story, and it's incredibly misleading.

The Judges ruled the FCC couldn't challenge all the States Net Neutrality Laws at once, and they would have to take them on in a case by case fashion. To do so they also were quoted 3 points that they would have to answer properly as Federal deregulation may require them to give up the right to challenge States sovereignty.

I tried to find the actual opinion, which apparently comes from Mozilla Corporation v. FCC, but it's apparently too soon for common websites to post it. I don't have easy access to Westlaw or the like unless I go downtown to the county or university lie lawbraries (no mistake there, no mistake!).

Anywhichway, what I have read indicates that Verizon's puppet attorney, Ajit Pai, is not terribly clever in this area of law. The usual rule about federal laws usurping state laws is that the subject being regulated must be thoroughly regulated by federal law to a degree that separate state requirements would cause undue confusion and conflict. However, Ajit Pai has staked his disposal of net neutrality on the argument that the FCC has no authority to require net neutrality. So, if the FCC has no authority, then it should have no conflicts with any state laws. Although Ajit Pai argues that the states also have no authority to require net neutrality, he lacks standing to question what a sovereign state does about an issue that he himself says that he has no authority to regulate. In short, his legal argument is professionally incompetent. (But, I wish I could get the same paycheck.)

 

[gamerk2]

That isn't quite the whole story, and it's incredibly misleading.

The Judges ruled the FCC couldn't challenge all the States Net Neutrality Laws at once, and they would have to take them on in a case by case fashion. To do so they also were quoted 3 points that they would have to answer properly as Federal deregulation may require them to give up the right to challenge States sovereignty.

I tried to find the actual opinion, which apparently comes from Mozilla Corporation v. FCC, but it's apparently too soon for common websites to post it. I don't have easy access to Westlaw or the like unless I go downtown to the county or university lie lawbraries (no mistake there, no mistake!).

Anywhichway, what I have read indicates that Verizon's puppet attorney, Ajit Pai, is not terribly clever in this area of law. The usual rule about federal laws usurping state laws is that the subject being regulated must be thoroughly regulated by federal law to a degree that separate state requirements would cause undue confusion and conflict. However, Ajit Pai has staked his disposal of net neutrality on the argument that the FCC has no authority to require net neutrality. So, if the FCC has no authority, then it should have no conflicts with any state laws. Although Ajit Pai argues that the states also have no authority to require net neutrality, he lacks standing to question what a sovereign state does about an issue that he himself says that he has no authority to regulate. In short, his legal argument is professionally incompetent. (But, I wish I could get the same paycheck.)

Well yeah, that was the obvious catch-22 in his entire argument. If he is going to argue that NN should be repealed because the FCC does not have the authority to regulate ISPs, then as a byproduct of that he gives up the FCCs ability to...regulate ISPs.

Shocking logic for some people, I know.

In any case, the end result will likely be a hodgepodge of state laws that will eventually cause Congress to explicitly give the FCC the ability to regulate ISPs.

 

[captaincranky]

Sometimes I wish California would just break off and sink. But then I start thinking of all the innocent people who live there.

There must be at least half a dozen, tops.

 

[treetops]

When it's gone ISP can slow down pro net neutrality pages to crawl so you can't see them. Or Fox Or MSNBC or whatever it is that you like and they don't.

 

[wiyosaya]

Anywhichway, what I have read indicates that Verizon's puppet attorney, Ajit Pai, is not terribly clever in this area of law. The usual rule about federal laws usurping state laws is that the subject being regulated must be thoroughly regulated by federal law to a degree that separate state requirements would cause undue confusion and conflict. However, Ajit Pai has staked his disposal of net neutrality on the argument that the FCC has no authority to require net neutrality. So, if the FCC has no authority, then it should have no conflicts with any state laws. Although Ajit Pai argues that the states also have no authority to require net neutrality, he lacks standing to question what a sovereign state does about an issue that he himself says that he has no authority to regulate. In short, his legal argument is professionally incompetent. (But, I wish I could get the same paycheck.)

The 45 drones are busy circumventing the rule of law for the minority tyrannical party in power. Personally, I am pleased incompetence seems to be a deeply shared trait among them - even if it does make the US look like an incontinent, shathole country.

Let's hope some of the states fighting the repeal of NN actually have competent AGs who use this as the basis of their argument and that the courts agree with those AGs.

 

[wiyosaya]

So has the repeal of net neutrality brought corresponding improvements in your internet service yet?

Neither presence or absence has made improvements to our service. My opinion of California as a state does not solely rest on NN either.

I am sure your opinion rests with extensive personal experience with the population of CA and not just the opinions of others on who's boat you have boarded.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I am sure your opinion rests with extensive personal experience with the population of CA and not just the opinions of others on who's boat you have boarded.

I'm going to leave this one alone, before I'm adding your name to the population of California.

 

[gamerk2]

I'm going to leave this one alone, before I'm adding your name to the population of California.

Translation: I lost the argument, so I am going to try and change the conversation. Unless you care to explain why you consider California worse then the rest of the nation?

 

[cliffordcooley]

Translation: I lost the argument, so I am going to try and change the conversation. Unless you care to explain why you consider California worse then the rest of the nation?

I don't, but that is what is thought of my words. I was considering the population innocent in my first comment. Did you read my first comment?

 

[gamerk2]

I don't, but that is what is thought of my words. I was considering the population innocent in my first comment. Did you read my first comment?

No, you were referring to a "portion" of the population as innocent, otherwise you wouldn't have worded it the way you did, much less bother writing the post.

 

[eafshar]

Sometimes I wish California would just break off and sink. But then I start thinking of all the innocent people who live there.

Why wish on nonsense when you can focus on things that make a difference in ur life?

 

[wiyosaya]

I'm going to leave this one alone, before I'm adding your name to the population of California.

I am happy you appreciate my input. As to my residency, you would also be way off there.

 

[Nocturne]

I tried to find the actual opinion, which apparently comes from Mozilla Corporation v. FCC, but it's apparently too soon for common websites to post it. I don't have easy access to Westlaw or the like unless I go downtown to the county or university lie lawbraries (no mistake there, no mistake!).

Anywhichway, what I have read indicates that Verizon's puppet attorney, Ajit Pai, is not terribly clever in this area of law. The usual rule about federal laws usurping state laws is that the subject being regulated must be thoroughly regulated by federal law to a degree that separate state requirements would cause undue confusion and conflict. However, Ajit Pai has staked his disposal of net neutrality on the argument that the FCC has no authority to require net neutrality. So, if the FCC has no authority, then it should have no conflicts with any state laws. Although Ajit Pai argues that the states also have no authority to require net neutrality, he lacks standing to question what a sovereign state does about an issue that he himself says that he has no authority to regulate. In short, his legal argument is professionally incompetent. (But, I wish I could get the same paycheck.)

It's more about the reclassification of broadband as an information service rather than a Telco service, that the court determined was legal, which in essence repealed net neutrality as the explicit language stated that as long as it's a Telco communications service the FCC would have authority to regulate how ISPs parse data.

What the Judges essentially ruled was that the above statement is within their right, what is not within their right is to supercede State Sovreignty especially in one full swoop as it wasn't the repeal courts responsibility nor did either side clearly make a proper case or have the proper information for the court to even attempt a ruling on such. However they ruled the FCC would have to challenge each individual states attempt to enact statewide net neutrality. Even then their is a court of greater appeals and federal court that net neutrality repeal needs to go through. So it's only a small win for Pai but at the loss of the industry when they have to abide by 50 different states different laws.

 

[Nocturne]

Well yeah, that was the obvious catch-22 in his entire argument. If he is going to argue that NN should be repealed because the FCC does not have the authority to regulate ISPs, then as a byproduct of that he gives up the FCCs ability to...regulate ISPs.

Shocking logic for some people, I know.

In any case, the end result will likely be a hodgepodge of state laws that will eventually cause Congress to explicitly give the FCC the ability to regulate ISPs.

..the part you are ignoring is that the FCC can still challenge State Net Neutrality laws, the court only ruled the FCC nor the repeals court had the ability or right to enact a judgment widespread, the FCC needs to challenge each one individually. That is the part the journalist left out of the article.
As well that was only the court of appeals, there is still greater appeals and federal court the FCC needs to win otherwise they may not be entitled to deregulate through reclassification.

 

[wiyosaya]

So it's only a small win for Pai but at the loss of the industry when they have to abide by 50 different states different laws.

Karma catching up to the ISPs for customer service!

 

[DelJo63]

State control over National resource is impractical and contrary to the Commerce Clause. The ruling WILL be overturned IMO.