Net Neutrality Heads to Court as States Seek to Implement Their Own Rules

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,060
Twenty two states and the District of Columbia have sent representatives to ask a U.S. appeals court to reinstate net neutrality laws as they seek to secure state rights to implement their own open internet plans. In addition to the state attorney generals, companies such as Mozilla Corp, Vimeo Inc, Etsy Inc and others have filed legal challenges to the overturning of the law. The states involved in the lawsuit represent more than half the population of the United States. The brief can be read here.

The states also suggested the FCC failed to identify any "valid authority" for preempting state and local laws that would protect net neutrality. 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."
 
"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."

How exactly does that work? Wouldn't a lack of net neutrality give ISPs more options to throttle down their services to save power, during some sort of grid problems? Like say during an emergency cut off games & video streaming, so that emails, telephony, and people checking emergency websites have all the bandwidth. They should stick to actual arguments for net neutrality laws, like ISPs censoring websites that have "wrongthink", or more likely, wanting extra money from video streaming services, thus raising customer's rates for those & putting a barrier to entry to market. Silly scare-mongering just makes them look bad.

Anyways, net neutrality laws or no, I am not too worried about this issue. Between 5G cellular internet promising competitive home internet packages & the advent of LEO satellite internet services, like OneWeb & Starlink (the latter of which has already launched test satellites), in the next 5 years the US is likely to see a massive increase in competition in the ISP market, thus making ISP sheningans less likely.
 
I should also add the part were the states are trying to force the reinstatement of the net neutrality rules could set some extremely bad precedent. The idea that one executive administration can pass rules that can't be removed by a future administration is frankly dangerous. I mean, do they want Trump to be able to unilaterally institute rules that a future Democratic president can't remove?

The second part of the lawsuit is likely to fail, based on the supremacy & interstate commerce clauses of the Constitution. The FCC was created by Congress as an agency which Congress has invested with the 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. Then comes along the Internet. 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 as it stands, it is likely that the courts will find that the FCC will have the authority to make or not make these regulations, related to communication on the internet.
 
About time states stopped relying on the federal government to solve all their problems.
But they are trying to avoid that by putting it back on the fed government.

1) Claim short term victory in court
2) Run out the clock past November
3) Drop legislation, or have it fail
4) Pocket Money
 
I expect the states to fuck it up even more.
Highly centralized governments tend towards totalitarianism. De-centralized solutions preserve individual liberties. It's not a coincidence that the same people who support censorship of opposing political opinions on social media support Net Neutrality...
 
I should also add the part were the states are trying to force the reinstatement of the net neutrality rules could set some extremely bad precedent. The idea that one executive administration can pass rules that can't be removed by a future administration is frankly dangerous. I mean, do they want Trump to be able to unilaterally institute rules that a future Democratic president can't remove?

You mean like the way Obama and the Democrats did for the affordable care act?

Doh!
 
Won't do shit cause of crony capitalism but maybe that's none of my business.
yemvxb5ugs8cyn7hvyp7.png
 
I should also add the part were the states are trying to force the reinstatement of the net neutrality rules could set some extremely bad precedent. The idea that one executive administration can pass rules that can't be removed by a future administration is frankly dangerous. I mean, do they want Trump to be able to unilaterally institute rules that a future Democratic president can't remove?

Yes, because chances are they'll be the ones to lock the door and throw away the key. They know the opposition are better people than them. OTOH if he did, they could then foment violence leading to a revolution as the fallback.
 
So people are fine with corporations supporting government control of things so long it's corporations they like? A lot of billion dollar corporations in this not-comprehensive list who pay zero in taxes, including those evil broadband companies who are supposedly screwing us over. I thought Democrats hated those guys.

AARP
Access Now
Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee
ADT Corporation
ADTRAN, Inc.
Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute at New York Law School
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Alamo Broadband
Alarm Industry Communications Committee
Alaska Communications
ALEC
Amazon
American Association of Community Colleges
American Association of Law Libraries et al.
American Association of State Colleges and Universities et al.
American Cable Association
American Civil Liberties Union
American Consumer Institute
American Library Association
American Sustainable Business Council
Americans for Tax Reform and Digital Liberty
Apple Inc.
AppNexus
Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC
Association of Research Libraries
AT&T Services, Inc.
Benton Foundation
Black Women’s Roundtable
California Public Utilities Commission
CALinnovates
Cause of Action
CCIA
Center for Democracy & Technology
Center for Individual Freedom
Center for Media Justice et al. (Voices Coalition)
CenturyLink
Charter Communications, Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Citizens Against Government Waste
City of Boston, Massachusetts
City of Portland, Oregon
City of San Francisco, California
Coalition for Internet Openness
Cogent Communications Group, Inc.
Color of Change (Voices Coalition)
Comcast Corporation
Common Cause
Communications Workers of America
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Competitive Enterprise Institute
CompTIA
Community Technology Advisory Board
Consumers Union
County of Santa Clara, California
Cox Communications, Inc.
CREDO Mobile
CTIA – The Wireless Association
Daily Kos
Data Foundry
Digital Policy Institute
Directors Guild of America
District of Columbia
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Gaming Foundation
Engine
Entertainment Software Association
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Ericsson
Etsy, Inc.
European Digital Rights
Farsight Security
Fiber Broadband Association
FreedomWorks
Free Press
Free State Foundation
Friends of Community Media
Frontier Communications
FTC Staff
Future of Music Coalition
Golden Frog
Greenlining Institute
Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership
Home Telephone Company
INCOMPAS
Independent Film & Television Alliance
Information Technology Industry Council
Inmarsat
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Interisle Consulting Group LLC
Internet Association
Internet Freedom Coalition
Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA)
ITIF
ITTA – The Voice of Midsize Communications Companies
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Judicial Watch
Massillon Cable Comments
Media Alliance (Voices Coalition)
MediaFreedom.org
Meetup, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
M-Lab
Mobile Future
Mobilitie, LLC
Motion Picture Association of America
Mozilla
NAACP
National Association of Realtors
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates
National Cable & Telecommunications Association
National Exchange Carrier Association
National Grange
National Hispanic Media Coalition
National Newspaper Publishers Association
National Venture Capital Association
Netflix, Inc.
New America Foundation (Open Technology Institute)
New Media Rights
Nokia
Nominum
NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association
Oracle Corp
Presente.Org (Voices Coalition)
Public Knowledge
QUALCOMM Incorporated
R Street
Sandvine Incorporated
Software and Information Industry Alliance
Sprint Corporation
State of California
State of Connecticut
State of Hawai‘i
State of Illinois
State of Iowa
State of Maine
State of Maryland
State of Mississippi
State of New York
State of Oregon
State of Rhode Island
State of Vermont
State of Washington
Techdirt
Tech Knowledge
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI),
et al.
Telecommunications Industry Association
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
TracFone Wireless
Twilio
Twitter
United Church of Christ (Voices Coalition)
United States Telecom Association
Verizon
Vimeo, Inc.
Voices for Internet Freedom Coalition
Volo
Wikimedia Foundation
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association
Writers Guild of America, West, Inc.
WTA – Advocates for Rural Broadband
Y Combinator
 
I expect the states to fuck it up even more.

Yeah, but then they can't hide behind "oh, I had to go along with those other states" or "those other states were too powerful for me to do anything about".

Having stronger local accountability is a good thing. Now if people piss away that accountability by not voting in local elections then that's their fault, not the systems.

Too much crap gets elevated to the federal level where it gets homogenized and that hominization gets used as a shield for gutless or evil politicians to hide behind. The federal government was never supposed to be the unaccountable beast it's grown into, especially post WW II.
 
w
I should also add the part were the states are trying to force the reinstatement of the net neutrality rules could set some extremely bad precedent. The idea that one executive administration can pass rules that can't be removed by a future administration is frankly dangerous. I mean, do they want Trump to be able to unilaterally institute rules that a future Democratic president can't remove?

The core problem is the Executive shouldn't be creating new rules - that's the job of Congress. You want rules that don't change with the changing of the President? Here's a radical thought - pass laws as originally intended!

Obama had a phone and a pen - well, so does Trump. Duh!
 
Can't this be a bi-partisan forum, and people actually use logic rather than rhetoric?
It's a tech forum, why shouldn't we expect rational discourse?

Use your own words and thoughts please.
 
Bipartisan? Ok. First, pass real legislation if that's what you want.

Second, law has nothing to do with net neutrality other than the catchy name.

The net was doing fine before NN rules, and it will do fine again without it.

If what we want are long term iron clad laws about all data on networks being equal then let's pass actual understandable data utility legislation through the house and senate about that issue ONLY.
 
Check out this golden nugget:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...rtments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/

Verizon Wireless' throttling of a fire department that uses its data services has been submitted as evidence in a lawsuit that seeks to reinstate federal net neutrality rules.

"County Fire has experienced throttling by its ISP, Verizon," Santa Clara County Fire Chief Anthony Bowden wrote in a declaration. "This throttling has had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services. Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services."

Santa Clara Fire paid Verizon for "unlimited" data but suffered from heavy throttling until the department paid Verizon more, according to Bowden's declaration and emails between the fire department and Verizon that were submitted as evidence.
 
Last edited:
The right vs. left arguments on this forum are just as pathetic as they are everywhere else. Can't you guys take this to Reddit or something?


I wish this forum had an option to hide entire threads.
 
w


The core problem is the Executive shouldn't be creating new rules - that's the job of Congress. You want rules that don't change with the changing of the President? Here's a radical thought - pass laws as originally intended!

Obama had a phone and a pen - well, so does Trump. Duh!

except they are ready to protect and tie up even things obama admitted he had no constitutional authority to do in the courts...

the only way to bring neutrality is to create a fully open market, legislation always hides things that help the controlling juggernauts of the industry they regulate.
 
Bipartisan? Ok. First, pass real legislation if that's what you want.

Second, law has nothing to do with net neutrality other than the catchy name.

The net was doing fine before NN rules, and it will do fine again without it.

If what we want are long term iron clad laws about all data on networks being equal then let's pass actual understandable data utility legislation through the house and senate about that issue ONLY.
If you consider having your data throttled, ala Netflix, then yeah, it's fine.
 
Cellular companies throttling data speeds once pass certain usage levels were in place for years. T-Mobile got fined in October 2016 for their unlimited data plans that throttled only because they weren't explicitly clear on the circumstances that would cause the throttling.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/19...mited-data-settlement-fine-discount-free-data

The Verizon situation is more bureaucratic bungling than NN violation:

"Regardless of the plan emergency responders choose, we have a practice to remove data speed restrictions when contacted in emergency situations," Verizon's statement said. "We have done that many times, including for emergency personnel responding to these tragic fires. In this situation, we should have lifted the speed restriction when our customer reached out to us. This was a customer support mistake. We are reviewing the situation and will fix any issues going forward."
 
The Verizon situation is more bureaucratic bungling than NN violation

That may be so, who knows, it's their claim.

But I don't think it's gonna be helping their image in the legal proceedings, this is something they can't afford to screw up on, especially during forest fire season where so many lives are at stake.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...stomer-support-mistake-excuse-for-throttling/
Santa Clara County disputed Verizon's characterization of the problem in a press release last night. "Verizon's throttling has everything to do with net neutrality—it shows that the ISPs will act in their economic interests, even at the expense of public safety,"
...
Fire Chief Anthony Bowden wrote in a court declaration. Internet access is crucial "for events like large fires which require the rapid deployment and organization of thousands of personnel and hundreds of fire engines, aircraft, and bulldozers," he wrote
As a firefighter I can confirm how crucial it is to have access to cellular and data. Especially in these past 5 years or so. If Verizon has an issue with the fire department's data usage, I may not agree with it, but they should handle that with them after the fire. Throttling their usage during the fire is dangerous if not outright deadly.

Should be interesting how this plays out in state level politics, 50 shades of NN?
 
Last edited:
I think we can all agree, if you allow for exploitation, it's foolish to think the powers that be will avoid any such action.
Data equality should be in place, our ISPs should not be given the legal authority to track online activity, and then charge more depending on what data their consumers wish to access (data from third party sources).

Do not expect corporations to forgo profit.
 
The right vs. left arguments on this forum are just as pathetic as they are everywhere else. Can't you guys take this to Reddit or something?


I wish this forum had an option to hide entire threads.

Well, have some self control and don't click on the link or read the comments. Personal responsibility is your friend.
 
How exactly does that work? Wouldn't a lack of net neutrality give ISPs more options to throttle down their services to save power, during some sort of grid problems? Like say during an emergency cut off games & video streaming, so that emails, telephony, and people checking emergency websites have all the bandwidth. They should stick to actual arguments for net neutrality laws, like ISPs censoring websites that have "wrongthink", or more likely, wanting extra money from video streaming services, thus raising customer's rates for those & putting a barrier to entry to market. Silly scare-mongering just makes them look bad.

Anyways, net neutrality laws or no, I am not too worried about this issue. Between 5G cellular internet promising competitive home internet packages & the advent of LEO satellite internet services, like OneWeb & Starlink (the latter of which has already launched test satellites), in the next 5 years the US is likely to see a massive increase in competition in the ISP market, thus making ISP sheningans less likely.

don't expect 5G to do much of anything. At a telcom event this week and they were talking about at&t and Verizon with their deployments. Then brought up that 5G only transmits 750ft with the version Verizon will deploy. At&t thinks they can push just under 1 mile. They are going to have to put micronodes all over the place to get any real deployment
 
The right vs. left arguments on this forum are just as pathetic as they are everywhere else. Can't you guys take this to Reddit or something?


I wish this forum had an option to hide entire threads.

that will come right after the option to legally have a person removed from thr planet.
 
Back
Top