The Supreme Court Has Refused to Vacate Net Neutrality Ruling by Lower Court

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by cageymaru, Nov 5, 2018.

  1. cageymaru

    cageymaru [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    19,815
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Today the Supreme Court refused to wipe away an earlier ruling by a lower court that upheld net neutrality laws. This does not undo the 2017 repeal of Net Neutrality, but "leaves a legal precedent in place that could help net neutrality supporters in any future legal battle if that policy is ever re-introduced." Nearly half the states and the District of Columbia have filed lawsuits to secure state rights to create their own net neutrality laws and California recently approved their own set of rules. The U.S. Department of Justice and ISP groups are suing to keep net neutrality laws off the books.

    Industry trade group USTelecom, one of the groups that challenged the 2015 net neutrality rules, said the high court's action was "not surprising." USTelecom said it would "continue to support" the repeal "from challenges in Washington, D.C. and state capitals."
     
  2. tikiman2012

    tikiman2012 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,228
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Good news. Didn't think it was possible from that corporate stacked court.
     
  3. Mega6

    Mega6 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,924
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    finally some semi-relief. We will have to wait a bit longer for the showdown.
     
    tikiman2012 likes this.
  4. SmokeRngs

    SmokeRngs [H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008

    Messages:
    15,826
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2001
    There is and never has been any net neutrality defined as law. To be law it would need to be passed in Congress and signed by the president. Nothing like that has ever happened so your definition means as much as everyone else's, absolutely nothing.

    If you're referring to the FTC "rules", that has about as much resemblance to what I think net neutrality is as a pumpkin does to a skyscraper.
     
    defaultluser, lcpiper and Armenius like this.
  5. Paul_Johnson

    Paul_Johnson [H] Admin Staff Member

    Messages:
    16,032
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Ok folks, keep the politics out of this. If you want politics go to the approproate forum. Yes, I know what the topic is. If you can not discuss the topic without going into the current elections and/or politics then DO NOT POST in this thread.
     
  6. Laowai

    Laowai Gawd

    Messages:
    534
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    There's so much distorted and inaccurate information going around, I don't even know what this all means anymore.
     
    thebufenator likes this.
  7. Spaceninja

    Spaceninja [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,736
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    If Google, Facebook and the like are pushing for something then you know it is bad for the consumer.
     
    tbonepat11 and Dayaks like this.
  8. buzzbomb

    buzzbomb Gawd

    Messages:
    594
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    *facepalm*

    Does this make sense? "If ATT, Verizon and the like are pushing for something then you know it is good for the consumer."
     
    Wrecked Em likes this.
  9. Spaceninja

    Spaceninja [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,736
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Less red tape and regulation. Seems like something they want to stay away from to me. As a former business owner, the less government involvement the better.
     
  10. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,934
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    For making money, not necessarily for the consumer.
     
    nightfly likes this.
  11. SixFootDuo

    SixFootDuo [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,542
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004

    I hate when people say this. No, you want good for consumer regulation and good for consumer laws. This is what you want. You want laws to protect us, the consumer from evil corporate greed.

    You parroting the news, taking "Red Tape" and taking it completely out of context.

    Protecting consumers, your Parents, Your Family, Future Business Owners, Your Future .... is a very good thing.

    You really .... REALLY need to go and study and educate yourself on what the ISP's will eventually do if there is no Net Neutrality. They will use their power and control over data / internet to limit new businesses from introducing new technologies that will disrupt their "greed oriented business models"

    This is what giant corporations do, they create "barrier to entry" to limit customer choice and to increase company profits.

    I'm not sure what kind of business owner you were but for you to know know this, to understand this .. I find that unacceptable.
     
    Wierdo likes this.
  12. Brian_B

    Brian_B 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,356
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    There is no victory hear. FCC abdicated jurisdiction, so there’s nothing left to rule on. Corporate American won without having to fight.
     
  13. gamerk2

    gamerk2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,643
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Only because Roberts and Kavanaugh recused themselves; Robeters owns AT&T stock and Kavanaugh ruled on the issue previously. This heavily infers there's a 5-4 majority against Net Neutrality on the Supreme Court.
     
  14. gamerk2

    gamerk2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,643
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Congress already passed a law by giving the FCC the ability to implement said regulations over the industry.
     
    Wierdo likes this.
  15. SmokeRngs

    SmokeRngs [H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008

    Messages:
    15,826
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2001
    Except that it didn't. I dare you to prove this by showing exactly what law Congress passed which allows the FCC to do whatever the hell it wants with regards to the internet.
     
  16. Spaceninja

    Spaceninja [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,736
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    You mean the thing they have been free to do for 20+ years and have never done? I remember the days when everyone screamed Keep the government away from the internet!! Now all of a sudden you’re screaming for regulation. You’re wanting a solution to a nonexistent problem. Peering agreements have been in place since forever, that seems to be sufficient. Sure, give the FCC control of the internet. Let them define “lawful traffic”. Give them an inch and they take a mile. The government is not generally the correct solution to a problem.
     
    PaulP, ManofGod, Gavv and 1 other person like this.
  17. tbonepat11

    tbonepat11 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    412
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    The PragerU video is probably the best this topic will ever get to being simplified. Remember in politics, the title of something has absolutely nothing to do with what is in it. Usually it is the opposite.

    Ex. Affordable Care Act is the best example.
     
    PaulP and Armenius like this.
  18. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    19,101
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Deleted member 93354 likes this.
  19. XvMMvX

    XvMMvX [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,663
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    The lack of understanding of what this so called "net neutrality" was on this forum is astounding.

    The government is not going to give you true net neutrality. None of the major players (ISPs, Facebook, Google, etc) want that. They want bureaucracy to transfer costs over to the "other side".
     
  20. Wierdo

    Wierdo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,776
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    We already know what happened in Portugal without net neutrality or proper open market competition.

    screen%20shot%202017-11-21%20at%20103429.png

    Give it time and we'll get there too if the ISP cronies have their way.
     
  21. gamerk2

    gamerk2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,643
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Done.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

    The 1934 Act gave the FCC the authority to oversee the economic regulation of the interstate activities of telephone and telegraph operators. The 1996 Act made additional changes to modernize the original law (with varying degrees of effectiveness).

    When Congress crates an Agency to oversee some area of Federal policy, that empowers said Agency to pass rules and regulations so long as they fall within the scope of the Act that created them and they do not violate existing Federal law. Congress is free to pass laws whensoever they so choose to override a Federal Agency they themselves created and empowered.
     
  22. SmokeRngs

    SmokeRngs [H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008

    Messages:
    15,826
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2001
    Thanks for proving my point. There's nothing in either one of those which gives the FCC the power to do what it tried to do and what you're claiming it can do. The internet didn't even exist for the first and was in its infancy for the second. Congress has yet to pass laws regarding what the FCC can do with the internet and that's the problem. The attempt to "regulate" the internet by the FCC in the previous administration was an attempt at a run around Congress. It's up to Congress to make laws, not the FCC. For the FCC to have the power over the internet you're claiming, Congress would have to draft and pass a law which in turn would need to be signed by the President giving control of the regulation of the internet to the FCC.

    The FCC isn't some sort of catch all that you can use the way you want.
     
  23. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,565
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Exactly the same for me, as a current citizen.
     
  24. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,565
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    Not me, I don't want "Laws to protect us", I want the government to ensure that I can protect myself. I don't need the government regulating everything, I just need them to protect my rights to seek redress in the courts as an individual or as a member of a group. If the big corps can make it impossible for me to look after myself then that is what they need to fix.

    As a citizen, if I can't take my issue to the courts and see it heard and ruled on, then that is the root of the problem right there.
     
  25. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,565
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    Not even close to true.
     
  26. Joust

    Joust 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,988
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    So, often the redress you get in court is because of laws or regulation. Otherwise, you'd be advocating for an entirely equity-based court system. Such a system would be (in my opinion) largely unpredictable, inconsistent, and (ironically) inequitable.
     
  27. Aireoth

    Aireoth 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,083
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    When all else fails, fall back on reality. A corporation will charge as much as the market can bare (will pay). In a market without comptition and a service that has become ubiquitous with life, left unchecked corporations will just continue to charge more and more until either the consumer breaks, or government intervines.
     
    Deleted member 93354 and John721 like this.
  28. Joust

    Joust 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,988
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Sometimes.

    I don't know how old you are, but if you bought a microwave in the 80s and you bought a microwave last month, ubuiquity doesn't always lead to higher pricing. I do not mean a 36" tv in 1991 and a 36" tv in 2018. I mean a microwave and a microwave.

    Generally though, as you say, inelastic goods can withstand immense price pressure before yielding. The classic example is insulin.
     
  29. Aireoth

    Aireoth 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,083
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    There is a degree of competition in the home appliance market place, as well Microwaves are not a required good to live, the internet pretty much is.

    I understand what your saying, but there hasn't ever been a thing like the internet in history, sure there have been big game changing innovations, like automobiles, indoor plumbing, heating, etc, but the internet is something so much more. We talk here on it, we read things on it, it connects all our communication, ideas, products, jobs, help services, literally everything is moving to the internet. When you have that much power in a product, the gatekeepers of that product become immensely powerful. It is almost impossible to live without the internet today, it is only a matter of time before it is absolutely impossible to live without the internet.

    I think the closest analogy would be oil and gas, it is a required product around the world to provide electricity, heat, and fuel. We can see how refiners, producers and nations all work to manipulate the price for their own benefit. I would still say there is a difference here, because if you push O&G prices far enough, there are other products waiting to take its place, its just a matter of economics at this point. There really isn't anything like that for the internet, and it took decades for the internet to become what it is, it can't be replaced overnight.
     
  30. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,565
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    And how often does it measure up?

    Look, a while ago the Government, in an effort to encourage businesses to provide information on breaches in support of government cyber defense efforts, offered civil immunity to companies that would sign up, meet government IA standards, and agree to external scans and audits of the systems to verify compliance.

    In short, if you do it our way, then you can't possible do it any better, and reasonably, no one has grounds to sue you for a data breach because it's an imperfect world and you did all you could reasonably do.

    This is not the government ensuring that I maintain my rights to hold them accountable. It's the opposite and it gave businesses the easy out. A shield against legal recourse, protection from the masses if you do it our way and give us the data we need, which might include your customer's data ..... incidental to the breach of course.

    This is an example of the laws our government frequently passes to "protect us".
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2018
  31. Joust

    Joust 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,988
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would you clarify?
     
  32. Joust

    Joust 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,988
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    I believe the better analogy would be regulated utilities. Electric, water/wastewater...that type of thing. Something you need for which there is not a replacement. In every home.

    Now, you could say the govt has stepped in here, and that would be true. However, in return for giving up the ability to raise rates on their own, regulated utilities often receive an exclusive charter - a regulated monopoly, as it were. That's sort of where the analogy falls apart. I'm not sure we would want to make that trade. Maybe we would. I don't know.
     
    Aireoth likes this.
  33. Aireoth

    Aireoth 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,083
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    I think we are already largely there on the Monopoly side, just without the regulation end.
     
  34. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,565
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    It might seem so. But competition is what competition does. As long as the government is truly focused on protecting competition then everything will work out alright because if a company get's too greedy they just open themselves up to takeover. Another company will take advantage of any opening to undercut them.

    Why don't they do it now you ask? Because of laws and regulations and government "efforts to protect competition", that actually work against it.

    We need to stop asking the government to do more for us, and start asking them to just make sure we can look out for ourselves.
     
  35. Aireoth

    Aireoth 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,083
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    I caution against using past attitudes to confront today's problems, and this attitude is very much a turn of the 18th century American attitude. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to borrow your name for the moment.

    1. The start of cost in these high tech areas are outstripping the ability of a competitor to start fresh. Comcast is running on old infrastructure that has paid its cost many times over. lcpiper internet co. has to put all new infrastructure in place to create a true competitor, before they even turn a profit, and lcpiper needs to compete for business with the entrenched Comcast. All Comcast has to do to utterly end lcpiper internet co.'s fledgling dreams is cut their pricing (of which they can go much lower that lcpiper since the infrastructure is more than paid for) and watch lcpiper sink to a watery grave, maybe pick up all that nice new infrastructure for 10 cents on the dollar once the grave is dug.

    2. Unless you are going to fundamentally change how the political system works vis -a-vis funding, financing and lobbying, any efforts on the government front to strengthen consumers legal position will be for naught. you need to deal with the system as it is today, not as you imagine it.

    3. Even if you strengthen the consumers legal abilities, you still have a massive bug versus Goliath situation. The average legal action takes 2-3 years before going to trial, costing about $150,000, and can take another 5 years in the trial process once there, about another $300,000 in legal fees. To a corporation like Comcast, this is nothing, and they know to you its a big something. Legal delay tactics will be used in force to destroy the plaintiff's financial position before judgement is rendered, making the cost/benefit equation severely slanted against lcpiper.

    4. If consumer protections are too strong, you start regressing technological advancement, basically if the cost and risk of doing business is to great, they won't do that 'thing'. While it is easy to single out government incompetence, and elevate our own intelligence (and I think most here are bright enough, at least brighter than the average mouth breather) we also need to acknowledge that there is such a thing as the average person, and there are people that a below average, there are also sociopaths and all sorts of other assholes that would love nothing more that to create shit and get a pound of flesh. So if the consumer protections are too strong, making it too easy to take Comcast to task, a percentage of people will abuse it, either willingly with intelligence and ultimately greed and malice, or through plan old entitlement and stupidity.

    The government is not the best solution, but in certain cases like this one, I would argue its the solution that best fits the scope and size of the problem, with the least amount of actual disruption to the end service, technological advancement, and ultimately the smooth operation of a nation.
     
  36. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,565
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    My example above is perfect though. I don't know how you misunderstand the meaning. Instead of ensuring that we can sue in the event of a breach and damages, the government offers protection from it.

    I work on government systems and I know the standards for security and I can tell you that if there were a breach of our systems, as long as my shit is right, they can't touch me. Now it doesn't matter if there was something more I could have done to prevent the data loss. It only maters that I did what I was told to do. That I followed the security guidance that is current. As long as I do that, I'm good, no matter that I could have prevented the breach completely by going further.

    So if I work for a company that is offered this same deal, protection from civil recourse ass long as I am compliant. Why would I go the extra mile or spend any additional money?

    If Java has a known vulnerability and there is no patch for it. The government doesn't tell us we can't use Java. They tell us to patch it the best we can and make sure we record the problem and check again in 30 days. It doesn't matter that HTML5 would eliminate the risk entirely, we don't have to switch to HTML5, we just have to make sure we are compliant with the requirements.

    Now if my company was on the hook no matter what, in the event of a breach and data loss, you can bet your ass we would either by using HTML5, pushing really hard for a Java update, or preying like hell we don't get hacked.

    Where is the push from industry to get Sun to update Java when the government gives everyone a get out of jail free card ?

    That's right, Sun is under no pressure for that fix. Our asses are in the breeze. This is the difference.
     
  37. aaronspink

    aaronspink 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,122
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    1) not just more than paid for, they can even shift costs to other areas where they have no competition to make up the profit difference.
     
  38. wizzi01

    wizzi01 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,326
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Sounds like you have it all figured out. Now go make your own company or continue to believe you are a know it all and do nothing.
     
  39. Aireoth

    Aireoth 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,083
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    :facepalm: