Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday February 23 2018, @05:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the fight-is-on dept.

The FCC's order to overturn net neutrality protections was officially published in the Federal Register today and soon thereafter, the attorneys general of 22 states and Washington DC filed a lawsuit challenging the FCC's order. The coalition filed a suit earlier this year, but agreed last week to withdraw it until the FCC published the order, Reuters reports. "Today, the FCC made official its illegal rollback of net neutrality -- and, as promised, our coalition of attorneys general is filing suit," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. "Consumers and businesses in New York and across the country have the right to a free and open internet, and our coalition of attorneys general won't stop fighting to protect that right."

[...] The attorneys general say in their complaint that the FCC's order was "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act." They also say it violates federal law and conflicts with the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements. They're asking the court to vacate the order.

Source: https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/22/23-attorneys-general-challenge-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal/


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday February 23 2018, @05:45PM (14 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 23 2018, @05:45PM (#642483) Journal

    What is really astonishing here is the amount of time, effort and money the Trump administration is willing to use in order to ensure that Big Telecom can screw ordinary every day consumers.

    Truly amazing.

    There was a time once when I thought the job of government was to either:
    1. leave things alone if nothing was broken, being abused
    -OR-
    2. regulate if necessary

    But now it seems to have the job to ENSURE that corporations can aggregate and abuse power.

    We didn't need any net neutrality for the internet for a long time. ISPs acted reasonably and responsibly. Traffic was routed fairly. Every user was charged for their own use of bandwidth at their connection point, and not some other party at the other end of the connection (like Netflix). The whole net neutrality thing came about because of abuses. Big Telecom caused net neutrality protections to be created. If they didn't like it, they shouldn't have created it.

    I have a suspicion that there were no laws regulating air and water pollution -- until -- it was happening already and excessively.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 5, Touché) by arulatas on Friday February 23 2018, @06:49PM

      by arulatas (3600) on Friday February 23 2018, @06:49PM (#642545)

      It is all part of draining the swamp. No need to have the lobbyists if the regulatory capture is in place.

      --
      ----- 10 turns around
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Sourcery42 on Friday February 23 2018, @07:10PM (1 child)

      by Sourcery42 (6400) on Friday February 23 2018, @07:10PM (#642566)

      I have a suspicion that there were no laws regulating air and water pollution -- until -- it was happening already and excessively.

      Water pollution is all fun and games until the Cuyahoga River catches fire...at least 13 times...over the course of ~100 years. It took the US a long time to finally step in and make that situation better. Hopefully it isn't a model for how this situation is addressed.

      My fear on this issue is that net neutrality is a lot harder to grasp for the average, non-techie, than say massive fish kills or a fricking river catching fire. I hope the general public finally connects the dots when they start getting charged these new "streaming media fees" for youtube and netflix, "social media fees" for their facetweeet, and "online gaming fees" for their kids' xbox live now that the gloves are off and ISPs are free to shuck and devour them whole. Maybe telco's won't be that evil, maybe the current administration will get thrown out on its ear before any abuses like this start; I'm not holding my breath for either.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:51AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:51AM (#642783)

        Water pollution is all fun and games until the Cuyahoga River catches fire...at least 13 times...over the course of ~100 years. It took the US a long time to finally step in and make that situation better. Hopefully it isn't a model for how this situation is addressed.

        And the legend [clevelandultimate.com] lives on! [thesportsdaily.com]

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday February 23 2018, @08:12PM (7 children)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday February 23 2018, @08:12PM (#642601) Homepage Journal

      We didn't need any net neutrality for the internet for a long time.

      When exactly was this fictitious time to which you refer?

      Telecoms were historically required to pass all "traffic" (phone calls, telgrams, etc.) without interference under Title II of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 (as amended numerous times). This was extended to internet traffic as the Internet burgeoned.

      In 2002 (cable) and 2005 (other telecom ISPs), The Bush (the younger) administration's FCC reclassified ISPs under Title I, removing those requirements.

      It's instructive to note that after 2005, the rate of net infrastructure development by ISPs (notwithstanding the US$100 Billion in grants/subsidies for those ISPs during that time) actually slowed.

      The Obama FCC tried (with the ISPs fighting tooth and nail) to right that wrong. And now the Trump FCC is licking ISP boots again.

      I hear what you're saying, but it's important to include historical context if one wishes to understand the current situation.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Adamsjas on Friday February 23 2018, @08:46PM (6 children)

        by Adamsjas (4507) on Friday February 23 2018, @08:46PM (#642625)

        So after asking when this time was, you turn around and show exactly when this time was. Good job.

        Actually, you've shown no source for the 2005 slowdown in infrastructure development, at least none that was not due to the general economic downturn of that era. Carrying an umbrella does not cause rain.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 23 2018, @11:26PM (3 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday February 23 2018, @11:26PM (#642722) Homepage Journal

          Actually, you've shown no source for the 2005 slowdown in infrastructure development,

          Nope. I didn't.

          However, the search engine of your choice should give you all the information you need to confirm it.

          Did you have anything that actually adds value, or do you just want to be contrary.

          Either way, carry on. Perhaps we'll get the former now that you've shared the latter.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:47AM (2 children)

            by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:47AM (#642999) Homepage Journal

            Now that Google has reneged on "Don't Be Evil" I make a point of not saying "Google it". Rather I say the far-more cumbersome "Use the search engine of your choise"

            --
            Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:33PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:33PM (#643031)

              "search that shit"

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @03:59PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @03:59PM (#643052)

              'Evil-Search it' is moderately more compact.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:00AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:00AM (#642738)

          ISPs did violate net neutrality on numerous occasions. [freepress.net] I'm not sure why people think that was ever a time when we didn't need net neutrality. It also amazes me that some people think that ISPs are spending massive amounts of money lobbying to overturn net neutrality regulations just because they want to respect net neutrality anyway; that's ludicrous. Of course ISPs plan to take actions that would violate net neutrality rules, or else they wouldn't be fighting so hard to get rid of them.

        • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:45AM

          by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:45AM (#642997) Homepage Journal

          He should know: he has a Nobel Prize.

          While he never specifically mentioned umbrellas, he made quite a good case for his arguments that "Wet streets cause rain."

          --
          Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Adamsjas on Friday February 23 2018, @08:54PM

      by Adamsjas (4507) on Friday February 23 2018, @08:54PM (#642630)

      "What is really astonishing here is the amount of time, effort and money the Trump administration is willing to use in order to ensure that Big Telecom can screw ordinary every day consumers."

      I doubt Trump, or anyone in his administration other than Pai is paying this any attention at all.

      The rules were enacted in the wrong way under Obama, and they are being withdrawn in the wrong way under Trump.

      This was always a consumer protection issue. Never belonged in the FCC in the first place. And State regulation has a lot of appeal.

    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:42AM (1 child)

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:42AM (#642996) Homepage Journal

      That's Nitric Oxide. To breath it will turn your blood into Nitric Acid.

      I was therefore confused when my friend Ted started posting photos of Los Angeles. Always there was a clear blue sky, or at night you could see the stars.

      I inquired about this and he said there's never any smog there.

      I attended Caltech to study Astronomy, yet was unable to see the stars at night. Had I visited the campus while I was still in high school, quite likely I would not have applied there.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:02PM (#643053)

        Wtf? Where are the off-topic posts re. Trump when you need them?

  • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday February 23 2018, @05:47PM

    by captain normal (2205) on Friday February 23 2018, @05:47PM (#642485)

    I think the best case that happens is this gets drawn out in the courts until early 2021, when there is a change in the U.S. Administration. Just like every thing that involves lawyers there will be reams of motions, disclosures and appeals not to mention many days of vocal arguments.

    --
    When life isn't going right, go left.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @06:40PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @06:40PM (#642540)

    What Agit Pai glosses-over is that the reason for Title II being necessary was Verizon suing the FCC over 'net neutrality.

    Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (2014)

    You know, the company he was formerly a lawyer for.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday February 23 2018, @09:46PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday February 23 2018, @09:46PM (#642655)

      [cue dramatic orchestral music]
      "Verizon was suing to be free, and when they won, the Evil Administration decided to overstep its authority in order to deny that Freedom earned in the courts!"

      Nobody is deafer than the one who does not want to hear.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @10:07PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @10:07PM (#642665)

    Of the same state governments that prevent community / local government internet initiatives for their big telecom lobbyists? And they are challenging the FCC order?

    Are they so concerned, because they have a 'D' next to their name?

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Friday February 23 2018, @11:47PM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday February 23 2018, @11:47PM (#642730) Homepage Journal

      Are they so concerned, because they have a 'D' next to their name?

      I know. what's up with that?

      You'd think that those with an (R) next to their names would be the first ones filing lawsuits right out in front, given that ditching Net Neutrality means:
      1. Less liberty for citizens;
      2. Less competition (stifling free markets);
      3. Increasing barriers-to-entry for small businesses;
      4. increased centralization/collectivization of Internet-based industries.

      With those being the results of killing net neutrality (and don't forget the ALEC written/supported state legislation limiting municipal broadband and competition), you'd think it was those America hating, communistic, sharia loving, scum with the (D)'s next to their name.

      Hmm..that's confusing. Who is it that supports liberty, free markets and competition?

      Sounds like someone's been drinking too much kool-aid. Too bad it's not Jim Jones [wikipedia.org] flavored.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @03:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @03:05AM (#643295)

      I'm going full-bore language nazi on you.

      It's Attorneys General, not Attorney Generals!

      Say it! Attorneys General. Attorneys General! [youtu.be] Better. Don't forget!

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:00PM (1 child)

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:00PM (#643001) Homepage Journal

    When Bonita and I bought a house in Owl's Head, Maine we just assumed that our house being wired for cable TV surely meant that we could get cable Internet.

    To my dismay we didn't look into Internet service until after we bought the house. Bonita called the cable company and was told that there were no Internet routers in Owl's Head.

    So I operated my software consulting business over dialup for three solid years. To download Slackware 8 took three days.

    I also set up IP Masquerading so Bonita and I could use the dialup at the same time. That worked quite a lot better than most would expect.

    When I heard about that kid and his garage I requested service. Owl's Head is very sparsely populated, but that was OK because his service was wireless.

    Again to my great dismay our house didn't have line-of-sight.

    To create a profitable business in your parents' garage is quite typical of Mainers.

    At the time the cell phone service in Vermont was some tiny company that only served Vermont. The proprietor was the sort of Live Free And Die guy that refused to sell to the big telcos.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday February 26 2018, @04:57PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday February 26 2018, @04:57PM (#644019)

      Live Free And Die

      It's actually "Live Free Or Die. As in, "give me freedom or give me death."

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(1)