from the its-not-over-until-the-fat-lady-sings dept.
From Reuters:
A group of 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia late Monday asked a U.S. appeals court to reinstate the Obama administration's 2015 landmark net neutrality rules and reject the Trump administration's efforts to preempt states from imposing their own rules guaranteeing an open internet.
The states, led by New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, filed a lawsuit in January after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in December along party lines to reverse rules that barred internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic or offering paid fast lanes, also known as paid prioritization.
Several internet companies filed a separate legal challenge on Monday to overturn the FCC ruling, including Mozilla Corp, Vimeo Inc, Etsy Inc, and numerous media and technology advocacy groups.
The FCC handed sweeping new powers to internet providers to recast how Americans use the internet — as long as they disclose any changes. The new rules took effect in early June but major providers have made no changes in internet access.
[...] The U.S. Senate voted in May to keep the Obama-era internet rules, but the measure is unlikely to be approved by the House of Representatives or the White House.
The state attorney generals suing represent states with 165 million people — more than half the United States population — and include California, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 21 2018, @02:06PM (1 child)
The entropic drip of corruption doesn't flow backwards. If the courts make a ruling on net neutrality, it'll be to solidify the current rules by making small exceptions. Things just get worse and worse and worse until something snaps and you've got heads in guillotines or a civil war where you're shooting your own cousins.
Ajit Pai sold us all out, and it will stick. No handout from the public to the super rich from the past 50 years hasn't stuck.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:31PM
Ajit Pai might not be in office forever.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Tuesday August 21 2018, @02:16PM (25 children)
It is important to realize that the only reason ISPs have not already turned your internet connections in to a mess of cable-channel like tiered subscriptions is to make it look like net neutrality is not needed.
Once all opposition to net neutrality is finally dead, buried, and forgotten, they will turn up the heat slowly. And in time you will have extra charges such "Facebook(R)(TM) and Twitter(R)(TM) priority access package", "Youtube video acceleration package", "Netflix gold bandwidth++", "Soylent FastTroll Service", or such and such. Some of which will be the only way to access certain content at all.
I don't look forward to that. There is big money in it and consumertards will happily pay for it.
(Score: 5, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:12PM (24 children)
Oh, I'm sick of fast trolling.
For goodness sake, people, take your time and come with a well made, in a good taste, slow trolling.
(Alternatively, at least once in a while and even if only for variety, you could accept an aristarchus submission)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Subsentient on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:19PM (3 children)
Challenge accepted.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:33PM (2 children)
Well, fuck off if you call this "in good taste".
(Score: 3, Funny) by deimtee on Tuesday August 21 2018, @09:18PM
You don't like peanut butter?
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Wednesday August 22 2018, @12:26AM
Oh, it has plenty of tastes.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:31PM (3 children)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn7oEYe4ePc [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:37PM (2 children)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQlIhraqL7o [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:08PM (1 child)
I don't need your handouts. You can't buy me "I just had sex" man. [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:42PM
Stay vigilant, you can't trust the system. Maaan!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:56PM (15 children)
Don't side with aristarchus. His preferred submission is vapid political garbage, filled with flamebait. We don't need that shitty flavor for variety. Since he won't put it in a journal because he wants to make a "point", it's his own fault if he can't get his "message" out. Finally, spamming unrelated articles to bitch about it is the worst thing ever, unless you love to see good stories get derailed. And yes, even zero comments is preferable to one stupid aristarchus comment. The personal attacks against janrinok are also rubbish.
Given that the editors have no obligation to publish any particular submission, the temper tantrums and bad behavior are not helping. We'll just delete his submissions faster, until he submits something publishable. Many tech and science stories have a political angle, or a Thiel behind the wheel. Out of stories that aren't tech or science related, many can still be interesting [nytimes.com] or relevant [go.com].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:35PM (7 children)
Allow me to note this has a good potential to sound authoritative. Borderline authoritarian.
Did you intended that way (with an "... or else" almost implied)?
Hang on a bit, is there something like "our need" when it comes to S/N?
I can agree with "my need", "ethanol-fueled's need", "VIM A/C's need", but I'm not sure those needs has more overlapping than the simple "post comments in S/N forum". Do they?
Please note that I intended all the requests for clarifications above in the general/meta context, outside of "aristarchus submissions" one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday August 21 2018, @05:08PM (6 children)
It's an appeal, not a demand.
We need to post submissions of a certain quality, or the userbase will gradually evaporate and the site will die. Alt-right fun hour may be an entertaining variety to you, but it's not a healthy one. We've seen plenty of people leave due to excessive political stories in the past.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @06:12PM (5 children)
That is not how you write an appeal. Your posts definitely have an authoritarian streak to them, but I can't really refute the excessive political stories complaint.
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Tuesday August 21 2018, @06:17PM (4 children)
Guess I'll have to practice by writing more demands. I mean appeals.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @06:38PM (3 children)
May I appeal to you do so?
Please, set aside some time for practice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @07:16PM (2 children)
Some people have trouble being subservient even for politeness. Many are taught to be the bullshitting confident types who tell people to lead, follow, or get out of the way.
It is a problem, everyone trying to act like the silverback alpha when in reality few qualify for boy scout troop leader. Usually the loudest most demanding types are the least deserving.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 22 2018, @12:27AM
Silverback alpha chad goes buuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrp.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 22 2018, @12:32AM
Watch some movies placed in the British Victorian era, you'll notice many masters asking servants using something on the line of "Can you bring some..., please?" Was it any chance the master sound subservient?
Of course the servant was expected the s/he actually could so there was actually no choice given.
Nowadays equiv - if your manager asks you 'can you fix up your shit, please?', will be sound up subservient or menacing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:54PM (5 children)
Listen, is 3AM around here and tomorrow I have enough to work, so I might not be able to stay onto this thread as much as I like (or need?)
Maybe you should ponder on the "provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion" bit.
Especially since you replied to a small print remark in the footnote of a comment asking for "take your time and come with a well made, in a good taste, slow trolling".
Or would you prefer a "whoosh" instead?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 21 2018, @05:18PM (4 children)
I'd rather offer a superfluous explanation than allow any sympathy to be misplaced, as it has been in the past.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 21 2018, @05:55PM (3 children)
My apologies. I'll grin next time.
No hard feelings, Ok?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 21 2018, @06:12PM (2 children)
Get some sleep!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 21 2018, @06:22PM (1 child)
· [xkcd.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @01:07PM
Ha! I had 386 printed on fridge magnets and gave several of them to friends.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 21 2018, @05:01PM
I think takyon just got slow-trolled!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:13PM (3 children)
Isn't the proper provenance of Net Neutrality Congress? Shouldn't our elected representatives, if this issue is so important, respond to their constituents and craft a law that cannot be interpreted to mean two contradictory things by two different administrations? I find it strange to call on the judiciary (unaccountable to the will of the people) to write law--that is the job of Congress. If they abdicate that responsibility, I am not going to blame either the Obama or Trump administrations for trying to fill the void in power that Congress has irresponsibly allowed. I am, however, going to blame the judiciary if they choose to go beyond their constitutional duties and, instead of kicking the issue back to Congress, decides to use the fact that Congress has shirked its responsibility to make law.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 21 2018, @05:14PM (2 children)
The lawsuit alleges that the Obama admin did follow the rules and the Trump admin did not.
Evaluating whether the Trump admin broke the rules or not is the purview of the court.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MrGuy on Tuesday August 21 2018, @06:37PM (1 child)
More generically,
The legislative branch is responsible for creating laws. They are also responsible for creating agencies (like the FCC and the EPA) with the power to regulate certain agencies or behavior. The legislature can set laws to mandate certain processes or certain outcomes on the regulatory agencies.
The established regulatory agencies are part of the executive branch. Once established by an act of congress, these regulatory agencies are empowered to create and enforce rules governing individual and/or corporate behavior within the mandate established by the legislature. The legislature establishes both the scope of their authority and the processes that the agencies must follow (including the rules governing the process by which regulations can be established or modified). Within those guidelines, the regulatory agency is free to create and enforce regulations, which have the effective force of law.
The judiciary's role in the process is to ensure that regulations are created within the process mandates set by congress, and are within the scope of the responsibility delegated to the agency. So, if an agency creates a rule governing behavior not within its purview (for example, if the FCC created a rule governing forest fires), the courts would be the appropriate forum to challenge that rule as invalid. Or, if (as is alleged here) an agency does not follow the congressionally mandated process for creating or modifying regulations, the courts would be the appropriate forum to challenge that process change as invalid.
The legislature does not generally need to do anything to empower the FCC (or any other agency) to create or enforce rules - they already did this when they established the agency. The reason the agencies are created in the first place is so that congress will not (for example) have to investigate and create laws that govern how airlines can structure and display prices and fees (the FAA does this), or exactly which radio transmission equipment power levels are consistent with a goal of non-interference with others (the FCC), or exactly which tax forms are required to document specific obscure tax requirements (the IRS). The agencies, within congress' expressed intent and laws, determine the lower-level rules. Congress effectively delegates its authority (within limits) to the regulatory agencies.
That said, the agencies are delegated their authority by congress, and congress retains the power to overrule them (or even dis-establish the agencies) if they feel so inclined. The core of the debate around net neutrality is whether Title II of the communications act of 1934 (which established the FCC) gives the FCC the authority to regulate the internet under "common carrier" provisions established (at the time) for telephone systems, which is an 85 year old law that was drafted when the idea of a national-scale network of connections (the phone system) was envisioned, but the internet (obviously) was not. If congress were to pass a law that clarified whether they wanted the internet to be considered a "common carrier" as envisioned by this act, or as some new structure that they can define, the FCC would have to follow that guidance. Absent specific guidance, the FCC is free to pass any rules they want, as long as law and charter (as interpreted by the courts) allows them to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:29PM
Congress has no Constitutional authority to delegate their own power to legislate to agencies that they create. The agencies should serve as advisers at most, not be able to unilaterally create new regulations without acts of Congress.
The only thing that would change this is a Constitutional amendment, but we've ignored this in the name of convenience for so long that the notion is laughable.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 21 2018, @05:17PM (5 children)
Just a reminder that every single Democrat voted FOR Net Neutrality. All but 3 Republicans voted against it.
If this is an issue you care about there is a stark difference between Dems and Reps here.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @06:31PM (2 children)
I hope it was all legitimate, but often that is a sign of party politics. Knowing the opposition will vote it in any sympathetic dems could vote no for the political points.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 21 2018, @07:18PM (1 child)
Alternatively, Democrats could actually be in favor of Net Neutrality. Considering they implemented it once already that seems a bit simpler of an explanation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:29PM
Tell me about it. Every time Net Neutrality comes up, and every time it's pointed out how one-sided and partisan the divide is, someone always tries to write that off completely with the notion that it's "not what they really believe in" and that they're just "voting the party line", or even that they "just got lucky this time"...spin that should about give someone a groin pull. I mean for holy fucks sake anyway 'pubs...your side's on the wrong side here...own it.
(Score: 2) by eravnrekaree on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:38PM
It doesnt belong at the federal level anyway. Let individual states come up with their own solutions here, individual states can then compare the effects from the laws and improve on their laws by looking at works best among the laws of the various states. Theres no need for federal intervention on what is best a state matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:43PM
Reminder all of the democrats voted against you getting your healthcare costs lowered and your taxes lowered.
Your point? Is it that 2-3 people are deciding how we should pay for things?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @09:24PM (5 children)
Why dont states just pass their own laws about it?
(Score: 2) by eravnrekaree on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:36PM
Indeed, that is where these issues belong. Lets just let the individual states do it, this is how things should work under federalism. This would also allow each state to "experiment" and find out what works best and other states can then learn from each other and improve their laws from what is learned by other states laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:38PM (2 children)
Some states are, the problem is that the laws aren't necessarily identical. Here in WA State the GOP and Democrats were able to get together and agree that the rules should largely be what they were previously. Both parties submitted similar proposals for fixing the problem and so we've had it back to normal months ago.
There is the question though about what happens outside of the state. In the state, the ISPs are not able to engage in any of these shenanigans, however, if the other end of the pipe goes through an ISP that isn't bound by our rules, there's no guarantee that they will comply. Especially if it's an ISP that has no presence here.
There's also the risk of having many different specific implementations that confuse customers when they move out of state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @11:22PM
This is an advantage, not a problem.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 22 2018, @01:00PM
There's also the fact -- which is part of this lawsuit and mentioned right at the top of TFS -- that the FCC has already stated that such laws are also illegal. Either the FCC is overstepping their authority and trying to coerce states into obeying rules that they have no right to make in the first place, OR that state law is going to be null and void the minute some ISP decides to challenge it in court. So that's not really a solution; at best it's a temporary stopgap measure while lawsuits like the one mentioned in TFA proceed. Those laws are entirely relying on the fact that they're unlikely to get totally stricken by a judge as long as the issue is still an open question at the federal level. But if the main federal issue gets decided the wrong way, those state laws will be meaningless.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 22 2018, @12:53PM
They're not allowed to, that's part of why they're suing. From the very first paragraph of the summary:
Here's a bit more information on that particular point:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/ [arstechnica.com]
(Score: 2) by eravnrekaree on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:32PM (2 children)
Whatever you say about net neutrality, its a matter of intellectual honesty that a court cannot reinstate these rules. The rules were put into place by the office and removed by the same office. The courts do not have executive powers and cannot instate executive orders on its own, which is what they would be doing. If you believe in the seperation of powers under the constitution, you simply cannot be for this move. It makes the unelected courts, which people have no electoral power over , to have far more power than intended by the framers of the constitution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:41PM
The idea of 'net neutrality' was a decent one. But the Obama admin had to turn Title I and II into a pretzel to say they had jurisdiction on this. What is needed is Title III that makes it clear. However, I seriously doubt anyone wants that written down. It is far more easy to point fingers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:42PM
Not true, there are rules about what regulatory changes that these agencies can make. If there weren't, then it would be chaos as every administration would want to change lots of things. They are restricted from making regulatory changes purely for political reasons. If they want to change the net-neutrality regulation, then they have to have a reason for it and because Obama did it doesn't count.
What the lawsuits are about is that the process was highly irregular and the FCC overstepped it's authority to overturn the regulation by doing things like ignoring the bots being used to submit fake anti-neutrality comments, the existence of comments from elected officials that didn't support the change claiming to support it and the fact that the FCC chair has deep ties to firms that would benefit from the change.