SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept.
When the Trump administration killed net neutrality, telecom industry giants convinced them to push their luck and declared that not only would federal regulators no longer try to meaningfully oversee telecom giants like Comcast and AT&T, but that states couldn’t either. They got greedy.
The courts didn’t like that much, repeatedly ruling that the FCC can’t abdicate its authority over broadband consumer protection, then turn around tell states what they can or can’t do.
The courts took that stance again last week, with a new ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit restoring a New York State law (the Affordable Broadband Act) requiring that ISPs provide low-income state residents $15 broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps. The law was blocked in June of 2021 by a US District Judge who claimed that the state law was pre-empted by the federal net neutrality repeal.
Giant ISPs, and the Trump administration officials who love them, desperately tried to insist that states were magically barred from regulating broadband because the Trump administration said so. But the appeals court ruled, once again, those efforts aren’t supported by logic or the law:
“the ABA is not conflict-preempted by the Federal Communications Commission’s 2018 order classifying broadband as an information service. That order stripped the agency of its authority to regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet, and a federal agency cannot exclude states from regulating in an area where the agency itself lacks regulatory authority. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and VACATE the permanent injunction.”
This ruling is once again good news for future fights over net neutrality and broadband consumer protection, Stanford Law Professor and net neutrality expert Barbara van Schewick notes in a statement:
“Today’s decision means that if a future FCC again decided to abdicate its oversight over broadband like it did in 2017, the states have strong legal precedent, across circuits, to institute their own protections or re-activate dormant ones.”
Telecom lobbyists have spent years lobbying to ensure federal broadband oversight is as captured and feckless as possible. And, with the occasional exception, they’ve largely succeeded. Big telecom had really hoped they could extend that winning streak even further and bar states from standing up to them as well, but so far that really hasn’t gone as planned.
One of the things that absolutely terrifies telecom monopoly lobbyists is the idea of rate regulation, or that government would ever stop them from ripping off captive customers stuck in uncompetitive markets. It’s never been a serious threat on the federal level due to regulatory capture and lobbying, even though it’s thrown around a lot by monopoly apologists as a terrifying bogeyman akin to leprosy.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 06 2024, @09:45PM (11 children)
Fifteen bucks, for 25 meg sounds pretty good, when I think about what I've paid over the years. 25 meg isn't really great for streaming, and maybe not for gaming, but it should be adequate for both, provided lag isn't too bad. Dear Wife satisfied her appetite for downloading movies for years on 10 meg (usually less, we all know how the advertised speed can be compared to real speed) With that connection, you can most definitely be part of the "digital world".
And, the price is very good too. I guess you have to qualify as "poor folk" to get that rate, but it's good. And, making those rates available for poor folk will give other people some clout to demand lower prices.
A good internet connection really shouldn't be a major monetary outlay for anyone. The ISPs can make their profit from businesses, who routinely chew through petabytes of data every month. It's time to stop exploiting the little people who need internet just to do routine transactions with government, banks, and almost everything these days.
Now for the rest of the states to get onboard with similar programs. The federal government has been in bed with the telcos for far too long.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2024, @05:25AM (10 children)
Ypu, democrat and republican administrations alike. But notice the article has to single out Trump. Just can't keep his name off the front page.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday May 07 2024, @01:41PM
Well, Trump was exceptionally worse than average AND he's quite recent. So that's fair. (But it's the Democrats that keep pushing for infinite copyright length.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday May 07 2024, @02:30PM (8 children)
Well, which other administration killed net neutrality too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2024, @02:50PM (7 children)
It was a sham. We never had "net neutrality". And we won't have it until congress legislates our dumb pipe. The process is very straightforward. The president can be made irrelevant, congress can override a veto, but that won't happen until we stop reelecting the same people over and over. So, it is we who killed this version of "net neutrality", by reelecting crooks, democrats and republicans alike!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday May 07 2024, @03:49PM (6 children)
It seems that you are intent on turning this into another political debate. It isn't.
This topic is about the Courts supporting New York State's right to require Quest to provide broadband access at a reasonable price. There will now be precedent as was acknowledged in TFA:
You are the one who is focussing on Trump being mentioned - which TFA correctly does in the opening line. If you are intent on continuing as least do it under your username and have the courage to put your name to your views.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2024, @03:41AM (5 children)
No, you should pay attention to the message, not the messenger
And if the issue wasn't political, we would have net neutrality (dumb pipe) and affordable internet for all. It is human politics that keeps us all poor and denies us nice things
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday May 08 2024, @06:38AM (4 children)
No, I tend not to agree. The companies would all pour their efforts into a relatively small area of the USA and leave vast swathes even worse off than they are today. It would be better perhaps for those who live in urban conurbations.
Things did not improve as a result of the previous administrations decision to remove net neutrality, or at least nobody has ever shown me how they did so.
But the courts are still correct in their decision IMHO.
Now I forget, what was the name of the chap who was President of the previous administration? I'll look in TFA, it will probably tell me there. I am not complaining about the messenger but looking at the message as it is written in TFA. It appears to me that some are more concerned with the name of that President than with the topic under discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2024, @07:27PM (3 children)
Ah, so you did get the gist of my original post in this thread! So why all the negativity?
Right, and that is why I said only congress can fix that, but, you know, corrupt politics (being in bed with the telcos) prevents that, and will continue to do so while we keep reelecting them. Why do you all have so much trouble comprehending that? Put all your silly abstractions aside and get to the root cause. Hint: it's us, our own acquiescence.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday May 08 2024, @08:03PM (2 children)
I'm not an American - it is not 'us'.
I view US politics with the same view that much of the world does now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2024, @09:14PM (1 child)
Yeah, it is us. We are on the same planet. And your arrogance aside, US politics is not that different from European politics, suffering the same corruption that creates shortages and inflates prices, so save your breath on that. The right wing crazies are gaining popularity there too, because like here, there is no effective opposition, only passive-aggressive whiners.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday May 08 2024, @09:38PM
You started this political argument. You said:
TFA is a quotation - we don't change what people say. The name was used because it WAS Trump's administration that killed net neutrality. But you got all in a tizz over that. He was not elected by Europeans, so don't go lumping me into your version of 'us'. No matter who is elected in Europe, none of them seem to have visited Jeffrey Epstein's little island, none of them claim they can "grab women by the pussy", and none of them refused to accept the outcome of an election. No other nation in the world is responsible for having elected him. So please don't try spreading the blame. He is a product of the USA. You had better get used to it.
Er, count how many countries in Europe have gone ultra right, and then count how many countries haven't. I would say that some appear to have a fairly effective opposition.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday May 08 2024, @03:39AM (1 child)
Wait, why should states have the authority to regulate this? Ignore the case and focus on the ruling; imagine this case is about trying to regulate that ISPs can't provide fiber access to civilians. Telecom is absolutely within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday May 08 2024, @03:41AM
Fixed: imagine this case is about INSERT STATE HERE trying to regulate that ISPs can't provide fiber access to civilians.
(The site should escape angle brackets rather than chomp them in plain text mode)
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!