Remember during the public commentary about removing it, there were millions of automated messages claiming to be pro-removal? What ever happened with that? Did anyone ever get in trouble?
Ajit Pai deemed the issue unimportant so they took no action Federally and then voted to kill NN. Eric Schneiderman, New York's AG, began an investigation since a bunch of the fake comments used real people's information, so they had an 'identity theft' nexus to state laws -- but Pai refused to aid the investigation in any way:
That's the problem with electing people who don't believe in democracy or civil service, they have so many levers to use to dismantle things including just straight obstruction. Echos of the FEC's corruption, where several members tasked with upholding election law have decided they're just not going to do that, contrary to the professional staff who've indicated that laws were likely broken:
So disheartening. It's insane that in the US that public officials aren't held accountable for basically defrauding the public, like a banana republic. Worst of all, most people don't even care. I don't even recall orgs like Fight for the Future even trying to hold anyone accountable for this.
Looks like it's only available to members with an account, but accounts can only be obtained via "contact us" (and probably a very expensive subscription).
And there's been no changes since it was supposedly gotten rid of (in reality, we never had it in the first place). My internet speed has gotten much faster in fact.
I feel that SCOTUS will have to put this Net Neutrality debate to a end one way or another. Even if it's voted upon, expect lawsuits and legal battles that eventually, the highest court will have to get involved and we'll know if it's allowed to stand, or closing the books on consumer protections for a generation.
The legislative branch sets these rules. The judiciary just interprets them and makes sure the rule set is self consistent (new rules don't break existing rules). The SCOTUS has no business in drawing these lines.
In the previous chapter of this years long battle, a appeals court ruled that the Pai-led FCC can kill Net Neutrality on the federal level but allowed states to create their own rules, something that the FCC wanted but failed to preempt states's rules.
I expect the same battles to be fought when the FCC get the final votes on it and like I said, the Supreme Court may have to get involved to put an end to the back and fourth as ISPs will try their hardest to get to the highest court.
>The SCOTUS has no business in drawing these lines.
What's interesting about the US Constitution is that SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the limit and extent of the powers of the three branches of government. The words of the constitution (or statute) might say: 'SCOTUS has no business in drawing these lines' and SCOTUS can simply decide: "Those words do not really mean what they appear to say. We hereby rule that SCOTUS does have the right to draw these lines and hereby do so." (or any other issue you want to imagine).
And there isn't much the other branches of government (or the American people) can do about it other than:
1. impeach enough members of SCOTUS to alter the unfavorable decision;
2. increase the size of SCOTUS and appoint enough members to alter the unfavorable decision; or
3. declare a revolutionary war (and win) and create a new government
SCOTUS is the one branch of government with virtually unlimited and unchecked power; is appointed for life; and is not elected. Although the scope of its power has increased immensely over the past ~225 years, what is amazing is that it has remained in relative "check". IMO there is zero reason to expect that to continue to be true for another 200 years.
SCOTUS has always played a role in determining whether or not executive branch rules are in keeping with constitutional understandings, at least since Marbury.
> closing the books on consumer protections for a generation.
That sounds serious, and for a generation.
I have not understood the 'consumer protections' argument. If an ISP allows traffic requests from a residence, then what is the problem? I haven't noticed how I may have been harmed by not having NN.
You get to do that because of net neutrality. The FCC in 2005 made it clear that ISPs couldn't block online services (Madison River blocking VoIP). In 2008, the FCC stopped Comcast from blocking Bittorent, establishing precedent that network management should be application agnostic. Then on 2015 the FCC said it had authority over interconnection, which stopped AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from throttling Netflix, League of Legends and Cogent at the point of interconnection (shaking them down for payment). That meant 10s of millions of Americans could actually play games and watch videos.
So yes if you get to do what you want to do online, that's because of 20 years of net neutrality oversight
Readit News
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/21/16686644/eric-schneiderm...
That's the problem with electing people who don't believe in democracy or civil service, they have so many levers to use to dismantle things including just straight obstruction. Echos of the FEC's corruption, where several members tasked with upholding election law have decided they're just not going to do that, contrary to the professional staff who've indicated that laws were likely broken:
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7968/7968_14.pdf
Dead Comment
Here's an "unlocked" link (good until Nov 19th): https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/723252/the-fcc-voted-to-re...
Snapshot: https://web.archive.org/web/20231110203104/https://www.natio...
(I used the Wayback Machine because both archive.is and archive.ph are endless captcha loops.)
The legislative branch sets these rules. The judiciary just interprets them and makes sure the rule set is self consistent (new rules don't break existing rules). The SCOTUS has no business in drawing these lines.
Also, the ISP lobby tried to kill California's state law but was defeated three times. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/stung-by-3-court...
I expect the same battles to be fought when the FCC get the final votes on it and like I said, the Supreme Court may have to get involved to put an end to the back and fourth as ISPs will try their hardest to get to the highest court.
What's interesting about the US Constitution is that SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the limit and extent of the powers of the three branches of government. The words of the constitution (or statute) might say: 'SCOTUS has no business in drawing these lines' and SCOTUS can simply decide: "Those words do not really mean what they appear to say. We hereby rule that SCOTUS does have the right to draw these lines and hereby do so." (or any other issue you want to imagine).
And there isn't much the other branches of government (or the American people) can do about it other than: 1. impeach enough members of SCOTUS to alter the unfavorable decision; 2. increase the size of SCOTUS and appoint enough members to alter the unfavorable decision; or 3. declare a revolutionary war (and win) and create a new government
SCOTUS is the one branch of government with virtually unlimited and unchecked power; is appointed for life; and is not elected. Although the scope of its power has increased immensely over the past ~225 years, what is amazing is that it has remained in relative "check". IMO there is zero reason to expect that to continue to be true for another 200 years.
(1) Whether the legislature has given the FCC sufficient regulatory authority for the policy. (See Comcast v FCC which the FCC lost.)
(2) Whether the legislature or the FCC's actions comply with the Constitution.
(3) Whether the FCC enforcement complies with their rules.
That sounds serious, and for a generation.
I have not understood the 'consumer protections' argument. If an ISP allows traffic requests from a residence, then what is the problem? I haven't noticed how I may have been harmed by not having NN.
So yes if you get to do what you want to do online, that's because of 20 years of net neutrality oversight
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment