Net Neutrality

It is no longer hearsay

Less than a day after the rules were implemented, too. California/the Internet isn't going down without a fight, though.

Edited by CookingCat on Sep 30th 2018 at 7:52:01 AM

In a move that should surprise no one, the cable and broadband industry is dogpiling on California in an attempt to stop their net neutrality bill.

A Stanford University report finds that 99.7% of unique comments submitted to the FCC prior to the repeal of net neutrality favoured keeping it.

Like that's going to deter Pai and his fetish for making enemies.

Up to 9.5 million comments on net neutrality were submitted under fake identities, New York AG Barbara Underwood has subpoenaed a bunch of telecom groups, lobbyists, and Washington advocacy organisations over it.

That might sound exciting if I expected anything to come from it

Hey, anything that gunks up the works here is good.

You're assuming it will gunk up the works

At the very least it could be used as ammunition in elections to unseat the Republican Party.

Not to mention that it could very well be useful to anyone who wants to sue the FCC, which would gunk up the works.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 18th 2018 at 3:12:21 PM

Exactly.

Wake me up when such gunking happens, then.

ISP groups are going after Vermont for requiring that ISPs abide by net neutrality to get state contracts.

So they are picking fights with both California and Vermont now...

So it seems. With any luck they'll end up bone dry by the end of this.

Did that make any damn sense?

U.S. Supreme Court declines appeal against net neutrality laws

...right, I have no idea what this means. Is this good or bad?

Basically, that ruling was key to arguing precedent and constitutionality for a lot of net neutrality legislation. The Supreme Court refusing the appeal means they basically said "no, that precedent still stands".

Edited by danime91 on Nov 9th 2018 at 12:04:23 PM

I thiiink it's good, they're rejecting a ruling against net neutrality. At least that's what I got from it.

I'm not a legal expert, and certainly not in US laws, so I could be wrong, but this is my interpretation:

It's a good thing.

Obama's regulation increased net neutrality protections so the telecom industry tried to get rid of it by claiming the FCC didn't have the legal authority to increase or enforce these regulations. In 2016, the courts ruled that the regulations were indeed completely legal, creating a precedence for the legality of creating, enforcing and extending net neutrality laws.

It's therefore not enough to get rid of the original Obama regulation, the 2016 ruling has to be struck down as well. This is because the 2016 ruling creates a legal foundation for continued creation of net neutrality legislation even after the FCC repeal, and even creates the precedence needed for arguing that the FCC repeal is illegal.

The Supreme Court has just ruled that the 2016 ruling cannot be removed, which is good news for state-level net neutrality and those campaigning to reverse the FCC repeal.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Nov 9th 2018 at 1:00:17 PM

So should Article 13 be discussed here or should it have its own thread?

Depends, what is it?

Based on a very brief Googling it should probably have its own thread.

Major protest, both online and off, planned for 29 November with the intent of securing the remaining House votes needed to pass the CRA.

I've heard lobbyists are trying to pass something similar to Article 13, is that true?

Pai admits that Russian interference in the net neutrality debate was a thing that happened.