Law Upcoming vote on Net Neutrality laws - How many times do we need to strike this shit down?

FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil plans next week for a final vote to reverse a landmark 2015 net neutrality order barring the blocking or slowing of web content, two people briefed on the plans said.

In May, the FCC voted 2-1 to advance Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to withdraw the former Obama administration’s order reclassifying internet service providers as if they were utilities. Pai now plans to hold a final vote on the proposal at the FCC’s Dec. 14 meeting, the people said, and roll out details of the plans next week.

Pai asked in May for public comment on whether the FCC has authority or should keep any regulations limiting internet providers’ ability to block, throttle or offer “fast lanes” to some websites, known as “paid prioritization.” Several industry officials told Reuters they expect Pai to drop those specific legal requirements but retain some transparency requirements under the order.

An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

Internet providers including AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc say ending the rules could spark billions in additional broadband investment and eliminate the possibility a future administration could regulate internet pricing.

Critics say the move could harm consumers, small businesses and access to the internet.

In July, a group representing major technology firms including Alphabet Inc and Facebook Inc urged Pai to drop plans to rescind the rules.

Advocacy group Free Press said Wednesday “we’ll learn the gory details in the next few days, but we know that Pai intends to dismantle the basic protections that have fueled the internet’s growth.”

Pai, who argues the Obama order was unnecessary and harms jobs and investment, has not committed to retaining any rules, but said he favors an “open internet.” The proposal to reverse the Obama rules reclassifying internet service has drawn more than 22 million comments.

Pai is mounting an aggressive deregulatory agenda since being named by President Donald Trump to head the FCC.

On Thursday the FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal to eliminate the 42-year-old ban on cross-ownership of a newspaper and TV station in a major market. The proposal would make it easier for media companies to buy additional TV stations in the same market.

Pai is also expected to call for an initial vote in December to rescind rules that say one company may not own stations serving more than 39 percent of U.S. television households, two people briefed on the matter said.

Oh, and Comcast is already lobbying.

I'm so sick of this shit, seriously. The FCC is whoring out for Comcast and AT&T instead of ensuring that American citizens have equal access to the internet.

 

[Xerxes IX]

Yeah that's the thing, NN more or less was the QoS regarding ISPs. Most of those companies were already price gouging and giving shoddy service to their territories because there's no other company in the area to compete with, and many of these ISPs have agreed upon minimum price to keep it that way not dissimilar to what the diamond industry does. Rolling back NN just gives them more legal freedom to go even further with that.

People are incredibly optimistic that collusion between oligopolies won't happen. Or more likely they just don't care.

 

[The Great Citracett]

 

[DefunctChip]

Has the FCC provided any response to the fact that the New York state attorney general has rallied somewhere around 18 to 20 states to collaboratively sue over this? And have announced their intention to sue within the coming week? Genuinely curious here.

 

[Takayuki Yagami]

Has the FCC provided any response to the fact that the New York state attorney general has rallied somewhere around 18 to 20 states to collaboratively sue over this? And have announced their intention to sue within the coming week? Genuinely curious here.

Fuck no.

 

[Joan Nyan]

Has the FCC provided any response to the fact that the New York state attorney general has rallied somewhere around 18 to 20 states to collaboratively sue over this? And have announced their intention to sue within the coming week? Genuinely curious here.

My understanding of it is that lawsuits against regulatory agencies are basically impossible to win thanks to the Chevron decision that essentially says the courts always have to defer to regulatory agencies.

If this is what gets Democrats to join Republicans in opposing unaccountable bureaucracies and pushing for power to be returned to Congress and the courts, than this repeal will indirectly be one of the best decisions ever made.

 

[DICKPICSRUS]

Update




article

Within an hour of the Federal Communications Commission voting to rescind rules protecting net neutrality on December 14, Colorado Congressman Mike Coffman took to Twitter to voice his disappointment and announce that he'll be introducing his own bill pertaining to net neutrality in Congress, where the "conversation belongs."

Net neutrality is the idea that Internet service providers shouldn’t be allowed to control access to certain types of web content based on the service provider's preference; all data on the Internet is to be treated the same.


But in a controversial vote along party lines today, the FCC voted to rescind net neutrality protections. Coffman was among the elected officials who'd asked the FCC to delay its decision and allow Congress to decide on the issue.

View image on Twitter

Rep. Mike Coffman✔@RepMikeCoffman
Given @AjitPaiFCC and the @FCC lack of response to my letter, I will be submitting legislation pertaining to #netneutrality. This conversation belongs in #Congress. As I draft this bill email me your suggestions to: netneutrality.coffman@mail.house.gov

1:40 PM - Dec 14, 2017

• 100100 Replies
  
• 525525 Retweets
  
• 1,0081,008 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
IF YOU LIKE THIS STORY, CONSIDER SIGNING UP FOR OUR EMAIL NEWSLETTERS.
SHOW ME HOW
Coffman is now asking constituents for suggestions on the language of the proposed bill, which can be sent to this address: netneutrality.coffman@mail.house.gov.

Earlier, Coffman had said he was disappointed that the FCC had not responded to his office over the matter.

Rep. Mike Coffman✔@RepMikeCoffman
I'm deeply disappointed and troubled by the lack of response from the @FCC in regards to today's vote, as well as ignoring multiple Congressional calls for a delay. A decision decision of this magnitude, should take place in Congress, & not by unelected bureaucrats in Washington

1:26 PM - Dec 14, 2017

• 7474 Replies
  
• 209209 Retweets
  
• 689689 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy
Westword has reached out to Coffman's office for details on the bill, and will update this piece with additional information.

 

[Darwin Watterson]

Still not sure how fucked we are. I can ask three different people and get three different answers. Even in this thread.

“These states are gearing up to sue”

“But it’s damn near impossible to win cases like this”

“New York sues people all the time and usually win”

“This has to go through Congress and congress favors net neutrality”

“They probably bribed Congress to pass it”

“Google, Apple, etc. aren’t gonna let this go through”

“Don’t panic”

“Abandon all hope”

Everyone is talking out of both sides of their mouth.

 

[Cosmos]

I think FFC is fucked since they took a celebrity's dead relative for not one, but three fake comments. And @'ed Pai.

Archive just in case here.

EDIT: Added Images.

Wow, that's fucking disgusting.

And just so you guys know, you can check this website to make sure your name and the names of your family weren't used to propagate anti-NN bullshit. Depending on how common your name is, though, you might have to sort through thousands of results (make sure to pay attention to the address listed; if it's not yours, you're not the person whose identity was used). If you do happen to find a fake comment, you can submit a complaint using the form on the main page I linked.

 

[AnOminous]

My understanding of it is that lawsuits against regulatory agencies are basically impossible to win thanks to the Chevron decision that essentially says the courts always have to defer to regulatory agencies.

That's not quite true, but it is when they're not doing something by regulation that flatly contradicts what Congress legislated. If there are a number of possible reasonable interpretations, though, and they choose to go with one of them, they're not going to be overruled by a court for it.

 

[Darwin Watterson]

That's not quite true, but it is when they're not doing something by regulation that flatly contradicts what Congress legislated. If there are a number of possible reasonable interpretations, though, and they choose to go with one of them, they're not going to be overruled by a court for it.

What about the provable fraud that they used to push this through?

 

[Chiang Kai-shek]

Update




article

Good luck and Representative

 

[TheScooper]

Christ the corruption is so upfront and disgusting that even the corrupt people are disgusted.

 

[Cosmos]

 

[AnOminous]

What about the provable fraud that they used to push this through?

I'm not sure what the fraud is. It was a purely partisan 3-2 vote. Maybe Ajit took some bribes. It really seems likely. Prove it, though.

 

[Darwin Watterson]

What I don’t understand is how this is allowed to go through. Corruption in the government has always been a thing, but it’s always been at a reasonably subtle level. This is cheesy 80’s movie levels of villainy.

 

[Joan Nyan]

That's not quite true, but it is when they're not doing something by regulation that flatly contradicts what Congress legislated. If there are a number of possible reasonable interpretations, though, and they choose to go with one of them, they're not going to be overruled by a court for it.

Has Congress passed any bill saying that the FCC must regulate the internet in a certain way? Because as far as I can tell this is an unwinnable case without major changes to precedent.

 

[Darwin Watterson]

I'm not sure what the fraud is. It was a purely partisan 3-2 vote. Maybe Ajit took some bribes. It really seems likely. Prove it, though.

Maybe I’m using the wrong terminology but I’m referring to the botting support, which sounds like it’d at least be worth SOME sort of punishment.

The right’s always yapping about the use of dead people to further political agendas.

 

[tehpope]

View attachment 335604

 

[I-chi]

So really we're just wringing our hands here and absolutely nobody has any idea what's going to happen; but more than likely, it's that everybody is ignoring the elephant in the room in a bid to stay sane, so that the most logical end result is going to be this is going to get through clean as a whistle because money talks?

I mean I'm not getting what we're supposed to do or what anyone could do here, let alone a fistful of states and technocrats if it truly is a case where the FCC has the upper hand?

 

[Darwin Watterson]

I know nothing about the law, so maybe somebody who DOES can tell me whether it’s possible to essentially filibuster this thing into oblivion? To basically use vexatious tactics to stall the process until a time where the people who support this can be gotten rid of and replaced with others who’ll likely have a second vote and strike it down?

I’m guessing that the answer is “no,” but it wouldn’t hurt to ask.