23 Attorneys General Urge Appeals Court To Restore Net Neutrality
from the round-and-round-we-go dept
As expected, Mozilla, 22 State attorneys general, INCOMPAS, and numerous consumer groups this week asked a U.S. appeals court to reinstate FCC net neutrality rules. The state AGs, led by New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, filed a lawsuit back in January attempting to overturn the repeal, arguing that the decision will ultimately be a "disaster for New York consumers and businesses." Mozilla and a few other companies also filed suit, as well as consumer groups including Free Press and Public Knowledge.
The AG's statement-- as well as the brief (pdf) filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit late Monday night--not only urges the court to restore the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules, but asks the court to scuttle ISP and FCC efforts to block states from protecting consumers:
"The government petitioners’ brief focuses on two critical issues: first, that the FCC’s order is arbitrary and capricious because it puts consumers at risk of abusive practices by broadband providers, jeopardizes public safety, and more; and second, that the FCC’s order unlawfully purports to preempt state and local regulation of broadband service."
As we've noted previously, both Comcast and Verizon successfully lobbied the FCC to include language in its "Restoring Internet Freedom" order that attempts to "pre-empt" (read: neuter) state authority over broadband ISPs. ISPs like Charter (Spectrum) have already tried to use this language to wiggle out of state lawsuits over terrible service and false advertising, though the courts so far haven't thought much of the effort. ISPs have threatened to sue states that try to pass state level net neutrality laws in response to federal apathy, but those suits have yet to materialize.
While Facebook and Google have been largely AWOL from the net neutrality fight this go round, INCOMPAS also jumped into the mix this week, issuing its own filing and statement getting to the crux of the issue, a lack of competition in broadband:
"At its core, net neutrality is a competition issue. The FCC’s own order acknowledged that nearly 50 percent of consumers are living in a broadband monopoly. Yet, in the face of a brazenly uncompetitive marketplace, the FCC abandoned two decades of bipartisan consensus that ISPs should not block, throttle, implement paid prioritization, or otherwise harm online content by engaging in anticompetitive behavior.
"The FCC also refused to consider extremely relevant findings from previous merger investigations involving ISPs that control access to almost 65 percent of consumers, which found that despite their public statements to the contrary, ISPs have the means and motive to interfere with online content they perceive as a threat."
US telecom, a lobbying organization primarily funded and managed by AT&T, issued a statement responding to the filings that claimed the repeal of net neutrality was no big deal because the internet has yet to implode:
"As this case winds its way through federal court, it is worth noting what has not happened since the FCC’s order: the internet as we know it is still thriving, growing, open and continues to spin on its axis. The predictions made by some that ISPs would engage in throttling, blocking, and anti-competitive prioritization, have not happened."
Of course ISPs like AT&T have only behaved so far because they know this lawsuit could easily go badly, and they're not keen on adding any fuel to the fire before the court fight heats up (oral arguments should arrive sometime in the fall). All of today's filers are eager to show that the FCC not only violated agency procedures, but violated laws like the Administrative Procedures Act by basing such a stark reversal of policy on little more than fluff and nonsense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: attorneys general, fcc, net neutrality, states
Companies: incompas, mozilla
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bandwidth caps aren't technically a net neutrality issue. (If all data is throttled equally, then it's neutral.)
However, the net neutrality rules that Pai repealed did allow customers to file complaints over any unreasonable prices and practices, so, while not technically a net neutrality issue, this was covered under the net neutrality rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Right, good point.
Data caps and throttling are compatible with net neutrality provided that (1) all data contributes equally toward the cap and (2) all data is throttled equally after hitting the cap.
That doesn't mean that caps or throttling are good, merely that they're separate from net neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What part are you having trouble with?
Net neutrality means all data is treated the same.
Bandwidth caps and throttling do not, in and of themselves, violate NN, if they are content neutral and apply the same to all data.
I'm not saying that they're good, merely that they can be implemented in a neutral way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privately-owned can be run ANY WAY PLEASE! - Or does that only
apply to the corporations that YOU favor, and which are explicitly resolved to control YOUR free speech?
Clearly this is a Free Speech Right: corporations can't be forced to carry content (though within common law) that they don't like, for ANY or NO reason! Right? RIGHT? I mean, that was SO just yesterday! ... Hmm. Bet I'm wrong again on Techdirt, yet consistent with the real world.
No, kids. You can't make those two cases fit into one system no matter how hard try.
Either corporations are subject to reasonable regulation and control for The Public's purposes, OR -- as Masnick wishes when he wishes it -- corporations have absolute and arbitrary control, privately-owned and all.
Now, that ENDS ALL DEBATE! Another item that Masnick wished for in the just prior piece.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privately-owned can be run ANY WAY PLEASE! - Or does that only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, Bibidi Babidi Blue: Do you speak in tongues to actual flesh-and-blood people, or is that only something you do here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privately-owned can be run ANY WAY PLEASE! - Or does that only
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privately-owned can be run ANY WAY PLEASE! - Or does that only
Please explain how an ISP is carrying any kind of content on the internet. Hot tip, they aren't. All ISPs do is provide you gateway access to the internet, they don't host a damn thing.
This is fundamentally different than a social media site providing just one platform ON the internet (not to be confused with the internet at large) for people to post and upload content to. Said social media site DOES carry content because it actually saves it on its servers. Aside from caching servers, ISPs do no such thing.
Yep, in pretty much every regard, including TD and the real world.
No, it doesn't, because as I've stated, you clearly don't understand the first thing about what's being discussed here.
Watch me.
While you can make the argument that people don't need XYZ social media site on the internet, people absolutely NEED access to the internet to work, study, submit homework, do research, manage finances and medical needs, apply for jobs, etc...the list goes on and on. While there isn't one specific thing that everyone needs access to, everyone needs access to the internet so that they can get access to the things they need ON the internet.
In this sense internet access (not the internet itself, because that's something entirely different) should be declared and regulated as a public utility. It meets all the qualifications, you can even consider it a natural monopoly.
Huh, look at that, the two cases fit neatly into one system and I did it in less than five minutes.
Please take a moment to educate yourself on basic computer and internet technology. You'll appear less of a fool if you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
throttling, blocking, and anti-competitive prioritization
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It gets worse
A LOT WORSE. Remember when Pai said that the internet isn't broken and that ISPs weren't throttling or blocking traffic... TO CONGRESS. LAST WEEK?
It turns out THAT was a lie too. TLDR: Verizon throttled Santa Clara County Fire Dept's Internet until they "Upgraded" (read: Pay more) for unlimited internet WHILE BATTLING DEADLY WILDFIRES.
Now this started July 29th of this year. Weeks before Pai's congressional report.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It gets worse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It gets worse
I'll leave it to others to follow the bread crumbs and find the truth, which is much, much worse than even the subject to which I'm responding.
I'd love to talk more but I've been binge-watching Silk Stalkings. I'm up to the part where the two leads leave the show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It gets worse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It gets worse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doubt you could handle the truth, and no one would believe me if I posted it. Notice he NEVER trashes them?
Russia is a diversion. They aren't the country at the wheel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021917767467982854
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how this site often has posters who say "hands off private companies," yet want to tell ISPs how to run their business. Interesting dichotomy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ajit Pai lied about being hacked, right?
Ajit Pai knew DDoS claim was false in January, says he couldn’t tell Congress | Ars Technica https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/ajit-pai-knew-ddos-claim-was-false-in-january-says-he-co uldnt-tell-congress/
Shouldn't net neutrality be re-instated immediately and the process started over from the beginning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ajit Pai lied about being hacked, right?
Yes. That's what should happen.
That it isn't happening tells you a lot about the current system, doesn't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]