States Rush To Protect Net Neutrality On Heels Of Court Ruling
from the round-and-round-we-go dept
Despite the obvious fraud and false data used to prop up the move, a court recently backed much of the Ajit Pai's repeal of net neutrality. But it wasn't all champagne and roses for Ajit Pai and his friends in the telecom sector. The court also shot down the FCC's attempt to ban states from protecting net neutrality themselves, pointing out that when the FCC obliterated its Title II authority over broadband providers (at lobbyist behest) it also eliminated any potential right to tell states what they can or can't do.
As such, states are rolling forward with exploring new rules and finally enforcing existing ones. More than two dozen states have examined some form of net neutrality protections in the wake of the repeal. Most notable are California and Washington State. California has been sued by the DOJ (not coincidentally run by former Verizon lawyer Bill Barr) for trying to protect consumers, an effort complicated by this court ruling. Washington wasn't sued, and is moving full speed ahead when it comes to implementing the rules:
"Broadband users in Washington State can file net neutrality complaints against ISPs using this general consumer complaint form, a spokesperson for Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson told Ars. The AG's office said it wouldn't comment on whether there are any pending net neutrality investigations. The text of the Washington law is available on the state's website here. Violations of the law are punishable under Washington's Consumer Protection Act."
We've noted a few times how folks crowing about how net neutrality must not have mattered because the internet didn't explode are only advertising their own ignorance. For one, the repeal did much more than just kill net neutrality. It effectively gutted the FCC's authority over telecom giants, shoveling any remaining responsibility to an FTC that lacks the authority or resources to stand up to giants like AT&T and Comcast (that was the entire point of the gambit).
As such, crowing that the internet didn't implode ignores how a void in federal oversight will make a wide variety of non-net-neutrality related issues (high prices, sneaky fees, misleading coverage maps, anti-competitive behavior) worse. Some otherwise bright folks remain under the false impression that eliminating telecom oversight magically results in connectivity Utopia. But when the FCC abdicates its authority over natural monopolies like Comcast and AT&T, existing problems simply get worse. There are decades of data (and endless customer satisfaction surveys) making this point.
Most ISPs (with some notable exceptions) have been hesitant to start screwing users and competitors for fear of running afoul of state laws. And as more states (like Minnesota) contemplate tougher rules to fill the void, that's going to continue. Industry lobbyists love to complain about the "fractured regulatory obligations" they now face, but that was a product of their own creation when they decided to spend millions to kill fairly modest (by international standards) consumer protections. The telecom industry made this mess, and now it gets to stew in it until either Congress or the FCC restores federal guidelines.
That's why, just as we're seeing on the privacy front, the big industry push moving forward will be to express phony support for a federal net neutrality law their lawyers will write. A law they pretend is a "solution" to the problem but contains so many loopholes as to be effectively worthless. Its only real purpose? To pre-empt tougher federal or state guidelines.
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: california, fcc, net neutrality, oversight, states, washington
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Which Federal Agency will be co-opted next?
They can write as many laws as they like. Since they coerced the FCC to give up its authority to oversee the Telecom/Broadband industry, whom are they going to get to enforce it? As pointed out in the article, and many times before, the FTC doesn't have the authority or resources to do much of anything.
Of course it would be quite amusing to watch the FCC try to claw back its authority. How much crow can Ajit Pai eat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which Federal Agency will be co-opted next?
The FCC wont have to claw back authority, it will be granted new and very limited authority by the bill that gets written, probably an ability to wag a finger at anybody breaking the new laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which Federal Agency will be co-opted next?
Illegitimate government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which Federal Agency will be co-opted next?
Four and twenty Ajits, baked in Crow Pai.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not only has AT$T decided that its victims should pay its property taxes as a below-the-line fee, but also decided to charge victims for taxes it never had to pay.
And you can be certain that if this Republican administration hadn't strangled all consumer protections, they'd be pulling a "Net Neutrality Compliance" fee out of their... hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the UK if an ISP increases prices during your contracted term you have the right to cancel without charge (same for mobile phone providers).
Of course I doubt your government will never enact such sensible consumer protection laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We do have similar laws...except they only apply to the base plan cost. Increases to the taxes and fees don't allow you to cancel, even when the fees are completely bogus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In the UK, there are no below the line fees, although phone calls, if you have that in the package, are charged separately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
exactly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That doesn't do much good when there are one or two broadband providers in your market, often only one of which is any good, and both are pulling this kind of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crowing that the death of net neutrality didn't kill the Internet is akin to claiming that the human race is still alive so Martin Shkreli should be allowed to overprice medicine outside of the average man's affordability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cue the Fox News chorus line of 'states rights' republicans talking heads decrying states exercising the right to create net neutrality laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
States rights will become the major issue for ISPs and their lawyers following the next election. They'll forget all about a congressional solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, you didn’t know~? States only have the right to make laws about abortion and guns~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "State's Rights"
And Slavery. And Segregation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not necessarily a cause for celebration...
It's significantly cheaper to lobby a state legislator or regulator than a federal one. Remember how Marsha Blackburn started her career in Tennessee? She was a telecom industry shill at the state level before we'd even heard of Ajit Pai. And so Tennessee has some of the least neutral/competition-friendly telecom regulations in the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reasoning..
I wonder why States can make laws to regulate things, but Federal is better...
Is it because State laws end at the border? Probably..
A corp can do business anywhere, but reside in another state, as well as have services in other states that Dont have those regulations or laws.. Like the Calif. Car and pollution restrictions..that have been around along time.
But where do you go, when you take them to court, and which laws/regs to you uphold??
THATS where the federal gov comes in. As State laws change and arnt Always the same...
But the State laws come first.
One suggestion Iv seen in use int he past, Which the states can use..Is to Install it THEMSELVES...then force the Corps to pay for access to that service.
Does anyone know..
Do the corps pay for access to the backbone??
For Phone/cellphone/internet/sat/wireless Services that they sell?? I would really love to see that contract, and HOW OLD it is.
And what stipulations are involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reasoning..
https://www.vox.com/a/internet-maps
A bit of fun..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still waiting...
...for the California gold standard net-neutrality policy, long passed and signed, to actually kick in once Barr's DoJ has stopped suing us.
And waiting...
and waiting...
and waiting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]