DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California
from the who-needs-monopoly-oversight? dept
After the FCC effectively neutered itself at telecom lobbyist behest, numerous states jumped in to fill the consumer protection void. As a result, California, in 2018, passed some net neutrality rules that largely mirrored the FCC's discarded consumer protections. Laughing at the concept of state rights, Bill Barr's DOJ immediately got to work protecting U.S. telecom monopolies and filed suit in a bid to vacate the rules.
The DOJ's central argument was that California's attempt to protect consumers was somehow "anti-consumer." And the lawsuit largely centered on language the FCC had included in its net neutrality repeal (again, at telecom lobbyist behest) attempting to ban states from filling the void created by the federal government no longer giving a damn. The courts so far haven't looked too kindly upon that logic, arguing that the FCC can't abdicate its authority over telecom, then try to lean on that non-existent authority to try to tell states what to do.
Last week California filed its first brief (pdf) in its legal battle with the DOJ. ISPs are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent California from enforcing the rules during the lawsuit. Again though, their primary argument continues to be that states can't enforce net neutrality because the FCC said so. Which, as Stanford Professor Barbara van Schewick continues to point out, is still nonsense no matter how many times industry and the captured U.S. government repeat the claim:
"According to case law, an agency’s decision to deregulate can only block the states from stepping in when the agency has the power to regulate and decides not to use it.
But when the FCC eliminated net neutrality in 2018, it also removed its own authority over broadband providers. In essence, the agency decided that broadband providers are not telecommunications companies that simply shuttle data back and forth (like a telephone company), but information service providers which interact with and alter data, like a website.
This removed any authority that would have allowed the FCC to adopt net neutrality protections. Thus, the elimination of net neutrality did not establish a calibrated federal deregulatory regime, as the U.S. and the ISPs argue; it simply reflected the FCC’s lack of authority. Simply put, the FCC’s 2018 Order created a regulatory vacuum, and you can’t conflict with a vacuum."
Of course one of the reasons you stack the courts with unqualified sycophants and partisan yes men is so basic, fundamental logic doesn't apply. So as usual, while it's likely the courts will laugh at the telecom sector's efforts here, it's certainly not guaranteed. And while the press will cover this story as a "government lawsuit," make no mistake: this is AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast using the federal government as a hand puppet as they attempt to have their cake and eat it too. Namely, no real oversight on the state or federal level, and no pesky market competition to keep their worst impulses in check.
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, doj, fcc, net neutrality, states rights
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So the Conservative argument was "Let the states decide" was a lie. I'm shocked. Shocked I say. /sarc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another reminder, if any was needed, that a vote for the right is a vote against your interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sadly as several people in the comments have pointed out for far too many people that's not actually a workable argument, as something that screws them over is seen as perfectly fine so long as it screws over someone else they hate as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Another reminder, if any was needed, that a vote for the left is a vote against your interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What "left" is there to vote for?
A kind of crappy center or left is better than the best right you could ever get in this country, at least anymore, so i'm going to disagree anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's adorable that you think just swapping out a word magically makes for an argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: adorable
Awww, it thinks it's people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saying it doesn’t make it true, especially when the bit you’re aping is far more true based on [gestures broadly at the current state of affairs in the U.S.].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... oops
Imagine that, the 'small government' and 'states rights' crowd are only in favor of a small government when they don't want to control something, and state's rights only when those states are doing something they agree with, who could have ever seen that coming?
If there's one silver lining here it's that Pai has got to be slamming his head on the desk in frustration, as his attempt to completely gut the agency he heads and let his past, arguably current, and future bosses have a regulation-free playing field kinda blew up in his face and left an opening for the states to take up the slack.
By claiming that the FCC has no authority over telecom he also handed the argument to be used against him to his enemies(the public) on a silver platter, that being that he has no authority to tell others what they can't do either, and thankfully judges so far have been ruling accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ... oops
Well yeah, our military is super super small government. Smallest evar. In the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
their primary argument continues to be that states can't enforce net neutrality because the FCC said so.
So, like when the FCC originally said, "Net Neutrality", you just complied and were good corporate citizens, and then later the FCC arbitrarily decided that, "Simon says no net neutrality now".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]