Cable & ISP groups sue to block California's net neutrality protections

Posted:
in General Discussion
Four industry organizations have leveled a joint lawsuit against the state of California, hoping to stop net neutrality rules that could impact how they do business.

AT&T store


The plaintiffs include the American Cable Association, CTIA, NCTA, and USTelecom, Reuters reported on Wednesday. Together the groups represent major corporations such as AT&T, Charter, Comcast, and Verizon.

The suit calls California's policies, scheduled to begin Jan. 1, a "classic example of unconstitutional state regulation."

California only recently signed the rules into law, but was immediately met with a Justice Department lawsuit charging that internet service providers "cannot realistically comply with one set of standards in this area for California and another for the rest of the nation -- especially when internet communications frequently cross multiple jurisdictions."

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions went a step further, calling the legislation "an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy."

In December the Federal Communications Commission voted 3 to 2 along party lines to undo Obama-era net neutrality protections, despite public opposition and signs that many anti-neutrality comments were faked. The effort to reverse neutrality has been championed by Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, along with large communications businesses.

Should they survive, California's rules will bar practices like "fast lanes," selective throttling, and paid prioritization. Phone carriers will be unable to offer "zero-rated" services, for instance exempting platforms like Apple Music from data caps. Without neutrality however, critics of the FCC reversal argue that the result could be a restricted, even more hegemonic internet.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    It's Corporatocracy vs We The People!
    There will be blood.
    It's the second revolution!
    We shall be free again.
    svanstromdtownwarriorlordjohnwhorfinviclauyycrepressthismagman1979jony01983
  • Reply 2 of 30
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,385member
    The U.S. DOJ has also filed suit against California. This is not about net neutrality per se (it is of course) but who has the authority to regulate. If each state were allowed to set up its own net neutrality rules there would be utter chaos on the Internet. That’s why the power to regulate commerce is given to the Federal government by the Constitution, not individual states. You may be for net neutrality or against it but it’s the Feds that should be making those rules, not individual states. If you are a net neutrality supporter then wait for your much touted Blue Wave in November. If you don’t support it then hope the new Congress is not veto proof. Personally I see this not being resolved until 2020 at the earliest. Obama created net neutrality by presidential edict. Trump abolished it by presidential edict. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. This is Congress's job and they should decide one way or the other by passing legislation.
    appleismymiddlenameracerhomie3dysamoriarepressthisJWSCderekcurriejony0
  • Reply 3 of 30
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,141member
    lkrupp said:
    The U.S. DOJ has also filed suit against California. This is not about net neutrality per se (it is of course) but who has the authority to regulate. If each state were allowed to set up its own net neutrality rules there would be utter chaos on the Internet. That’s why the power to regulate commerce is given to the Federal government by the Constitution, not individual states. You may be for net neutrality or against it but it’s the Feds that should be making those rules, not individual states. If you are a net neutrality supporter then wait for your much touted Blue Wave in November. If you don’t support it then hope the new Congress is not veto proof. Personally I see this not being resolved until 2020 at the earliest. Obama created net neutrality by presidential edict. Trump abolished it by presidential edict. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. This is Congress's job and they should decide one way or the other by passing legislation.

    What the commerce clause says and means has been extensively analyzed. And it isn't Congress that decides what the Constitution says. And what a president can do by edict is also up for some analysis, ultimately by those same individuals.
    jbdragonlordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 4 of 30
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,013member
    lkrupp said:
    The U.S. DOJ has also filed suit against California. This is not about net neutrality per se (it is of course) but who has the authority to regulate. If each state were allowed to set up its own net neutrality rules there would be utter chaos on the Internet. That’s why the power to regulate commerce is given to the Federal government by the Constitution, not individual states. You may be for net neutrality or against it but it’s the Feds that should be making those rules, not individual states. If you are a net neutrality supporter then wait for your much touted Blue Wave in November. If you don’t support it then hope the new Congress is not veto proof. Personally I see this not being resolved until 2020 at the earliest. Obama created net neutrality by presidential edict. Trump abolished it by presidential edict. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. This is Congress's job and they should decide one way or the other by passing legislation.
    Congress definitely needs to step in and do something about this. The case people should be following is the lawsuit that was filed this past January by 22 states looking to invalidate the FCC rollback. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule. I imagine if Congress doesn't do anything, the lawsuit filed in DC will end up in the Supreme Court. 
    dysamoria
  • Reply 5 of 30
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 187member
    This has Interstate Commerce Commission written all over it.  Regardless of the merits of the California legislation it cannot supersede federal rules.

    I do need to read the details of the California law before I can really comment on its merits.  Net neutrality is a very complex topic where the law of unintended consequences has ample opportunity to rear its ugly head.
  • Reply 6 of 30
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,808member
    But seriously, if the telecoms are against a thing, that thing is probably good for consumers ;-)
    lordjohnwhorfinrepressthisNoFliesOnMefastasleepmagman1979gilly017hammeroftruthjony0
  • Reply 7 of 30
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 1,856member
    The federal government gave up their power!!! They have no control anymore. Once that happened, the states are free to have whatever rules they want. This is now it works. Local Governments set their rules but the State and over write those rules with it's own, until/If the Federal Government wants to have it's own rules. It works back in reverse also. The federal government gave up their power, it goes right back to the States to do what they want.

    These Cable company's thought they could just keep screwing everyone over, with all these laws they themselves created. Well it bit them in the butt and now the problem for them is so much worse as it should be. It was Government that created these Monopolies that are screwing everyone over. So it has to be Government to try and correct this these issues. If the Federal Government is not willing to do it anymore, great,the states will do it themselves now.

    Personally, I'd like Government to get completely out of it, but only so long as there's REAL COMPETITION!!! As in Comcast, TWC, and everyone else is fighting for customers in every town, city, state, throughout the country. I would them be all for Government getting out of the way. Things are as they should be, a free and open market!!!

    Of course these company's have been creating laws to stop this from happening for years and the politicians have been letting them get away with it. There would be no dumb CAPs in a free and open market. There would be lower prices, much better customer service, and people not getting screwed over left and right in a free and open market. If you didn't like Comcast, you could just move to TWC.

    Who know,.. maybe we'll see some change with this whole 5G system, but it's still wireless, controlled by Cell Phone company's which really aren't any better.

    I'm all for throwing New Neutrality out the window, killing it forever, just as soon as we have a Free market Internet service. Basically like we did back when in the dialup modem days.
    edited October 3 gilly017hammeroftruth
  • Reply 8 of 30
    It's Corporatocracy vs We The People!
    There will be blood.
    It's the second revolution!
    We shall be free again.
    Over Internet service? Get real.
    repressthis
  • Reply 9 of 30
    All the arguments in favor of Net Neutrality make a lot of sense to me. All the opposite side has to offer is courts and lawyers to block regulations that serves to keep their profits down and benefit everyone (except Comcast and AT&T's shareholders, obviously). But hey, I'm willing to hear any compelling case that getting rid of Net Neutrality will lower my cable bill. Not holding my breath though.
    hammeroftruth
  • Reply 10 of 30
    I find it very telling that the progressive view is typically "put the Federal government in charge", but now... it's not! 

    So state's rights are suddenly important to the Left? How about getting rid of the ACA and let the states get involved (or not... the alternative being a competitive free market) regulating health care?
    edited October 3
  • Reply 11 of 30
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 187member
    All the arguments in favor of Net Neutrality make a lot of sense to me. All the opposite side has to offer is courts and lawyers to block regulations that serves to keep their profits down and benefit everyone (except Comcast and AT&T's shareholders, obviously). But hey, I'm willing to hear any compelling case that getting rid of Net Neutrality will lower my cable bill. Not holding my breath though.
    That’s great!  Now, tell me what you think net neutrality is?  (I got a clue for you.  Ask 10 different people, get 10 different answers.)
  • Reply 12 of 30
    I find it very telling that the progressive view is typically "put the Federal government in charge", but now... it's not! 

    So state's rights are suddenly important to the Left? How about getting rid of the ACA and let the states get involved (or not... the alternative being a competitive free market) regulating health care?
    I think it's more about the feeling that your (?) federal government has abrogated its responsibility so the States need to override.

    The ACA comparison is spurious.

    Also, people are more flexible and intelligent than simple labels like Left or Right, or they should be!
    fastasleeplordjohnwhorfinDrew354
  • Reply 13 of 30
    mknelson said:
    I find it very telling that the progressive view is typically "put the Federal government in charge", but now... it's not! 

    So state's rights are suddenly important to the Left? How about getting rid of the ACA and let the states get involved (or not... the alternative being a competitive free market) regulating health care?
    I think it's more about the feeling that your (?) federal government has abrogated its responsibility so the States need to override.

    The ACA comparison is spurious.

    Also, people are more flexible and intelligent than simple labels like Left or Right, or they should be!
    It's my view the Federal government has overstepped in both cases. They should have no say about healthcare and they should take an even more hands off approach to things the FCC regulates, except if there is any evidence of monopoly. But here's the thing... monopolies happen when regulation is in place and restraining competition, not when there are free markets.
    edited October 3
  • Reply 14 of 30
    lkrupp said:
    The U.S. DOJ has also filed suit against California. This is not about net neutrality per se (it is of course) but who has the authority to regulate. If each state were allowed to set up its own net neutrality rules there would be utter chaos on the Internet. That’s why the power to regulate commerce is given to the Federal government by the Constitution, not individual states. You may be for net neutrality or against it but it’s the Feds that should be making those rules, not individual states. If you are a net neutrality supporter then wait for your much touted Blue Wave in November. If you don’t support it then hope the new Congress is not veto proof. Personally I see this not being resolved until 2020 at the earliest. Obama created net neutrality by presidential edict. Trump abolished it by presidential edict. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. This is Congress's job and they should decide one way or the other by passing legislation.
    Congress definitely needs to step in and do something about this. The case people should be following is the lawsuit that was filed this past January by 22 states looking to invalidate the FCC rollback. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule. I imagine if Congress doesn't do anything, the lawsuit filed in DC will end up in the Supreme Court. 
    And we all are under no illusions of the possible bias towards the status quo if Kavanaugh is on the bench.
    lordjohnwhorfinhammeroftruth
  • Reply 15 of 30
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 1,786member
    mknelson said:
    I find it very telling that the progressive view is typically "put the Federal government in charge", but now... it's not! 

    So state's rights are suddenly important to the Left? How about getting rid of the ACA and let the states get involved (or not... the alternative being a competitive free market) regulating health care?
    I think it's more about the feeling that your (?) federal government has abrogated its responsibility so the States need to override.

    The ACA comparison is spurious.

    Also, people are more flexible and intelligent than simple labels like Left or Right, or they should be!
    It's my view the Federal government has overstepped in both cases. They should have no say about healthcare and they should take an even more hands off approach to things the FCC regulates, except if there is any evidence of monopoly. But here's the thing... monopolies happen when regulation is in place and restraining competition, not when there are free markets.
    The alternate view, of course, is that we leave both things to the corporations and we the people get fucked by insurance companies/big pharma and the mega-telcos once they figure out how to monetize and dominate the internet down to the last bit, and that maybe we should have single payer health care like the rest of the modern world and an even playing field for absolutely everyone on the internet.
    lordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 16 of 30
    lkrupp said:
    The U.S. DOJ has also filed suit against California. This is not about net neutrality per se (it is of course) but who has the authority to regulate. If each state were allowed to set up its own net neutrality rules there would be utter chaos on the Internet. That’s why the power to regulate commerce is given to the Federal government by the Constitution, not individual states. You may be for net neutrality or against it but it’s the Feds that should be making those rules, not individual states. If you are a net neutrality supporter then wait for your much touted Blue Wave in November. If you don’t support it then hope the new Congress is not veto proof. Personally I see this not being resolved until 2020 at the earliest. Obama created net neutrality by presidential edict. Trump abolished it by presidential edict. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. This is Congress's job and they should decide one way or the other by passing legislation.
    Actually the same way it was created is how they undid it. The regulatory power they claim is the same power that put the protections into play. The reason they were needed and why these cable and Telecom companies are fighting this is because they were already putting some of this in to place. Please explain how it is in the public interest to pay through the nose for access to internet service but then have my service throttled because the mom and pop site I want to access is not on their paid list. That means that if you have a website you have to pay hundreds of carriers to ensure customers who may find you can actually use your site. This is an attempt to squeeze the juice out of small businesses leaving only big companies in E-commerce. 
    fastasleep
  • Reply 17 of 30
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 187member
    genovelle said:
    lkrupp said:
    The U.S. DOJ has also filed suit against California. This is not about net neutrality per se (it is of course) but who has the authority to regulate. If each state were allowed to set up its own net neutrality rules there would be utter chaos on the Internet. That’s why the power to regulate commerce is given to the Federal government by the Constitution, not individual states. You may be for net neutrality or against it but it’s the Feds that should be making those rules, not individual states. If you are a net neutrality supporter then wait for your much touted Blue Wave in November. If you don’t support it then hope the new Congress is not veto proof. Personally I see this not being resolved until 2020 at the earliest. Obama created net neutrality by presidential edict. Trump abolished it by presidential edict. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. This is Congress's job and they should decide one way or the other by passing legislation.
    Actually the same way it was created is how they undid it. The regulatory power they claim is the same power that put the protections into play. The reason they were needed and why these cable and Telecom companies are fighting this is because they were already putting some of this in to place. Please explain how it is in the public interest to pay through the nose for access to internet service but then have my service throttled because the mom and pop site I want to access is not on their paid list. That means that if you have a website you have to pay hundreds of carriers to ensure customers who may find you can actually use your site. This is an attempt to squeeze the juice out of small businesses leaving only big companies in E-commerce. 
    The example you have cited has been trotted out numerous times as a potential threat of ISPs gone amok.  But I don’t believe that has ever occurred - not once.  If you know of an instance please let me know because I would be very interested.

    I want to emphasis that this is not and should not be a partisan issue.  Implementing net neutrality laws without careful consideration has the potential to hurt individual users in unforeseen ways.  You could end up with a situation where high data users get preferance over low data users, which IMO would not be a desirable outcome.

    The internet is not one homogeneous network where everything runs the same.  It has been cobbled together over the last two decades by hundreds of companies, consortiums, nonprofit groups, educational institutions and, of course, the Government.  It’s a miracle it does what it does so well.  Making net neutrality laws without understanding all the nuances of the internet if a fools errand.
  • Reply 18 of 30
    xbitxbit Posts: 216member
    JWSC said:

    The example you have cited has been trotted out numerous times as a potential threat of ISPs gone amok.  But I don’t believe that has ever occurred - not once.  If you know of an instance please let me know because I would be very interested.
    An example from Portugal:



    It's more common with mobile connections than home internet services in the US.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 19 of 30
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,870member
    mknelson said:
    I find it very telling that the progressive view is typically "put the Federal government in charge", but now... it's not! 

    So state's rights are suddenly important to the Left? How about getting rid of the ACA and let the states get involved (or not... the alternative being a competitive free market) regulating health care?
    I think it's more about the feeling that your (?) federal government has abrogated its responsibility so the States need to override.

    The ACA comparison is spurious.

    Also, people are more flexible and intelligent than simple labels like Left or Right, or they should be!
    It's my view the Federal government has overstepped in both cases. They should have no say about healthcare and they should take an even more hands off approach to things the FCC regulates, except if there is any evidence of monopoly. But here's the thing... monopolies happen when regulation is in place and restraining competition, not when there are free markets.
    The alternate view, of course, is that we leave both things to the corporations and we the people get fucked by insurance companies/big pharma and the mega-telcos once they figure out how to monetize and dominate the internet down to the last bit, and that maybe we should have single payer health care like the rest of the modern world and an even playing field for absolutely everyone on the internet.
    That’s an “alternate view” alright. One based on paranoia, not market-based reality. Competition in ALL consumer markets, including healthcare, will result in best outcomes for the public.
  • Reply 20 of 30
    JWSC said:
    genovelle said:
    lkrupp said:
    The U.S. DOJ has also filed suit against California. This is not about net neutrality per se (it is of course) but who has the authority to regulate. If each state were allowed to set up its own net neutrality rules there would be utter chaos on the Internet. That’s why the power to regulate commerce is given to the Federal government by the Constitution, not individual states. You may be for net neutrality or against it but it’s the Feds that should be making those rules, not individual states. If you are a net neutrality supporter then wait for your much touted Blue Wave in November. If you don’t support it then hope the new Congress is not veto proof. Personally I see this not being resolved until 2020 at the earliest. Obama created net neutrality by presidential edict. Trump abolished it by presidential edict. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. This is Congress's job and they should decide one way or the other by passing legislation.
    Actually the same way it was created is how they undid it. The regulatory power they claim is the same power that put the protections into play. The reason they were needed and why these cable and Telecom companies are fighting this is because they were already putting some of this in to place. Please explain how it is in the public interest to pay through the nose for access to internet service but then have my service throttled because the mom and pop site I want to access is not on their paid list. That means that if you have a website you have to pay hundreds of carriers to ensure customers who may find you can actually use your site. This is an attempt to squeeze the juice out of small businesses leaving only big companies in E-commerce. 
    The example you have cited has been trotted out numerous times as a potential threat of ISPs gone amok.  But I don’t believe that has ever occurred - not once.  If you know of an instance please let me know because I would be very interested.

    How about having unlimited internet access using AT&T as a carrier and subscribing to Directv now and Hulu and Netflix. Since AT&T owns DIRECTV, I can stream that product without being throttled, but if I use the others, I will get throttled. That's just one example. 

    I understand that the point you are making is that we shouldn't have to come up with laws to make sure the playing field between the consumer and the companies that provide products are level, but we almost always have to.

    its a two way street and if it's not the corporations that are taking advantage of the consumer, it's the other way around.
    urashidfastasleep
Sign In or Register to comment.