New York Attorney General Leads Filing of Multi-State Lawsuit to Block Rollback of Net Neutrality

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacRumors, Jan 16, 2018.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman this afternoon announced that he and 22 other Attorneys General have teamed up to file a lawsuit aiming to stop the Federal Communications Commission's planned rollback of net neutrality.

    The multi-state lawsuit [PDF] asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the FCC's repeal order, calling it arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion that violates federal law.


    "An open internet - and the free exchange of ideas it allows - is critical to our democratic process," Schneiderman said in a statement on his website. "The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers - allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online. This would be a disaster for New York consumers and businesses, and for everyone who cares about a free and open internet."

    The FCC has not filed its new rules with the Federal Register, so the repeal is not yet final, but the lawsuit has been filed out of "an abundance of caution" and to "preserve the right to be included in the judicial lottery procedure." It's essentially the states' way of establishing the first step towards a full challenge of the FCC's decision.


    The lawsuit is backed by Attorneys General of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

    In related net neutrality news, 50 senators have now endorsed a legislative measure to override the FCC's net neutrality repeal, reports The Washington Post. With one additional Republican vote, a Senate resolution of disapproval will be able to be passed, but it will still need to make it to the House and be signed by President Trump.

    Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

    Article Link: New York Attorney General Leads Filing of Multi-State Lawsuit to Block Rollback of Net Neutrality
     
  2. subjonas macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2014
  3. Chuck Kostalnick macrumors demi-god

    Chuck Kostalnick

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2015
    Location:
    San Fransisco, California
  4. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #4
    Yes! Keep the Net out of Comcraps and Vericraps hands!
     
  5. jarman92 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    #5
    Sucks that the House has so many right wing nut jobs...I find it very hard to believe if the House and Senate managed to pass the CRA bill and send it to Trump’s desk that he wouldn’t sign it.
     
  6. bobenhaus macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
  7. Andres Cantu macrumors 68030

    Andres Cantu

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Location:
    Rio Grande Valley in South Texas
    #7
    We'll see how long that takes. Just look at Apple vs. Samsung, for example. Never-ending.
     
  8. macTW Suspended

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    #8
    This is a prime example of people using their guts (which most of the time are wrong) instead of critical thinking or data. We need to see what the data says before emotionally and irrationally fighting for or against net neutrality.
     
  9. acblue94 macrumors regular

    acblue94

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Location:
    New York, NY.
    #9
    Not as bad as the left wing but jobs.
     
  10. Wags macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    #10
    Hmmm. Traditional democratic majority states.
     
  11. Appurushido macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
  12. shareef777 Suspended

    shareef777

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #12
    And into the hands of the government /s

    That’s what you’ll see from a certain group. They somehow read “no one can filter or modify internet data” to “we (government) want everything”
     
  13. PoppaKap macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    #13
    I can't think of an area that is more fluff and PR and less substance than net neutrality.
     
  14. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #14
    Iowa hasn't. and that goes back to when I was a child in Omaha and dealing with Terry Brandstad as governor at the time.

    Maine? Hardly. Mississippi? Hell no. Virginia barely turned blue in 2008, let alone 2012. Kentucky? N. Carolina? Those states and "traditionally democratic majority" is an oxymoron.

    BL.
     
  15. AllergyDoc macrumors 65816

    AllergyDoc

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Location:
    Utah, USA
    #15
    "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion that violates federal law."

    lol That describes about a quarter of what Obama did while in office.
     
  16. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #16
    Yet none of what you are claiming could be proven...

    ... yet you have Trump doing the exact thing you claim. Trust me, you don't want to go down this road.

    BL.
     
  17. Will.O.Bie macrumors 6502

    Will.O.Bie

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    #17
    Where do I sign the another petition? I have written the local Representative and Senator about my displeasure and asked them to fight this good 'ol boys club of the rich and influential to keep it open for everyone. The US is not a communist country where they can control every move that we do.

    Asking ISP's to be transparent of their intentions is like asking a lion not to kill a deer.
     
  18. usarioclave macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    #18
    What they call "freedom of the internet" is really "freedom from paying other people for access to their infrastructure."

    Why do you think every media outlet, bar none, are pro NN? It's not because it's a good idea.
     
  19. TsMkLg068426 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    #19
    **** TRUMP! Yeah I said and I had enough with this circus my ISP is already screwing me so yeah I am angry and letting everyone know.
     
  20. BWhaler macrumors 68030

    BWhaler

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
  21. cmwade77 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    #21
    Umm, we already know what was happening before net neutrality:
    • ISPs were blocking content that they didn't like on their networks. For example, any video streaming and if they didn't block it, they trottled such traffic.
    • ISPs started to create "fast lanes" that companies like Netflix would have to pay for.
    • ISPs started to ask users to pay additional fees to enable certain types of traffic.
    The list goes on and on, but we already know what ISPs will do if we don't keep net neutrality, so we must keep things regulated.
     
  22. nt5672 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    #22
    This is nothing but sad. Folks please read the so called net neutrality rules. Before these rules there were no federal control and the net survived just fine. These rules claim rights for the FCC that the government has never had with respect to the internet. And internet freedom is one of the keys to its success.

    Competition will keep the internet open, unless the government takes over, then the government will use these rules to regulate the internet just like they did with the IRS to silence conservatives organizations, just like they did with the FBI , the federal judges, and the NSA to attempt to sabotage a presidential election, they will implement the rules that Google and Twitter want in order to silence those with out favor views.

    The attempt to say that these rules are for Net Neutrality is nothing but lies and fake news, they are nothing but the groundwork for government's forced control of the internet.
     
  23. tomwvr macrumors regular

    tomwvr

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Location:
    Frederick Maryland
    #23
    All I will say is that if you rule by executive actions the next executive can come in and change them.

    Any court that steps in to over turn an executive order stopping a prior executive order are way out of bounds.
    If congress had passed a law then the president could not just legally change it.
     
  24. jarman92 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    #24
    Burn.


    Except that makes no sense, since 100% of the opposition to net neutrality is from the right. So you're wrong.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 16, 2018 ---
    Is that you, Ajit?

    Your comment has a number of glaring factual errors (I would say lies, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt):
    The only reason Wheeler classified ISPs under Title II is because the courts rejected their previous rules—after a lawsuit from Verizon, of course—and insisted they use their current powers under Title II. So this "government never had power" argument is BS.
    The idea of "competition" with ISPs is absolutely laughable, since Comcast absolutely dominated the market. For example, I live in the tri-state area and have exactly one option for cable and broadband. What do I do when Comcast tried to screw me? What competition is pushing them to be better? Who do I complain to when they throttle my Netflix/Facebook/CNN/Snapchat?
    Your reference to the IRS makes no sense whatsoever. And the rules under Pai would allow Comcast to charge your precious Fox and/or Breitbart and/or whatever your propaganda outlet of choice is more money to keep reaching their audiences. Fox is particularly susceptible to this because they're one of the few major networks not owned by a massive corporation; Comcast and AT&T will have no problem streaming CNN and MSNBC to their respective customers.
    Finally, your use of "fake news" is not only pathetic, its nonsensical.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 16, 2018 ---
    Not really the same situation. Federal courts tend to resolve public disputes as quickly as possible, particularly when they have such far-reaching consequences.
     
  25. PaulRustad007 macrumors 6502

    PaulRustad007

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    #25
    Someone finally gets it! Thank you!
     

Share This Page