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

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
49,579
10,892



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.

#BREAKING: I'm leading 22 AGs and filing suit today to stop the @FCC's illegal rollback of #netneutrality. We can't stand by and watch one of the greatest tools for democracy ever created be turned into a private playground for the rich and powerful. https://t.co/BUXSVVVMcs pic.twitter.com/xDTbE1uIrM - Eric Schneiderman (@AGSchneiderman) January 16, 2018

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
 

macTW

Suspended
Oct 17, 2016
1,395
1,976
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.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,032
11,949
Hmmm. Traditional democratic majority states.
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.
 

Will.O.Bie

macrumors 6502
Aug 29, 2016
427
1,098
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.
 

cmwade77

macrumors 65816
Nov 18, 2008
1,057
1,168
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.
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.
 

nt5672

macrumors 68020
Jun 30, 2007
2,067
4,463
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.
 

jarman92

macrumors 6502a
Nov 13, 2014
651
1,391
Not as bad as the left wing but jobs.
Burn.


Except that makes no sense, since 100% of the opposition to net neutrality is from the right. So you're wrong.
[doublepost=1516149164][/doublepost]
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.
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.
[doublepost=1516149254][/doublepost]
We'll see how long that takes. Just look at Apple vs. Samsung, for example. Never-ending.
Not really the same situation. Federal courts tend to resolve public disputes as quickly as possible, particularly when they have such far-reaching consequences.
 

PaulRustad007

macrumors 6502
Jun 3, 2015
390
353
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.
Someone finally gets it! Thank you!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.