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


    Apr 12, 2001

    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

    Feb 10, 2014
  3. Chuck Kostalnick macrumors regular

    Chuck Kostalnick

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


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

    Nov 13, 2014
    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

    Mar 2, 2011
  7. Andres Cantu macrumors 68030

    Andres Cantu

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

    Oct 17, 2016
    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


    Jul 26, 2011
    New York, NY.
    Not as bad as the left wing but jobs.
  10. Wags macrumors 65816

    Mar 5, 2006
    Nebraska, USA
    Hmmm. Traditional democratic majority states.
  11. Appurushido macrumors 6502

    Sep 28, 2012
  12. shareef777 Suspended


    Jul 26, 2005
    Chicago, IL
    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

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


    Jun 16, 2008
    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.

  15. AllergyDoc macrumors 65816


    Mar 17, 2013
    Utah, USA
    "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


    Jun 16, 2008
    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.

  17. Will.O.Bie macrumors 6502


    Aug 29, 2016
    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

    Sep 26, 2003
    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

    Mar 31, 2009
    **** 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


    Jan 8, 2003
  21. cmwade77 macrumors 65816

    Nov 18, 2008
    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

    Jun 30, 2007
    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


    Jun 12, 2012
    Frederick Maryland
    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

    Nov 13, 2014

    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


    Jun 3, 2015
    Someone finally gets it! Thank you!

Share This Page

94 January 16, 2018