Summary
A US appeals court ruled that the FCC lacks authority to reinstate federal net neutrality rules, blocking Biden administration efforts to restore open internet protections.
The 2015 rules, repealed in 2017, mandated ISPs treat internet traffic equally and barred content blocking or prioritization.
The court cited a recent Supreme Court decision Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, limiting federal agency powers.
FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel urged Congress to pass federal net neutrality laws, while industry groups praised the decision, claiming it will boost innovation.
The ruling leaves state net neutrality laws, like California’s, intact.
How did the FCC come to exist?
It would appear that it was by a law that didn’t give it the authority to implement net neutrality rules.
Again, I am a supporter of net neutrality. I think it’s a good thing. Which is why it behooves Congress to actually implement it. Do it right and then the court won’t keep overturning it like this.
It gave them the authority to regulate communications. Net neutrality rules are well within that scope. The paradigm that you’re asking for is not a sustainable way to run a country of 300 million plus people. Congress has the power to delegate specific policy decisions to said agencies.
SCOTUS can kiss my ass. We shouldn’t recognize any of their decisions anymore.
Again, I am not asking for this paradigm. I’m describing what the paradigm currently is.
Evidently not. Saying “but they should have that power” isn’t going to get net neutrality actually implemented. Because they don’t, as evidenced by the fact that they got shut down when they tried.
It’s clear you’re arguing from ignorance as your argument is patently absurd.
The judgement is partisan, inconsistent with established case law, and relies on (at best) specious distinctions between “information service” and “telecommunication service”. Griffin creates a distinction without a difference to manufacture the perception of judicial leverage where none exists.
It’s like arguing the DEA has no purview over cannabis because the Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 refers to “marihuana”. It’s clear what the intention of the law is even if the language is imprecise. To argue that ISPs provide some new class of service that’s legally distinct from all other telecom service and therefore immune to regulation is an argument made out of ignorance, stupidity, corruption, or some combination of the three.
And yet the courts keep overturning these rules. That’s what I’m saying is happening, and that’s what’s happening. What’s “from ignorance” about this?
In some manner or another, that’s what’s happening. If that’s not what’s supposed to be happening then the system that’s allowing that to keep happening needs to be fixed. Either by changing the system or by changing how the system is supposed to work to match what’s actually happening.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here. I’m saying “the way the US government works doesn’t match what the US constitutions says” and I’m getting angry responses saying “no, it’s not working that way!” Yes, that’s what I said.
All of this net neutrality back-and-forth would go away if Congress would simply pass a clear, unambiguous law saying “yes there should be net neutrality.” Is that what’s wanted? If so then do that.
You’re arguing that congress doesn’t have the authority to delegate policy to federal agencies. This is where I disagree. They do not need a specific mandate to take action. That’s not what the Constitution says, and that’s not what legal precedent said until a wholly ineligible SCOTUS claimed otherwise. They have no enforcement arm whatsoever. Federal agencies should continue regulating as normal and ignore the courts. If Congress wants to pass a law stating “this is HOW we want you to regulate this specific area”, that’s great (they wont, because inaction is fine with conservatives). But I’m not accepting this magical waiving of a wand to now put the entire day to day operation of our federal government in the hands of Congress.
I’m not arguing it. The courts are arguing it.
We’re not actually disagreeing, because I’m not actually arguing a position here. I’m not saying what anything should be.
What your missing is that it’s not “the courts” it’s “the court”. The corrupt as fuck Supreme Court made a ruling that lesser courts are obliged to follow. There is no intellectually rigorous reasoning, just corruption in the highest court in the land.