this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023

214 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37750 readers

235 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

214

US FCC chair to seek reinstating net neutrality rules rescinded under Trump (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 year ago by ptz@dubvee.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://dubvee.org/post/205595

WASHINGTON, Sept 25 (Reuters) - U.S. Federal Communications Commission chair Jessica Rosenworcel plans to begin an effort to reinstate landmark net neutrality rules rescinded under then-President Donald Trump, sources briefed on the matter said Monday.

The move comes after Democrats took majority control of the five-member FCC on Monday for the first time since President Joe Biden took office in January 2021 when new FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez was sworn in.

The FCC is set to take an initial vote on the net neutrality proposal in October, the sources added.

In July 2021, Biden signed an executive order encouraging the FCC to reinstate net neutrality rules adopted under Democratic then-President Barack Obama in 2015.

The FCC voted in 2017 to reverse the rules that barred internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic, or offering paid fast lanes, also known as paid prioritization. Days before the 2020 presidential election, the FCC voted to maintain the reversal.

Rosenworcel denounced the repeal in 2017 saying it put the FCC "on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the American public."

She plans a speech to outline her plans on Tuesday, the sources added. A spokesperson for Rosenworcel declined to comment.

In 2022, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the 2017 decision by the FCC to reverse federal net neutrality protections could not bar state action, rejecting a challenge from telecom and broad industry groups to block California's net neutrality law. Industry groups abandoned further legal challenges in May 2022.

The appeals court said that since the FCC reclassified internet services in 2017 as more lightly regulated information services, the commission "no longer has the authority to regulate in the same manner that it had when these services were classified as telecommunications services."

Days after Biden took office, the U.S. Justice Department withdrew its Trump-era legal challenge to California's state net neutrality law.

top 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 52 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fingers crossed that we get Net Neutrality back. If I'm being honest, I'm less than optimistic; but I would certainly be thrilled if this went through.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm mostly optimistic it'll be reinstated but remain concerned it'll be yanked away again.

[–] BarryZuckerkorn@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That might be, but the tug back and forth at least gives the ISPs pause before going full bore into engineering (or contracting for) non-neutral arrangements. Why invest the time, money, and effort into something that is only sometimes legal?

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a good point, but if the punishment for NN violation is less than the profit they make for violating it, it's just a cost of doing business.

[–] BarryZuckerkorn@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

I'm gonna push back against that defeatist attitude that things aren't worth doing if success can't be guaranteed. First off, as a general matter it's still doing because we don't want that one-way ratchet where only one side occasionally tries while the other will always bring their A game and pull off a few upsets, for an overall winning record. I think that most progressives/liberals are unnecessarily handicapping themselves by not showing up for every fight.

Second, specific to this type of regulation, the "cost of doing business" issue doesn't even really apply. If the punishment for violating a regulation is a fine, then maybe you pay a few fines and it works out. But that's not generally how the FCC works, because although they do have the power to issue fines, the big thing they have is the power to actually order compliance with their rules.

If the punishment for not building a house to code is a thousand dollars in fines, that's not going to stop home builders when they're making hundreds of thousands in profit per building. But if the punishment for not building a house to code is you're not allowed to sell it until you tear it down and do it right, well, then we're talking about a punishment that cuts hundreds of thousands of dollars into lost profits/revenue.

The FCC's regulations are more like that. If the FCC orders the ISPs that "oh that contract where you're accepting money in exchange for fast lane access is illegal, so you can't do that anymore," that now-illegal contract between two big businesses turns into a more complicated effort of lawyers figuring out what they're supposed to do. Does the other side still pay, if they're not getting anything in return? Or if the FCC says that a particular QoS rule on their routers needs to be removed, do the network engineers go back to the drawing board to implement their own traffic shaping stuff that does comply with the regs?

[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's a fair point. It really feels like nothing is protected in perpetuity. It seems like everything is only protected for the time being. It honestly makes everything feel a little less stable, and I wish some protections could be codified to make them a little more robust.

[–] Cube6392@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago

That's what we get with the Republicans' hostage taking political strategy. True policy improvemants take around 30 years to enact, oversee, and reap the benefits from. Starting with Reagan, almost nothing ever gets seen through. Every politician is on a two year clock to block or pass enough bills to get funding to do it again. As an organism our country has ADHD

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Guns. Only guns are protected in perpetuity. I'm by and large a pro gun person, but the reasonable ideas that get attacked because 2A means the right to be a dangerous idiot with a gun is absolutely sacrosanct makes me anti-2A. Don't take all the guns away, just allow sanity to prevail.

Of course the last thing I fucking want to see is a constitutional convention that could potentially fix it. That shit show would be utterly unhinged.

[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

Not even the Constitution is immune to change or deletion, as you mentioned.

Democracy is hard. The natural state of government is dictatorship.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

Multiple times since 2016 it has hit home like never before: anything related to freedom and democracy has to be continually fought for. When we stop being vigilant (say from 1974-2015) those that seek money and power above all else chip away at everything until they get it.

[–] storksforlegs@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All I remember about the net neutrality policy of Trump was Ajit Pai using a giant stupid mug at the hearings, and thats the only thing everyone talked about. (So I guess well played, assholes)

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 year ago

All I remembered is that after they abolished it with a giant smile, all the US states started to implement their own version.

The ISP reason to abolish it was because net neutrality has too many rules to keep track of. Well now they can maintain 50 different rules, lol.

[–] JWBananas@startrek.website 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I want to preface this by saying I am genuinely asking. I did a bunch of searching and only found articles about what may or what could...

But can anyone name concrete examples of what actually did change for them after the end of net neutrality?

Again, I am genuinely asking. I support net neutrality. But I cannot recall any way that the repeal actually affected me personally.

Please share your stories.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A lot of ISPs were already dodging the old, weak rules anyway out of an abundance of caution. Instead of doing any direct pay-for-play, they started doing other policies that sounded pro consumer but lead inevitably to the same non-netural, corporate-controlled world.

For example, T-Mobile favoring huge video streaming platforms over smaller competition by exempting the big boys from data caps. An act of profound, malicious evil that did more to end the idea of neutral networks than ANY lobbying could have, and which most people still think of as totally fine. I'm also pretty sure that predated Ajit Pai.

I think this is whole question is a great example of when the industry genuinely would prefer clear rules and has been quite nervous to act absent clear rules. The unstable nature of neutral network policy at a high level meant the entire zone was a bit of a minefield, so they've been very cautious about dipping toes.

[–] ThemboMcBembo@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Immediately after, every single ISP in my area introduced "data caps". If I use more than 1TB of total data in a month, they charge exorbitant fees. Fortunately, you can pay to remove these caps! ...for nearly twice the monthly price.

[–] JWBananas@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Net neutrality would not control that

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

It could. Data caps often don't exist for big players, something individual consumers do have to deal with anymore. Net neutrality directly targets these kinds of disparities.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago

Most states implemented their own version of Net Neutrality, so to them not much changed.

[–] vlad76@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do, or do not. There is no try.

[–] BarryZuckerkorn@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

Commissioner Anna Gomez was sworn in yesterday. Up until then, the FCC has been deadlocked 2-2 between Democrats and Republicans, so the FCC has been unable to push net neutrality.

They just announced that with their 3-2 majority, one of their top priorities is to get Net Neutrality regs passed. This is an important step, announced like literally the first day they've had control of the commission.

[–] Endorkend@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imho this is utterly irrelevant as long as this can be changed as simply as the head of state changing.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I disagree.

Even if this change is only temporary, it still improves things for that time.
Businesses don't like having to change back and forth based on Federal policy. Even if congress can't pass net neutrality, many businesses will give up if they have to adjust every 4-8 years.

While imperfect, it's far from irrelevant.

[–] JWBananas@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Even if this change is only temporary, it still improves things for that time.

That could very well not be the case. Major policy changes like these require a lot of preparation and are often scheduled to actually take effect on a far future date. So it could end up getting reverted again before it even happens.

[–] Endorkend@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Businesses don’t like having to change back and forth based on Federal policy. Even if congress can’t pass net neutrality, many businesses will give up if they have to adjust every 4-8 years.

So you agree ...

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think I'm agreeing. I was saying many businesses will give up and just follow net neutrality all the time, instead of changing constantly with new regulations.

[–] Endorkend@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Corporations will not follow net neutrality until they have to and they will change back to not following net neutrality the second they think they can while they'll drag out the implementation of net neutrality rules in court as long as they can in the hopes they get canceled first.

What planet do you live on where any corporation will ever do the good thing when they aren't forced to do so.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

I live on the planet where corporations will do the right thing when it's cheaper. Making drastic changes to infrastructure every 4-8 years isn't cheap, and some (though not all) will decide it's not worth the hassle and bad publicity.

[–] Haus@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Jessica went nuclear when they did that. It was inspirational and the FCC's website got the "hug of death" for at least hours.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summary

The FCC is set to take an initial vote on the net neutrality proposal in October, the sources added.

In July 2021, Biden signed an executive order encouraging the FCC to reinstate net neutrality rules adopted under Democratic then-President Barack Obama in 2015.

Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the 2017 decision by the FCC to reverse federal net neutrality protections could not bar state action, rejecting a challenge from telecom and broad industry groups to block California's net neutrality law.

Days after Biden took office, the U.S. Justice Department withdrew its Trump-era legal challenge to California's state net neutrality law.

Saved 47% of original text.