Current Events > Court rules the FCC can't block state net neutrality laws

(+) Yeah! (+)

The FCC has won a key bid to uphold its repeal of net neutrality, but at a significant cost. A federal appeals court handling a Mozilla complaint has ruled that most of the repeal can stand, but that the FCC had "not shown legal authority" to ban states from implementing their own laws. The regulator was trying to "categorically abolish" states' established power to regulate communications within their borders, according to the court.

The decision also asked the FCC to tackle reported shortcomings in its order. The agency didn't examine the implications of the repeal for public safety, the court said. The FCC also didn't "sufficiently explain" how reclassifying internet access would affect pole attachments, or do enough to allay concerns about effects on subsidized Lifeline access.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai characterized the decision as a "victory" in a statement and vowed to address the "narrow issues" the appeals court found.

However, the ruling may ultimately steal much of the FCC's thunder. California, Montana, Washington and other states have either passed or expect to pass laws effectively maintaining net neutrality. This ruling if maintained would not only protect those laws, but give other states the power to implement their own protections. Internet providers determined to play fast and loose with net neutrality would either have to limit those practices to specific states or respect neutrality across the board.

https://www.engadget.com/2019/10/01/fcc-cant-block-state-net-neutrality-laws/

This is a huge win for net neutrality. And people had given up all hope.
---

Fair, next. The federal government should stay out of state autonomy matters.
---

FL81 posted...

Fair, next. The federal government should stay out of state autonomy matters.

Except when it comes to things I dont like
---

states' rights
---

States rights only count when the dems are in power not when republicans are hypocrites
---

Ok that's bull

But at least the outcome sounds good.
---

only the smallest of victories. the true win will be when either all states enshrine NN into law, or the federal government does.

i still can't believe that this was ever an issue. the amount of disinformation around NN was staggering, and so was how effectively it worked.
---

Medussa posted...

i still can't believe that this was ever an issue. the amount of disinformation around NN was staggering, and so was how effectively it worked.

The shocking thing was a lot of younger right wing folks lining up behind it in favor of getting rid of it

---

Good
---

Nall posted...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Nothing has changed. What was supposed to change was your ISP was supposed to charge you extra for Facebook, Google and Youtube but that turned out to be as flat earther as it sounded.
---

leaving it in the hands of isp's isnt the solution
---

DevsBro posted...

Nothing has changed. What was supposed to change was your ISP was supposed to charge you extra for Facebook, Google and Youtube but that turned out to be as flat earther as it sounded.

Are you mixing SOPA with NN?

DevsBro posted...

Nall posted...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Nothing has changed. What was supposed to change was your ISP was supposed to charge you extra for Facebook, Google and Youtube but that turned out to be as flat earther as it sounded.

Nothing has changed because the Net Neutrality repeal has been tied up in court since the FCC decided to go through with it.

The left is HARDCORE on board with political censorship online, so be really careful what you support because the pendulum always swings the other way eventually.
---

darkmaian23 posted...

Nothing has changed because the Net Neutrality repeal has been tied up in court since the FCC decided to go through with it.

And since it's looking more and more likely that there will be a more NN-friendly admin in the near future, most companies are hesitant to make any major commitments right now.

---

it's starting to look a lot like nullification
---

Fuparulez posted...

The left is HARDCORE on board with political censorship online, so be really careful what you support because the pendulum always swings the other way eventually.

wet fart sounds

---

Fuparulez posted...

The left is HARDCORE on board with political censorship online, so be really careful what you support because the pendulum always swings the other way eventually.

I never understood the support for net neutrality while simultaneously supporting censorship through near monopoly social media tech companies.

I figured if you were against ISPs censoring, you'd be against social media conglomerates censoring too, but apparently not.

Phewfus posted...

Fuparulez posted...

The left is HARDCORE on board with political censorship online, so be really careful what you support because the pendulum always swings the other way eventually.

I never understood the support for net neutrality while simultaneously supporting censorship through near monopoly social media tech companies.

I figured if you were against ISPs censoring, you'd be against social media conglomerates censoring too, but apparently not.

High market share =/= monopoly

Did MySpace have a monopoly?
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

Phewfus posted...

Fuparulez posted...

The left is HARDCORE on board with political censorship online, so be really careful what you support because the pendulum always swings the other way eventually.

I never understood the support for net neutrality while simultaneously supporting censorship through near monopoly social media tech companies.

I figured if you were against ISPs censoring, you'd be against social media conglomerates censoring too, but apparently not.

High market share =/= monopoly

Did MySpace have a monopoly?

That's why I said near monopoly, not that it is a monopoly in actuality. But when you have few big companies in charge of most of the online media services with few regulations, you'd think the same people saying these giant conglomerates censoring information are bad would extend that reasoning to facebook and google.

Phewfus posted...

near monopoly, not that it is a monopoly in actuality

internet access is controlled by a monopoly in actuality

and internet access is a critical part of functioning in the modern world. using social media is not.

you can differentiate these right
---

Sackgurl posted...

and internet access is a critical part of functioning in the modern world.

Not necessarily. Depends on your profession. If you're a child that thinks the world is your cellphone, sure. Sackgurl posted...

using social media is not.

Some professions do require social media to function actually.

It all depends.

Phewfus posted...

That's why I said near monopoly, not that it is a monopoly in actuality.

Not even near. They're all one bad update, bad move, or competitor away from going the way of MySpace.

No one cares if they ban neonazis.
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

Phewfus posted...

That's why I said near monopoly, not that it is a monopoly in actuality.

Not even near. They're all one bad update, bad move, or competitor away from going the way of MySpace.

No one cares if they ban neonazis.

Tom Anderson didn't testify in front of congress for his tiny website in connection with election meddling that was apparently enough of an influencer to swing the election in favor of a reality tv billionare. Nobody would care.

Who is really a serious threat atm to facebook, google, and youtube in their respected services?

Also, plenty of normal people have been banned from these platforms as well.

didn't that indian guy who started all of this get caught in some kind of scandal
---

Phewfus posted...

Webmaster4531 posted...

Phewfus posted...

That's why I said near monopoly, not that it is a monopoly in actuality.

Not even near. They're all one bad update, bad move, or competitor away from going the way of MySpace.

No one cares if they ban neonazis.

Tom Anderson didn't testify in front of congress for his tiny website in connection with election meddling that was apparently enough of an influencer to swing the election in favor of a reality tv billionare. Nobody would care.

Who is really a serious threat atm to facebook, google, and youtube in their respected services?

Also, plenty of normal people have been banned from these platforms as well.

Facebook I hear has an old person stigma. I use duckduckgo instead of google. Twitch has taken a lot of YouTube's market share and basically killed all their streaming efforts.

Citation needed for these normal people.
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

Phewfus posted...

Webmaster4531 posted...

Phewfus posted...

That's why I said near monopoly, not that it is a monopoly in actuality.

Not even near. They're all one bad update, bad move, or competitor away from going the way of MySpace.

No one cares if they ban neonazis.

Tom Anderson didn't testify in front of congress for his tiny website in connection with election meddling that was apparently enough of an influencer to swing the election in favor of a reality tv billionare. Nobody would care.

Who is really a serious threat atm to facebook, google, and youtube in their respected services?

Also, plenty of normal people have been banned from these platforms as well.

Facebook I hear has an old person stigma. I use duckduckgo instead of google. Twitch has taken a lot of YouTube's market share and basically killed all their streaming efforts.

Citation needed for these normal people.

Twitch is about the closest example you've given to actual competition.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/15/hey-facebook-are-you-really-censoring-political-free-speech-in-america/
https://beingliberal.tumblr.com/post/33207327524/banned-by-facebook
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/youtube-facebook-purges-journalists-845790/amp/