-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Net Neutrality Is Trumps Next Target, Administration Says
- Thread starter Swass
- Start date
- Status
nintendoman58
Member
You didn't even read the other guy's post who responded to you and explained how that wasn't exactly the case.
The privacy rules was a simple rule change that only required a simple senate majority. The Net Neutrality rules is an entirely different playing field with tons of legal challenges and hurdles to get through.
You and so many other people need to understand that public opinion matters a lot in times like these and stop undermining it.
Aaronrules380
Member
Literally every internet community ends up creating it's own echo chambers.
astroturfing
Member
i have to agree with Trump here.. i totally get where he's coming from. there are a lot of very good people that are saying things about the internet and there are bad things going on with a lot of these aspects on the internet and maybe something needs to be done with that in terms of the internet that is bad.
brilliant insight actually.
brilliant insight actually.
Monocle
Member
I think that's a very important point, and I would add that many people are saying a lot of different things about what's going on, and you've got to listen to that. It's clear that the most important issues to address are the facts of the situation that the people who are affected by the online problems are expecting their leaders to solve. So I think they will be looking at what should be done regarding online and consult with the best experts on a course of action that will fix some of the not so good aspects of a great service that has certain areas that could probably be better.
That and waring with the Freedom Caucus, who many Trumpers support/voted for, should start to knock some sense into these dense fucks. During the primary, many thought Trump wasn't conservative enough. Surprise! That is still true for those people.
The FCC is in republican hands now. The FCC rules had legal challenges because Obama's FCC wanted to reclassify and enforce net neutrality and Obama could veto anything that got through congress -- Ajit Pai, a former lawyer for Verizon and the new chairman of the FCC, has been a consistent and strong opponent of net neutrality. There are several avenues by which republicans could gut net neutrality, and some don't even need anything to pass through congress.
Trump's FCC has already reversed several of the FCC's prior initiatives back in February.
Additionally, Pai has closed investigations into AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile for zero-rating. The point is, the FCC itself has discretion. Obama's FCC used that discretion to reclassify ISPs and promote net neutrality. Trump's FCC has promised to use their discretion to undo that reclassification and dismantle net neutrality rules. If Trump's FCC unveils their new rules, it'll require a period for public comment, but unless you think Ajit Pai will come out of it with a different opinion than he had after those first 4 million responses, it's not going to do much -- FCC can do a lot with their republican majority (not the majority in congress, simply the republican majority in the FCC commission itself). Even if nothing can pass congress, Trump's FCC could move to reclassify it again itself, changes the rules in some other way, or they can simply stop enforcing existing regulations (they've already started doing the latter with the zero-rating stuff).
I'm not saying give up -- but republicans have a history of ignoring public pressure, so I don't expect much to get in Pai's way until at least 2018 (if dems can swing congress, unlikely because of the map) or 2020.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
If this passes, is our only hope a future president and congress reversing it?
It will pass and it requires no congressional or presidential approval
You can hope a future FCC or Congress reverses it, but congress has never been too friendly to the idea, and certainly not while it is under republican control
When it passes. Yes. People will be too busy arguing about bernie getting robbed to do fuck all until then. Maybe.
I know it's old hat. But I hate people that allowed this to happen either voting directly, or indirectly for the guy from apprentice.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Will ISPs actually bother implementing this knowing in 4 years there's a very good chance everything goes back to where it was?
They have to know this isn't going to be a permanent thing.
They have to know this isn't going to be a permanent thing.
capitalCORN
Member
You're asking if corporations will pass on a chance to nickle and dime customers to oblivion?
nintendoman58
Member
All of this is literally you dancing around the points I made of why there's a fighting chance for us in all this. I know what the FCC as of now has done.
Everything you listed doesn't change the fact that if they want to get their way, they're gonna have to go through a bunch of legal hurdles. Which is why we need to raise our voices to be louder than ever and donate to the appropriate groups as they try to do so.
Oh my goodness you people need to STOP. Stop acting like you know literally everything that's gonna happen!
You don't know the future!
On the other hand, if they normalize it, they can then defend it citing how much money they'd lose and how many jobs it'd supposedly kill. I could see it going either direction.
You should explain these legal hurdles then.
balladofwindfishes
Member
By the time they change their plans, come up with advertising, send that advertising out and make the switch over the entire country, it could take years. By then the rule could be about to be re-applied and their efforts wasted.
It's not going to be normalized in a year or two before 2020 hits and the entire thing comes crashing down for them. They'll likely lose more money playing this game of ping pong with Net Neutrality than if they just ignore it and stick to the status quo.
Dead Prince
Banned
He probably thinks he's exempt from this lmao
Maybe. But they're basically already moving forward with it now. Again, see zero-rating.
That's very vague and it's an unusual reading of the situation. What is the legal risk, precisely?
The FCC had to defend their ruling in court because the telecoms sued them by arguing what they did was illegal -- the FCC had to justify their decision to be able to keep their authority to enforce their decision. If the FCC reverses course, they'd simply be moving back to previous classification and rules -- that isn't uncharted territory and it's unlikely it could be challenged in court (otherwise, the FCC could have been sued and FORCED to adopt net neutrality before they voluntarily adopted it). So, there's nothing illegal about regulating internet without net neutrality (unless congress passed something to force the FCC) and there's nothing illegal about the FCC changing their position (that's normal).
Unless you have something more precise that actually explains the legal challenges, I'm going to go with the more popular readings of the situation.
(since that article, the investigation mentioned in the 2nd paragraph (started under Wheeler) has ended under Pai -- the scenario outlined in the 3rd paragraph has basically already started to happen)
Also, from your article:
...which he's basically already done.
nintendoman58
Member
It all goes back to what I said before. There are going to be a LOT of groups suing the FCC should they go through with this (Fight for the Future, EFF, tech companies, etc). The FCC is going to have to justify with a good reason to the courts why rolling back the 2015 rules is necessary and why the 2016 decision for upholding them was wrong.
It's not something that they can simply ignore and do away with. There's a "why" to everything, and if they want to go through with their agenda, they're going to have to properly explain that.
With the way new rules have to be introduced as well as the two-month commenting period, these groups will have plenty of time to build their cases and file the appropriate lawsuits.
My point is: This isn't something that they can simply brush off. This is a big deal, and it's going to have to go through all the checks and balances.
All this, and you still haven't actually explained the legal grounds for which they'd be sued...
nintendoman58
Member
That's because those legal grounds all depend on the new rules they introduce.
This isn't something that they can just do away with a vote. In the article I posted, it's said that the commission is required to propose a new rule in place of the 2015 one. What it is and what it does are just as available for suing as the 2015 rules were. Those are where the legal grounds are.
...and what if the rules are perfectly legal?
...so you got nothing. It's not just a vote, sure -- there's a period open to public feedback. That's just a delay.
Last time they were sued on the grounds that the telecoms believed the FCC did not have the authority to reclassify ISPs -- this was uncharted waters because the FCC had never before regulated cable/fiber companies under Title II. The courts ruled that the FCC does have the authority.
So, using that authority, it's reasonable to expect that the FCC could choose to reclassify them again. It's not like the courts ruled that the FCC is required to regulate them under Title II -- the courts simply ruled that, if the FCC wants to, it can regulate them under Title II. That's where the FCC's discretion comes in.
Sure, EFF et al can sue -- but unless a law is passed that requires FCC to enforce net neutrality, the chance of them winning is basically zero. Again, there's no law that says FCC is required to enforce net neutrality -- the courts only found that the FCC can enforce net neutrality under current laws.
nintendoman58
Member
Yes, they could choose to reclassify them again, but you're deliberately ignoring the fact that they have to prove to the same court WHY reclassifying them again is necessary! If they can't prove it, then they can't get away with it!
The previous chairman, Tom Wheeler, explains why getting rid of the rules is not a "slam dunk" for them under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Administrative Procedure Act didn't stop Pai from already reversing course on zero-rating investigations, low-income subsides, prison phone overcharging, the set top box initiatives, and more.
nintendoman58
Member
That's because those things didn't fall under a massive rule that was passed two years ago with enormous public support. Those things you listed is literally just the FCC choosing not to enforce any of them.
You're continuing to dance around the issue here and not acknowledge the checks and balances needed to go through for undoing something as big as the Open Internet Order.
...that's been part of my point:
Dancing around? Hello? This is what we've been talking about. Those checks and balances aren't as strong as you think they are. The courts can't say the FCC is required to enforce net neutrality unless there's legislation passed by congress to that effect, which there is not. None of the FCC's rules promoting net neutrality come from congressional legislation -- they were all defined under the discretion of Obama's FCC. If you really think the republican led FCC doesn't have the authority to write their own rules like the democrat led FCC did, I think you'll be sorely disappointed. If you think Trump's FCC will uphold net neutrality and actively enforce it, you're dreaming because they're already reversing course now.
The courts ruled that the FCC has the authority to reclassify ISPs under Title II -- that's not the same as the courts ruling that the FCC is required to classify ISPs under Title II.
FCC commission is limited to no more than 3 from the same party. He was confirmed by the senate unanimously.
He who controls what the truth is controls the world. Orwell was a true prophet.
nintendoman58
Member
I DO think they have the authority to write their own rules. What I'm saying is, in order to fully get rid of the 2015 Open Internet Order, they need to provide a good reason to argue for it in front of that same course when the litigation begins, which is what you've been ignoring!
Yes, it's true that there are some key Net Neutrality issues that may not be enforced because of this new FCC, but they can't easily create some sort of nightmare Orwellian censoring everything scenario like everybody thinks they can. Shit like that, can most definitely be taken to the courts.
Yeah, it could swing the other way with a dem chairman again, and it could be made more robust and stable with legislation from a democratic house/senate so that it stops flip flopping with merely a change in president party. If net neutrality was written in law (right now it's just written in FCC rules), even a republican led FCC would have to follow that law and enforce net neutrality.
There is zero question whether the FCC is going to vote to reclassify ISPs. They've literally told you as much, stop sticking your head in the sand. The comment period means nothing -- if they cared, they would have heeded the previous 4 million comments. Read your article again. Those "roadblocks" (privacy policy and lifeline rules) have already been rolled back. The FCCs power to classify providers has been affirmed in more cases than just the one that upheld the new classification. For instance, it was a key part of the FCC's previous loss on net neutrality. There is little reason to think the courts will suddenly decide they know more than the FCC on how to classify providers. The bureaucratic hurdles will slow them down, but it won't stop them. Again, they've already told you that -- it's not a secret or a prediction.
I have no idea why you are even going on about Orwellian rules. People are worried about the future the carriers envision, not the FCC. The FCC does not need to impose any restrictions to lead to that future. Nobody thinks the FCC rolling back this rule is the same as them imposing censorship on you
The FCC has already made it clear they won't enforce neutrality anyway, so the argument is academic
nintendoman58
Member
"Comment period means nothing". Uh no? Are you serious right now? I really hate when people like you start going on about how stuff like protests and activism has no worth whatsoever. That's always wrong by default.
If the FCC receives 4 million comments in support of Net Neutrality once again when introducing new rules, and they flip off everybody in response, do you really think things are gonna go smoothly?
The public needs to make a stand during the commenting period that they want a free and open Internet, and nothing less. Yes, they've already reversed several things right now, but once they go for the really big guns that's when the public needs to respond in kind.
Activism like that is going to determine what happens to the internet, so don't undermine it.
I still don't really get the net neutrality kerfuffle. I think I sorta understand it, but... Well TMobile already offers special rates for certain sites in the states and no one cares. Apple and Android both have created systems that are neigh impossible for competitors to fight in and no one gives a shit. Fitness and home automation platforms are throwing away open standards for "nest compatible" shit. People continue to throw away open messaging platforms because they're old and "iMessage lets me send emoji!" (Imessage which is so fucking shitty it can't even send a fucking proper picture to anyone not using a fucking iphone). The world had it's shot at an open platforms and said "fuck it". It's done. It happened long before the govt was involved.
But those are the choices that Apple, Android, and the consumers all make. Apple does what it does because it thinks its the best way to grow and succeed. People choose these platforms out of personal choice.
What removing net neutrality rules means the one of three network providers you have to choose from in your service area would be free to make all Android phones on their network run at half speed because Apple pays them money.
So now your messaging app doesn't suck because it's not optimised, or that the app maker makes clunky design decisions, or that they cater to a userbase that wants some feature you dislike, but because your service provider sees their traffic and throttles it because they aren't getting a kick-back, or because they're getting a kick-back from a competitor.
1. stop letting stupid phone warz dictate your view of everything else
2. recognize that what you are describing isn't the form this potentially truly takes. ISPs don't want this so they can give you 'special rates' (at least...not in the direction it goes now)
3. what Arcula said
I imagine most old men in favor of net neutrality aren't aware of this.
I see what your going for, but your too coherent. Try cutting out the end of one sentence and the beginning of another then smooshing it together.
I see it as more a matter of enabling competition I guess. The big guys will pay what it takes to keep their users. It won't affect much. The little guys have a harder time getting their foot in the door. But we've already tied ourselves to systems that basically prohibit competition anyway.
But like I said, TMobile already does this in the states anyway. Select music services are free on it. No one blinked.
None of that has anything to do with net neutrality. So no, you don't sorta understand it.
- Status