15 ms·

U.S. appeals court strikes down FCC's net neutrality rules

419 points by pseudolus 2y ago

treetalker 2y ago
Several related cases; the opinion in one of them is here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0002p-06.pdf https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0002p-06.pd... Lousy reporting: although it quotes the opinion and links to other articles on the same website, the article doesn't bother to cite the opinion or even mention the name of the case, let alone link to the source.
- fooey 2y ago
  the NYT article links to the same PDF you provided https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/02/technology/net-neutrality-rules-fcc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/02/technology/net-neutrality...
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Huge pet peve of mine. Reporters incentive are to keep you on site, not inform. It is particularly egregious when reporting on governmental public safety announcement and laws. Reporting buries the web results, but fails to cite it. I'm generally a libertarian, but would be in favor of required linking of government PSAs and laws
- emmelaich 2y ago
  reason.com has good articles on the topic. https://reason.com/tag/net-neutrality/ https://reason.com/tag/net-neutrality/
- kemitchell 2y ago
  I would love to see HN adopt a policy of replacing links to news pieces about court opinions that don't link them with links to better news pieces that do.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Why even bother with "news" pieces? They're all just sensationalist trash. Just link to the source directly, most of us here know how to read and (probably) have the mental acuity to form our own conclusions.
    - wtallis 2y ago
      Helpful analysis that provides additional context can exist, eg. SCOTUSBlog that provides useful summaries while reliably linking to the rulings themselves. It's not all sensationalist trash.
- NotYourLawyer 2y ago
  Pretty typical of media reporting on court cases. Just awful.
billyp-rva 2y ago
It's a sad commentary that, because of how concentrated web traffic is today, net neutrality feels like an antiquated concern.
- orev 2y ago
  The idea that Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. have made Net Neutrality irrelevant is ridiculous, and is a result of a directed campaign by ISPs to distract attention from them and onto these other companies. With NN in place, there’s nothing at the network level that prevents a competitor to them from rising up. Without NN, ISPs can make deals to speed/slow/block traffic to different destinations, which would have a real effect on possible newcomers that challenge the incumbents.
  - billyp-rva 2y ago
    > is a result of a directed campaign by ISPs to distract attention from them and onto these other companies. I've come to this conclusion because NN is effectively dead at the link level, not the ISP level. Try posting a link to the web on any of the big social sites, and you'll be instantly downranked.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - orev 2y ago
      Whatever problem that is, it’s not Net Neutrality. NN is about ISPs being able to do things like sell different service levels, like package A includes access to Facebook and Google only, package B includes package A plus Instagram and Netflix, package C includes package B plus TikTok, etc. Or doing things like making their own video service while making Netflix unusably slow. Not saying your issue also isn’t valid, but it can be addressed by market forces when enough people get sick of that type of behavior (like Twitter/X) and move to something else (like Bluesky). Most people don’t have any real choice between ISPs (through monopolies that have been granted to them for decades by local governments), and therefore there needs to be some additional legal protection against that type of behavior. Trying to lump them both together under NN is part of the playbook that Big ISP has been using for years to muddy the issue.
kristopolous 2y ago
I like how they quoted Brendan Carr - he's one of those people who think anything done in the public interest, to protect people's rights, increase transparency or to hold power brokers accountable is, without exaggeration, evil tyrannical overreach. These kinds of people talk about personal responsibility because they don't believe in social or civic responsibility. I mean don't get me wrong, he's ok with the government paying for things to gift them away to corporations, or bailing them out or banning things like municipal broadband and consumer disclosure or legislation that enables dark money to move around - that's apparently good government doing good things. It's like he reads Philip K Dick for inspiration of how to structure a society.
- malfist 2y ago
  He's not nearly that principled. Private capital acting in a way he doesn't agree with politically is wrong according to him. See his complaints about Big tech "censorship" of misinformation and Harris's appearance on SNL
  - kristopolous 2y ago
    His idea of censorship is when social media takes steps in the public interest and their civic responsibility of providing a social good seriously. Meta is trying to avoid another Myanmar catastrophe and he wants to use the power of the state to ensure no responsible actions for the public good will be taken. It's ideologically consistent. Anything acting for the betterment of society is somehow communism
- omolobo 2y ago
  [dead]
- sour-taste 2y ago
  Reading this guys twitter feed makes my blood boil. Look at what he posted about this: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-408580A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-408580A1.txt His argument is just 'this is a new way of applying these regulations, and that bad!'. Nothing about the cost impact that this will have for consumers, nothing about merits of the case, just political BS. He's our incoming FCC head who previously was a lawyer for AT&T, Verizon, and US Telecom [1]. This is going to be a very bad 4 years to be an internet user except for probably Twitter users who will get preferential treatment. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20231022070004/https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-brendan-carr-20170628-story.html https://web.archive.org/web/20231022070004/https://www.latim...
empath75 2y ago
It's hard to get really worked up about courts falling on one side or the other of an argument between multibillion dollar corporations about how to allocate bandwidth costs.
- RiverCrochet 2y ago
  There's a lot of concern about the lack of net neutrality being unfair in the sense it gives providers the ability to make traffic to sites slower, but does not having net neutrality also mean they can simply refuse to send/receive to specific domains or IP addresses?
  - wmf 2y ago
    Technically yes, but this has been done very few times in history.
    - RiverCrochet 2y ago
      Well, it's definitely a new historical era in which old precedents are being thrown out and new ones made. I'm sure anti-piracy organizations will use this to their advantage soon to make a deal with ISPs to block suspected piracy sites. Also I do wonder if we'll see U.S. ISPs refuse to allow access to certain sites based on religious freedom grounds soon.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        I don't think any US conception of "net neutrality" was going to protect the suspected piracy sites.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        The issue comes down to what we consider "piracy". - P2P networking by itself is not piracy, but the casual connection can put a lot of honest sites in danger, from malicious actors. - If the Internet Archive survives its current ideal, this is an easier way to kill that off. - Any storage company that can't pay enough money can be thrown off the map. You can share files, which may or may not be copyright after all. rulings like these start to make the cracks.
yesco 2y ago
I've always felt the FCC was an inappropriate path for enforcing this. Ideally it would be powers granted to the FTC either through legislation or potentially through existing powers they might already have in this domain. The FCC's jurisdiction on this was already shaky even before Chevron was overturned, I think the moment activism was pushed in this direction net neutrality was doomed a decade of unending lawsuits. Even if they somehow made it passed the courts, I'm not quite convinced the FCC would be motivated to actually do much about this even with a sympathetic administration. Consider that prior to the internet, they were pretty much created to do the opposite of what people want from net neutrality. These are just my armchair thoughts though.
- fooey 2y ago
  The fun tradeoff here is since the courts determined the feds can't regulate it, the states are allowed to instead, with California and New York already taking the lead, and are much more consumer oriented than anything that could be done federally.
  - granzymes 2y ago
    The Federal government can regulate broadband providers, just not as telecommunications providers (subject to common carrier requirements) under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Congress could update the law if it wanted to. If the court had held otherwise, the Federal common carrier requirements would have preempted any common carrier duties imposed by California and New York. Since today the 6th Circuit says the FCC does not have that power (because broadband providers offer information services and not telecommunications services), California and New York are welcome to impose those duties within their state boundaries (as long as they don't step on any other areas of Federal preemption).
    - vel0city 2y ago
      > because broadband providers offer information services and not telecommunications services This is where I highly disagree with the opinions of this court decision. My ISP is absolutely providing me telecommunications services, not information service. For practically all the "information" I receive, my ISP is not "generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications". That maybe sometimes I might land on some webpage hosted by my ISP is inconsequential to the services I am paying for, that's not the service I'm paying for. In the end I'm paying for them to give me the ability to telecommunicate with a server hosted by someone else which then generates, processes, retrives, that information. My ISP is not the information service which lets me post here. Hacker News is an information service acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, and retrieving the data I request. My ISP is only used for me to talk to the Hacker News webserver. https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ104/PLAW-104publ104.pdf https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ104/PLAW-104publ104.p... I truly don't understand how anyone who can even vaguely understand how ISPs work and reads this law could say ISPs aren't telecommunications providers and are instead information service providers. Other than maybe big bags of cash that makes people's reading comprehension a little loose.
unethical_ban 2y ago
Short version: They killed it because of "Loper Bright" which killed the Chevron Deference. In other words: Until recently, US executive agencies were given a lot of leeway in creating regulations that align with their mandate from Congress. This leeway was struck down by the Roberts Supreme Court, insisting that courts can reign in executive agencies and keep them from operating with a broad mandate. This court doesn't say Net Neutrality is bad or unconstitutional. It says that, under the new precedent set by the Roberts Supreme Court, the FCC does not have the authority it claims to have in regulating ISPs in the same way as a phone company. If Congress were to pass a law that said the FCC had the authority, or that net neutrality should be instated explicitly, it would happen.
- rqtwteye 2y ago
  Has there been another Supreme Court that has overturned as many precedents than the Roberts court? It looks to me that this court will have a huge impact far into the future. They are less activist when it comes to ethics rules though. The Clarence Thomas situation is ridiculous.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/ https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overru... Looks like there's been plenty more of that in the civil rights era - look at all the cases in 1960s!
    - horacemorace 2y ago
      One to move society toward tolerance and one to move society toward 1984
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        indeed. how many of these overturns in the last 10 years helps the current voting citizens and not corporations?
  - 2y ago
granzymes 2y ago
Thanks to Loper Bright, we finally have certainty as to what the Telecommunications Act of 1996 actually means. By way of background, the Obama administration first classified broadband providers as telecommunications services subject to common-carrier regulation under Title II in 2015. The FCC reversed itself under Trump, and then during the Biden administration changed its mind yet again. The law never changed. Each time, the courts deferred to the agency's interpretation as "reasonable", despite the fact that the interpretations were completely inconsistent. There is a single right answer: either the law classifies broadband carriers as offering telecommunications services or information services. Today, for the first time, a court has actually read the law[0] and concluded that broadband carriers offer information services, not telecommunications services. If that's not the policy result Congress wanted, then Congress can change the law instead of letting the President change his mind every 4 years. [0] https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0002p-06.pdf https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0002p-06.pd...
- vel0city 2y ago
  Even this court opinion makes the same stupid mistake of misunderstanding what an ISP does in their attempt to further define what an information service is. > In short, an “information service” manipulates data, while a “telecommunications service” does not. Hacker News manipulates the data you put into the text box to post that comment into the list of comments it serves to me. My ISP absolutely did not in any way manipulate a single bit of that data Hacker News sent as a reply to me when I requested to Hacker News, not my ISP for that comment data. So even with this opinion's simplified standard of what an information service is, ISPs absolutely fail to meet this standard. Its astounding to me people can actually think an ISP is an "information service" under the 1996 definition. And before you suggest "well the ISP probably did some other weird stuff inside their networks to actually transit those packets to you", the 1996 definition carves out that just doing the things needed to be a telecommunications provider does not make you an information service provider. > but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service. https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ104/PLAW-104publ104.pdf https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ104/PLAW-104publ104.p...
tantalor 2y ago
Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but when Chevron deference was overturned, didn't the court explicitly state that it only applies to future orders? i.e., prior orders relying on Chevron would be grandfathered. But here the rule was created April 2024, prior to Chevron decision in June 2024.
- granzymes 2y ago
  The Supreme Court said in Loper Bright that previous cases decided under Chevron are still good law. But this lawsuit challenged a brand new FCC order that had not been previously litigated.
  - tantalor 2y ago
    Okay, but that's so weird! The court is saying, if we had litigated this (and most likely upheld it, because Chevron) then it could stand now, even after Loper Bright. But if we never looked at it before, then we get to use the new rule. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Like, the counterfactual is they litigated and upheld the order, so it's safe. But because it was never challenged before, it can be challenged now. Only orders that were challenged are safe. It would make more sense to do it the way I thought: everything, even if it wasn't challenged, that would have relied on Chevron still can rely on Chevron. That gives "the benefit of the doubt" to the agency that passed the regulation in the Chevron era. In the new scheme, the regulators have to comb through all their orders going back decades, figure out which ones were never litigated, and figure out how to defend it without Chevron.
    - granzymes 2y ago
      You're coming at this from the perspective of "it's weird to change the rules after the fact" which is reasonable but not how stare decisis works. The principle is that once something is decided once, it should be decided the same for all other parties litigating the issue unless and until the precedent is overturned. If something hasn't yet been litigated, it is still an open question. It would be weird if, for example, the Supreme Court said that gay marriage is constitutionally protected but all the existing laws banning it could stand because they were enacted earlier.
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
It's hard to see such a clear obvious case & come out so preposterously incredibly fantastically wrong. > The question is whether, in so doing, they are merely a conduit for data transmission (a so-called "dumb pipe") and thus offer consumers a telecommunications service (as the Safeguarding Order concludes); or whether, instead, Broadband Internet Service Providers offer consumers the capability to acquire, store, and utilize data-and thus offer consumers an information service. In our view, the latter is the best reading of the Act. This doesn't match probably 9x 9's of internet traffic! This is almost never the case! What do we do when government is so blankety inept? How do we reconcile a court that's allowed decide things with no respect to obvious facts? Why are there so few ways of dealing with these people in any serious capacity, getting them out of here?
- sour-taste 2y ago
  The best we can do is vote/encourage Congress to pass straightforward laws to address these cases, making the rulings defunct. As another commenter mentioned Congress has been incapable of anything for ~30 years so... Nothing?
troyvit 2y ago
Every day I thank the old gods (and Longmont, CO) for my municipal gigabit.[1] [1] https://mynextlight.com/terms-conditions/ https://mynextlight.com/terms-conditions/
- tptacek 2y ago
  Note that your municipal fiber network partners with Qwilt to preferentially accelerate commercial streaming platforms like Netflix.
  - troyvit 2y ago
    Whoah I did not know that and it directly conflicts with their TOS. Do you have a link to that?
    - tptacek 2y ago
      It's in the comprehensive financial statement for Longmont, which I pulled up looking to see the economics of your muni fiber system (I'm on the local commission in my muni that considers stuff like this, and the numbers didn't make sense for us --- but you're in an exurb, so the math is different.)
  - ftth_finland 2y ago
    What’s the big deal? It’s just a content cache. You can get dedicated cache appliances directly from Netflix for free if you have a large enough customer base.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I didn't say it was a big deal, but then, I think "net neutrality" is pretty silly.
      - ftth_finland 2y ago
        Caches do not break net neutrality. Nothing wrong with the concept of net neutrality. Implementations may be lacking, but I do not recall any major issues with the EU regulations. Perhaps all the perceived silliness is a result of the US legislature?
bingjames 2y ago
>“[U]nlike past challenges that the D.C. Circuit considered under Chevron, we no longer afford deference to the FCC's reading of the statute. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2266 (2024) (overruling Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) ) … Using ‘the traditional tools of statutory construction,’ id., we hold that Broadband Internet Service Providers offer only an ‘information service’ under 47 U.S.C. § 153(24), and therefore, the FCC lacks the statutory authority to impose its desired net-neutrality policies through the ‘telecommunications service'’ provision of the Communications Act, id. § 153(51). >47 U.S.C. § 153(24) information service The term “information service” means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service. >telecommunications 47 USC § 153(50) The term “telecommunications” means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received. What in the absolute hell are these definitions. These sound like they were made by the world's first LLM.
- axus 2y ago
  "Telecommunications service" sounds like phone or TCP/IP to me. You make a connection, "speak" the data, and ideally it's supposed to be received in order and without distortion on the other side. "Information service" sounds like websites and apps. You'd think a judge would be capable of reading a law as-written. Internet Service Providers aren't running webpages, they don't even host email or newsgroups anymore.
mossTechnician 2y ago
I'm reminded of when it was legal for cellphone companies to charge different fees to access different websites. Naturally, the bigger ones got the best monthly rates. https://www.techdirt.com/2014/07/31/pay-different-prices-to-access-different-sites-virgin-mobile-leaps-through-net-neutrality-exemption-with-gusto/ https://www.techdirt.com/2014/07/31/pay-different-prices-to-...
danso 2y ago
Surprised this legal turn has so little discussion on HN right now. NN had felt like an evergreen hot debate topic for at least the past decade 7 years ago, 3000+ upvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924794
- lelandfe 2y ago
  I just don’t think the internet has mustered awareness yet. This decision effectively killed net neutrality and dooms everything that rests on Brand X in one swoop (eg California’s own net neutrality laws).
  - Xelynega 2y ago
    Does this decision(or the decision it was based off of) not also basically say "the fcc has no power over broadband companies" or am I misinterpreting the "information service" vs "telecommunications service" comment?
    - wtallis 2y ago
      My recollection is that the FCC during the Obama years repeatedly tried to impose Net Neutrality regulations on ISPs without reclassifying them as telecommunications services, and only after exhausting that route did they try regulating them under Title II. So if this ruling stands, then there's probably enough precedent to keep the FCC from doing anything meaningful against ISPs until Congress can pass major legislation about this.
    - BikiniPrince 2y ago
      What it means is abusing chevron deference to make law isn’t going to work anymore. Such sweeping changes need to be passed through Congress.
  - rsingel 2y ago
    California's net neutrality law is in great shape. It didn't rely on Brand X. New York's broadband affordability law is in good shape too.
cabinguy 2y ago
Most interesting part of this post (to me) is to see how far the perceived importance of net neutrality has fallen on HN. 96 points in 5 hours as of this comment. Old posts: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=net+neutrality https://hn.algolia.com/?q=net+neutrality
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  might just be bad timing. It is the day after the US holiday season. May be by design too. 2 days ago, we got more formal reporting on how Russia may have been involved in manipulating elections. Again. But it was on New Years' Eve. (not that I expect that news to last long on HN). If I wasn't so tired of all this falling on deaf ears, I'd chuckle at the irony.
- strawhatguy 2y ago
  net neutrality laws giving the FCC broad powers, just isn't that important though. Late nineties I remember one hot topic in society was prayer in school, and nowadays I hardly hear about that anymore, 9/11 had something to do with that though. Seriously, government gets into these fads, The Next Big Thing, and, since usually a whole new group of young, idealistic, inexperienced humans comes of age, it seems like a hot button item. It rarely is, certainly not enough for the government to "do something" about it. We as individuals can fix the problems ourselves, if allowed to. The cycle repeats.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    I agree with all that but don't forget the astroturfing cycle. Net neutrality was a big fight between the ISPs and big tech companies years ago. Now that they've mostly reached a stable armistice and it's clear from variances in state to state law and policy that have arisen in the meantime that this is not a make or break issue for either side there's no money being poured onto the fire to whip people into a frenzy.
- autoexec 2y ago
  Net neutrality is still important but it no longer matters how we feel about it because our government and the courts have been bribed and captured by industry and they're intent on screwing us. This is just one of what will be a very long list of important regulations and oversight we're going to see stripped away. Might as well get used to it.
shmerl 2y ago
Not again. How long is this going to be happening back and forth. Opponents of net neutrality are monopoly freaks. Net neutrality should be enforced on competition law grounds.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Odds are low that Biden can affect the Supreme Court. I think the next back-and-forth is 2027.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >How long is this going to be happening back and forth. It will keep happening until the legislature either writes it into law or refuses. The executive should not be legislating in the first place outside of emergencies requiring immediate action.
- JSteph22 2y ago
  >Opponents of net neutrality are monopoly freaks. There are plenty of antitrust laws already on the books. Having the DOJ enforce them would be the correct route, as opposed to creating additional, unnecessary NN regulation which would effectively cement the ISP monopolies.
  - shmerl 2y ago
    I agree in theory, but in practice, anti-trust laws only become more and more toothless with time so this isn't getting any better. I don't agree about cementing monopolies, it's the opposite. Net neutrality beats anti-competitive practices back, because as above, regular competition law got almost useless and not applied to solve these issues de-facto. If competition law enforcement will improve - there won't be a need for separate net neutrality rules. Problem is that opponents of net neutrality don't want competition law enforcement either, so they want to have their anti-competitive cake and eat it unchecked.
- blasphemers 2y ago
  The net-neutrality rules that were just overturned would have actually allowed the FCC to grant regional monopolies. It's almost like FCC was created in part to maintain ATT's relationship with the government.
rc_kas 2y ago
Don't worry guys, democrats will write a strongly worded letter in objection to this.
- Spivak 2y ago
  I think people largely forget that this happens to Republican issues as well and they have just as little recourse. It's just you probably consider them victories and either ignore or bask the Republicans loudly complaining and then doing nothing. I think the reason that The Democratic Party feels ineffectual is because they've been on the defensive for so long they've lost their aspirational platform in favor of "stopping Republicans from doing bad things." They're the opposition party now.
xp84 2y ago
> we hold that Broadband Internet Service Providers offer only an ‘information service’ under 47 U.S.C. § 153(24), and therefore, the FCC lacks the statutory authority to impose its desired net-neutrality policies through the ‘telecommunications service'’ provision of the Communications Act, id. § 153(51). Can we just appreciate how silly and sad it is how many billions of dollars hinge on the distinction between two terms which 99% of Americans would, if they weren't aware it was a political issue, are basically synonyms? Hi Mr. Brown, CEO of Comcast, what does your company do? Is it a telecommunications company? "No!! We only provide information services!"
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
cranberryturkey 2y ago
why are we always fighting for freedom in the "land of the free"??
DrScientist 2y ago
Isn't an alternative is to say, if you aren't treating all content the same - then you aren't a common carrier, you are a publisher and therefore responsible for the content? ie you choose - if you want the "common carrier" protection you need to behave like one.....
- floydnoel 2y ago
  this seems like a fabulous solution, without making more things "illegal"
egorfine 2y ago
I don't think there's a chance of net neutrality happening in the US given the current political climate. Net neutrality is communism, literally. /s
DonnyV 2y ago
The internet is a common service everyone needs. There should be a separate department that oversees all internet services in the US, ran by an elected official.
Annatar 2y ago
[dead]
MR4D 2y ago
Maybe I’m missing something, but this is a good thing, as it will finally allow us to fix this problem. Hear me out… Net Neutrality was always very poorly defined from a delivery perspective in that it limited companies’ and consumers’ options. What it should have done instead is define the word “Internet” and then say that if you advertise , say “100 Mbps Internet” speed that you cannot discriminate on any particular site or protocol by slowing or blocking. This definition would allow telcos to offer generic internet, but then offer speed-ups to customers as options. For instance, if you love Netflix, allow the telco to offer a higher level of service for Netflix connectivity. Or if you are a gamer, allow lower latency/higher bandwidth for things like Fortnite, etc. I want my “internet” access to be unfettered, but I’m also willing to pay extra for service above that level for certain apps/sites. Yes, this is simplified to fit a post on HN, but it seems the only rational way to regulate appropriately and simply, and most importantly, giving consumers what they actually want.
- BillButter 2y ago
  The concern is that a teleco can create an alternative and provide it for cheaper than competition. For example, Spectrum creates a Netflix, changes $20 dollars for it, then blockades Netflix behind a $20 'teleco' fee. Now your choices are $20 Spectrum-flix or $15+$20 Netflix.
  - MR4D 2y ago
    No - I’m specifically saying they cannot do that. Like I said - their internet service cannot block or slow down any site or app. If they want to create their own streaming service and give you fast access to it, they can - but they cannot slow down anything else. That’s why my rule works.
datmar 2y ago
Not sure if this violates any rules, but I just pulled the actual ruling and asked Gemini to summarize it. See below: """ Summary of the Decision The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) 2024 "Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet" Order. This order sought to reinstate "net neutrality" rules, which would regulate broadband internet service providers (ISPs) as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Here are the key points of the court's reasoning: Overruling Chevron Deference: The court explicitly rejected the standard of deference to the FCC's interpretation of the Communications Act, as previously required by the Chevron doctrine. This deference was overruled by the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The court decided it must determine "the best reading of the statute" itself. Information Service vs. Telecommunications Service: The core of the ruling hinges on the distinction between "information services" and "telecommunications services," as defined in the Communications Act. The court found that broadband ISPs offer an "information service" because they provide consumers with the capability to access, retrieve, and utilize information via the internet (even though they don't create the content themselves). The court emphasized the importance of the "offering of a capability" language in the definition of an information service. The court rejected the FCC's argument that ISPs are merely conduits for data transmission (a "telecommunications service"). Mobile Broadband: The court also ruled that mobile broadband services (internet access via cellular networks) cannot be classified as a "commercial mobile service" under Title III of the Communications Act, and thus cannot be regulated in the same manner as traditional telephone services. The court determined that mobile broadband is not directly "interconnected with the public switched network" (i.e., the traditional telephone network) since it uses IP addresses, not the traditional 10-digit telephone system. Therefore it must be a "private mobile service," which is not subject to common carrier regulations. Historical Context: The court highlighted the historical understanding and the FCC's consistent interpretations before the 2015 change, noting that Internet access was generally considered an "information service" and that Congress intended to keep the internet free from significant regulation. Result: The court vacated the FCC's order, effectively ending its attempt to impose net neutrality regulations under Title II on internet providers. Potential Consequences This ruling has significant potential consequences, including: No Net Neutrality Regulation (for now): The immediate impact is the absence of federal net neutrality rules in the U.S. Broadband ISPs and mobile broadband providers will not be legally bound by the principles of net neutrality. This means: ISPs could potentially throttle or block traffic to certain websites or services. ISPs could potentially offer paid prioritization of some content over others. ISPs may also offer differing internet speeds for different plans, without the need to justify this to the FCC Impact on Consumers: Consumers could see: Higher costs if ISPs charge for preferred access to content providers. Slower speeds for some services if ISPs decide to prioritize others. Reduced choice if ISPs favor their own services over competitors. Impact on Edge Providers: Websites, platforms, and content creators could be affected by: Reduced reach if their content is throttled or blocked. Increased costs if they have to pay ISPs for priority access. Less innovation if startups or new platforms are unable to compete with established services. Uncertainty and Litigation: The future of net neutrality is uncertain, and further litigation is highly likely. The FCC could appeal to the Supreme Court, which could further influence the debate. Other attempts to regulate the Internet may arise, potentially from states, but could lead to more legal challenges. Political Ramifications: This decision may lead to legislative efforts to create new laws codifying net neutrality in the US, or at least to further clarification of the existing Telecommunications Act of 1996. Increased consolidation: Without Net Neutrality, it is likely that larger telecommunications providers, who can utilize their economies of scale, will be able to further dominate the market, reducing competition. In Summary The Sixth Circuit's decision is a major blow to net neutrality proponents. It removes the current federal net neutrality regulations, and in doing so, it potentially gives more control over internet access to ISPs and mobile carriers. The long-term effects will depend on future legal challenges, legislative action, and market behavior. However, the decision is consistent with current Supreme Court precedent concerning judicial deference to agency interpretation of law. """
cashsterling 2y ago
The real solution to this issue is municipal broadband. If there is a municipal option for high speed internet, people who don't want deal with companies' monitoring and throttling shenanigans have a viable option from a community-focused provider. This provides price and service competition for the Tel-Co cartels who collude to fix prices and pull all kinds of other nonsense (like taking billions of dollars in federal funds and then deliver next to nothing... then lobby their way out of accountability). T
1oooqooq 2y ago
all the arguments pro isp ubderprovision here misses the point that they are a sanctioned monopoly, either on access to wires on the streets or wireless spectrum. they are guaranteed a insane high profit because of the assured monopoly and presumed technology and capacity investments. if you defend their "profit" by under provision you are extremely uneducated on the matter.

419 points by pseudolus 2y ago

Several related cases; the opinion in one of them is here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0002p-06.pdf https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0002p-06.pd... Lousy reporting: although it quotes the opinion and links to other articles on the same website, the article doesn't bother to cite the opinion or even mention the name of the case, let alone link to the source.

fooey 2y ago
the NYT article links to the same PDF you provided https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/02/technology/net-neutrality-rules-fcc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/02/technology/net-neutrality...
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Huge pet peve of mine. Reporters incentive are to keep you on site, not inform. It is particularly egregious when reporting on governmental public safety announcement and laws. Reporting buries the web results, but fails to cite it. I'm generally a libertarian, but would be in favor of required linking of government PSAs and laws
emmelaich 2y ago
reason.com has good articles on the topic. https://reason.com/tag/net-neutrality/ https://reason.com/tag/net-neutrality/
kemitchell 2y ago
I would love to see HN adopt a policy of replacing links to news pieces about court opinions that don't link them with links to better news pieces that do.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Why even bother with "news" pieces? They're all just sensationalist trash. Just link to the source directly, most of us here know how to read and (probably) have the mental acuity to form our own conclusions.
  - wtallis 2y ago
    Helpful analysis that provides additional context can exist, eg. SCOTUSBlog that provides useful summaries while reliably linking to the rulings themselves. It's not all sensationalist trash.
NotYourLawyer 2y ago
Pretty typical of media reporting on court cases. Just awful.

billyp-rva 2y ago

It's a sad commentary that, because of how concentrated web traffic is today, net neutrality feels like an antiquated concern.

orev 2y ago
The idea that Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. have made Net Neutrality irrelevant is ridiculous, and is a result of a directed campaign by ISPs to distract attention from them and onto these other companies. With NN in place, there’s nothing at the network level that prevents a competitor to them from rising up. Without NN, ISPs can make deals to speed/slow/block traffic to different destinations, which would have a real effect on possible newcomers that challenge the incumbents.
- billyp-rva 2y ago
  > is a result of a directed campaign by ISPs to distract attention from them and onto these other companies. I've come to this conclusion because NN is effectively dead at the link level, not the ISP level. Try posting a link to the web on any of the big social sites, and you'll be instantly downranked.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - orev 2y ago
    Whatever problem that is, it’s not Net Neutrality. NN is about ISPs being able to do things like sell different service levels, like package A includes access to Facebook and Google only, package B includes package A plus Instagram and Netflix, package C includes package B plus TikTok, etc. Or doing things like making their own video service while making Netflix unusably slow. Not saying your issue also isn’t valid, but it can be addressed by market forces when enough people get sick of that type of behavior (like Twitter/X) and move to something else (like Bluesky). Most people don’t have any real choice between ISPs (through monopolies that have been granted to them for decades by local governments), and therefore there needs to be some additional legal protection against that type of behavior. Trying to lump them both together under NN is part of the playbook that Big ISP has been using for years to muddy the issue.

kristopolous 2y ago

I like how they quoted Brendan Carr - he's one of those people who think anything done in the public interest, to protect people's rights, increase transparency or to hold power brokers accountable is, without exaggeration, evil tyrannical overreach. These kinds of people talk about personal responsibility because they don't believe in social or civic responsibility. I mean don't get me wrong, he's ok with the government paying for things to gift them away to corporations, or bailing them out or banning things like municipal broadband and consumer disclosure or legislation that enables dark money to move around - that's apparently good government doing good things. It's like he reads Philip K Dick for inspiration of how to structure a society.

malfist 2y ago
He's not nearly that principled. Private capital acting in a way he doesn't agree with politically is wrong according to him. See his complaints about Big tech "censorship" of misinformation and Harris's appearance on SNL
- kristopolous 2y ago
  His idea of censorship is when social media takes steps in the public interest and their civic responsibility of providing a social good seriously. Meta is trying to avoid another Myanmar catastrophe and he wants to use the power of the state to ensure no responsible actions for the public good will be taken. It's ideologically consistent. Anything acting for the betterment of society is somehow communism
omolobo 2y ago
[dead]
sour-taste 2y ago
Reading this guys twitter feed makes my blood boil. Look at what he posted about this: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-408580A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-408580A1.txt His argument is just 'this is a new way of applying these regulations, and that bad!'. Nothing about the cost impact that this will have for consumers, nothing about merits of the case, just political BS. He's our incoming FCC head who previously was a lawyer for AT&T, Verizon, and US Telecom [1]. This is going to be a very bad 4 years to be an internet user except for probably Twitter users who will get preferential treatment. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20231022070004/https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-brendan-carr-20170628-story.html https://web.archive.org/web/20231022070004/https://www.latim...

empath75 2y ago

It's hard to get really worked up about courts falling on one side or the other of an argument between multibillion dollar corporations about how to allocate bandwidth costs.

RiverCrochet 2y ago
There's a lot of concern about the lack of net neutrality being unfair in the sense it gives providers the ability to make traffic to sites slower, but does not having net neutrality also mean they can simply refuse to send/receive to specific domains or IP addresses?
- wmf 2y ago
  Technically yes, but this has been done very few times in history.
  - RiverCrochet 2y ago
    Well, it's definitely a new historical era in which old precedents are being thrown out and new ones made. I'm sure anti-piracy organizations will use this to their advantage soon to make a deal with ISPs to block suspected piracy sites. Also I do wonder if we'll see U.S. ISPs refuse to allow access to certain sites based on religious freedom grounds soon.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I don't think any US conception of "net neutrality" was going to protect the suspected piracy sites.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        The issue comes down to what we consider "piracy". - P2P networking by itself is not piracy, but the casual connection can put a lot of honest sites in danger, from malicious actors. - If the Internet Archive survives its current ideal, this is an easier way to kill that off. - Any storage company that can't pay enough money can be thrown off the map. You can share files, which may or may not be copyright after all. rulings like these start to make the cracks.

yesco 2y ago

I've always felt the FCC was an inappropriate path for enforcing this. Ideally it would be powers granted to the FTC either through legislation or potentially through existing powers they might already have in this domain. The FCC's jurisdiction on this was already shaky even before Chevron was overturned, I think the moment activism was pushed in this direction net neutrality was doomed a decade of unending lawsuits. Even if they somehow made it passed the courts, I'm not quite convinced the FCC would be motivated to actually do much about this even with a sympathetic administration. Consider that prior to the internet, they were pretty much created to do the opposite of what people want from net neutrality. These are just my armchair thoughts though.

fooey 2y ago
The fun tradeoff here is since the courts determined the feds can't regulate it, the states are allowed to instead, with California and New York already taking the lead, and are much more consumer oriented than anything that could be done federally.
- granzymes 2y ago
  The Federal government can regulate broadband providers, just not as telecommunications providers (subject to common carrier requirements) under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Congress could update the law if it wanted to. If the court had held otherwise, the Federal common carrier requirements would have preempted any common carrier duties imposed by California and New York. Since today the 6th Circuit says the FCC does not have that power (because broadband providers offer information services and not telecommunications services), California and New York are welcome to impose those duties within their state boundaries (as long as they don't step on any other areas of Federal preemption).
  - vel0city 2y ago
    > because broadband providers offer information services and not telecommunications services This is where I highly disagree with the opinions of this court decision. My ISP is absolutely providing me telecommunications services, not information service. For practically all the "information" I receive, my ISP is not "generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications". That maybe sometimes I might land on some webpage hosted by my ISP is inconsequential to the services I am paying for, that's not the service I'm paying for. In the end I'm paying for them to give me the ability to telecommunicate with a server hosted by someone else which then generates, processes, retrives, that information. My ISP is not the information service which lets me post here. Hacker News is an information service acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, and retrieving the data I request. My ISP is only used for me to talk to the Hacker News webserver. https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ104/PLAW-104publ104.pdf https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ104/PLAW-104publ104.p... I truly don't understand how anyone who can even vaguely understand how ISPs work and reads this law could say ISPs aren't telecommunications providers and are instead information service providers. Other than maybe big bags of cash that makes people's reading comprehension a little loose.

unethical_ban 2y ago

Short version: They killed it because of "Loper Bright" which killed the Chevron Deference. In other words: Until recently, US executive agencies were given a lot of leeway in creating regulations that align with their mandate from Congress. This leeway was struck down by the Roberts Supreme Court, insisting that courts can reign in executive agencies and keep them from operating with a broad mandate. This court doesn't say Net Neutrality is bad or unconstitutional. It says that, under the new precedent set by the Roberts Supreme Court, the FCC does not have the authority it claims to have in regulating ISPs in the same way as a phone company. If Congress were to pass a law that said the FCC had the authority, or that net neutrality should be instated explicitly, it would happen.

rqtwteye 2y ago
Has there been another Supreme Court that has overturned as many precedents than the Roberts court? It looks to me that this court will have a huge impact far into the future. They are less activist when it comes to ethics rules though. The Clarence Thomas situation is ridiculous.
- int_19h 2y ago
  https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/ https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overru... Looks like there's been plenty more of that in the civil rights era - look at all the cases in 1960s!
  - horacemorace 2y ago
    One to move society toward tolerance and one to move society toward 1984
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      indeed. how many of these overturns in the last 10 years helps the current voting citizens and not corporations?
- 2y ago

granzymes 2y ago

Thanks to Loper Bright, we finally have certainty as to what the Telecommunications Act of 1996 actually means. By way of background, the Obama administration first classified broadband providers as telecommunications services subject to common-carrier regulation under Title II in 2015. The FCC reversed itself under Trump, and then during the Biden administration changed its mind yet again. The law never changed. Each time, the courts deferred to the agency's interpretation as "reasonable", despite the fact that the interpretations were completely inconsistent. There is a single right answer: either the law classifies broadband carriers as offering telecommunications services or information services. Today, for the first time, a court has actually read the law[0] and concluded that broadband carriers offer information services, not telecommunications services. If that's not the policy result Congress wanted, then Congress can change the law instead of letting the President change his mind every 4 years. [0] https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0002p-06.pdf https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0002p-06.pd...

vel0city 2y ago
Even this court opinion makes the same stupid mistake of misunderstanding what an ISP does in their attempt to further define what an information service is. > In short, an “information service” manipulates data, while a “telecommunications service” does not. Hacker News manipulates the data you put into the text box to post that comment into the list of comments it serves to me. My ISP absolutely did not in any way manipulate a single bit of that data Hacker News sent as a reply to me when I requested to Hacker News, not my ISP for that comment data. So even with this opinion's simplified standard of what an information service is, ISPs absolutely fail to meet this standard. Its astounding to me people can actually think an ISP is an "information service" under the 1996 definition. And before you suggest "well the ISP probably did some other weird stuff inside their networks to actually transit those packets to you", the 1996 definition carves out that just doing the things needed to be a telecommunications provider does not make you an information service provider. > but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service. https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ104/PLAW-104publ104.pdf https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ104/PLAW-104publ104.p...

tantalor 2y ago

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but when Chevron deference was overturned, didn't the court explicitly state that it only applies to future orders? i.e., prior orders relying on Chevron would be grandfathered. But here the rule was created April 2024, prior to Chevron decision in June 2024.

granzymes 2y ago
The Supreme Court said in Loper Bright that previous cases decided under Chevron are still good law. But this lawsuit challenged a brand new FCC order that had not been previously litigated.
- tantalor 2y ago
  Okay, but that's so weird! The court is saying, if we had litigated this (and most likely upheld it, because Chevron) then it could stand now, even after Loper Bright. But if we never looked at it before, then we get to use the new rule. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Like, the counterfactual is they litigated and upheld the order, so it's safe. But because it was never challenged before, it can be challenged now. Only orders that were challenged are safe. It would make more sense to do it the way I thought: everything, even if it wasn't challenged, that would have relied on Chevron still can rely on Chevron. That gives "the benefit of the doubt" to the agency that passed the regulation in the Chevron era. In the new scheme, the regulators have to comb through all their orders going back decades, figure out which ones were never litigated, and figure out how to defend it without Chevron.
  - granzymes 2y ago
    You're coming at this from the perspective of "it's weird to change the rules after the fact" which is reasonable but not how stare decisis works. The principle is that once something is decided once, it should be decided the same for all other parties litigating the issue unless and until the precedent is overturned. If something hasn't yet been litigated, it is still an open question. It would be weird if, for example, the Supreme Court said that gay marriage is constitutionally protected but all the existing laws banning it could stand because they were enacted earlier.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

It's hard to see such a clear obvious case & come out so preposterously incredibly fantastically wrong. > The question is whether, in so doing, they are merely a conduit for data transmission (a so-called "dumb pipe") and thus offer consumers a telecommunications service (as the Safeguarding Order concludes); or whether, instead, Broadband Internet Service Providers offer consumers the capability to acquire, store, and utilize data-and thus offer consumers an information service. In our view, the latter is the best reading of the Act. This doesn't match probably 9x 9's of internet traffic! This is almost never the case! What do we do when government is so blankety inept? How do we reconcile a court that's allowed decide things with no respect to obvious facts? Why are there so few ways of dealing with these people in any serious capacity, getting them out of here?

sour-taste 2y ago
The best we can do is vote/encourage Congress to pass straightforward laws to address these cases, making the rulings defunct. As another commenter mentioned Congress has been incapable of anything for ~30 years so... Nothing?

troyvit 2y ago

Every day I thank the old gods (and Longmont, CO) for my municipal gigabit.[1] [1] https://mynextlight.com/terms-conditions/ https://mynextlight.com/terms-conditions/

tptacek 2y ago
Note that your municipal fiber network partners with Qwilt to preferentially accelerate commercial streaming platforms like Netflix.
- troyvit 2y ago
  Whoah I did not know that and it directly conflicts with their TOS. Do you have a link to that?
  - tptacek 2y ago
    It's in the comprehensive financial statement for Longmont, which I pulled up looking to see the economics of your muni fiber system (I'm on the local commission in my muni that considers stuff like this, and the numbers didn't make sense for us --- but you're in an exurb, so the math is different.)
- ftth_finland 2y ago
  What’s the big deal? It’s just a content cache. You can get dedicated cache appliances directly from Netflix for free if you have a large enough customer base.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    I didn't say it was a big deal, but then, I think "net neutrality" is pretty silly.
    - ftth_finland 2y ago
      Caches do not break net neutrality. Nothing wrong with the concept of net neutrality. Implementations may be lacking, but I do not recall any major issues with the EU regulations. Perhaps all the perceived silliness is a result of the US legislature?

bingjames 2y ago

>“[U]nlike past challenges that the D.C. Circuit considered under Chevron, we no longer afford deference to the FCC's reading of the statute. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2266 (2024) (overruling Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) ) … Using ‘the traditional tools of statutory construction,’ id., we hold that Broadband Internet Service Providers offer only an ‘information service’ under 47 U.S.C. § 153(24), and therefore, the FCC lacks the statutory authority to impose its desired net-neutrality policies through the ‘telecommunications service'’ provision of the Communications Act, id. § 153(51). >47 U.S.C. § 153(24) information service The term “information service” means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service. >telecommunications 47 USC § 153(50) The term “telecommunications” means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received. What in the absolute hell are these definitions. These sound like they were made by the world's first LLM.

axus 2y ago
"Telecommunications service" sounds like phone or TCP/IP to me. You make a connection, "speak" the data, and ideally it's supposed to be received in order and without distortion on the other side. "Information service" sounds like websites and apps. You'd think a judge would be capable of reading a law as-written. Internet Service Providers aren't running webpages, they don't even host email or newsgroups anymore.

mossTechnician 2y ago

I'm reminded of when it was legal for cellphone companies to charge different fees to access different websites. Naturally, the bigger ones got the best monthly rates. https://www.techdirt.com/2014/07/31/pay-different-prices-to-access-different-sites-virgin-mobile-leaps-through-net-neutrality-exemption-with-gusto/ https://www.techdirt.com/2014/07/31/pay-different-prices-to-...

danso 2y ago

Surprised this legal turn has so little discussion on HN right now. NN had felt like an evergreen hot debate topic for at least the past decade 7 years ago, 3000+ upvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924794

lelandfe 2y ago
I just don’t think the internet has mustered awareness yet. This decision effectively killed net neutrality and dooms everything that rests on Brand X in one swoop (eg California’s own net neutrality laws).
- Xelynega 2y ago
  Does this decision(or the decision it was based off of) not also basically say "the fcc has no power over broadband companies" or am I misinterpreting the "information service" vs "telecommunications service" comment?
  - wtallis 2y ago
    My recollection is that the FCC during the Obama years repeatedly tried to impose Net Neutrality regulations on ISPs without reclassifying them as telecommunications services, and only after exhausting that route did they try regulating them under Title II. So if this ruling stands, then there's probably enough precedent to keep the FCC from doing anything meaningful against ISPs until Congress can pass major legislation about this.
  - BikiniPrince 2y ago
    What it means is abusing chevron deference to make law isn’t going to work anymore. Such sweeping changes need to be passed through Congress.
- rsingel 2y ago
  California's net neutrality law is in great shape. It didn't rely on Brand X. New York's broadband affordability law is in good shape too.

cabinguy 2y ago

Most interesting part of this post (to me) is to see how far the perceived importance of net neutrality has fallen on HN. 96 points in 5 hours as of this comment. Old posts: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=net+neutrality https://hn.algolia.com/?q=net+neutrality

johnnyanmac 2y ago
might just be bad timing. It is the day after the US holiday season. May be by design too. 2 days ago, we got more formal reporting on how Russia may have been involved in manipulating elections. Again. But it was on New Years' Eve. (not that I expect that news to last long on HN). If I wasn't so tired of all this falling on deaf ears, I'd chuckle at the irony.
strawhatguy 2y ago
net neutrality laws giving the FCC broad powers, just isn't that important though. Late nineties I remember one hot topic in society was prayer in school, and nowadays I hardly hear about that anymore, 9/11 had something to do with that though. Seriously, government gets into these fads, The Next Big Thing, and, since usually a whole new group of young, idealistic, inexperienced humans comes of age, it seems like a hot button item. It rarely is, certainly not enough for the government to "do something" about it. We as individuals can fix the problems ourselves, if allowed to. The cycle repeats.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  I agree with all that but don't forget the astroturfing cycle. Net neutrality was a big fight between the ISPs and big tech companies years ago. Now that they've mostly reached a stable armistice and it's clear from variances in state to state law and policy that have arisen in the meantime that this is not a make or break issue for either side there's no money being poured onto the fire to whip people into a frenzy.
autoexec 2y ago
Net neutrality is still important but it no longer matters how we feel about it because our government and the courts have been bribed and captured by industry and they're intent on screwing us. This is just one of what will be a very long list of important regulations and oversight we're going to see stripped away. Might as well get used to it.

shmerl 2y ago

Not again. How long is this going to be happening back and forth. Opponents of net neutrality are monopoly freaks. Net neutrality should be enforced on competition law grounds.

ttyprintk 2y ago
Odds are low that Biden can affect the Supreme Court. I think the next back-and-forth is 2027.
Dalewyn 2y ago
>How long is this going to be happening back and forth. It will keep happening until the legislature either writes it into law or refuses. The executive should not be legislating in the first place outside of emergencies requiring immediate action.
JSteph22 2y ago
>Opponents of net neutrality are monopoly freaks. There are plenty of antitrust laws already on the books. Having the DOJ enforce them would be the correct route, as opposed to creating additional, unnecessary NN regulation which would effectively cement the ISP monopolies.
- shmerl 2y ago
  I agree in theory, but in practice, anti-trust laws only become more and more toothless with time so this isn't getting any better. I don't agree about cementing monopolies, it's the opposite. Net neutrality beats anti-competitive practices back, because as above, regular competition law got almost useless and not applied to solve these issues de-facto. If competition law enforcement will improve - there won't be a need for separate net neutrality rules. Problem is that opponents of net neutrality don't want competition law enforcement either, so they want to have their anti-competitive cake and eat it unchecked.
blasphemers 2y ago
The net-neutrality rules that were just overturned would have actually allowed the FCC to grant regional monopolies. It's almost like FCC was created in part to maintain ATT's relationship with the government.

rc_kas 2y ago

Don't worry guys, democrats will write a strongly worded letter in objection to this.

Spivak 2y ago
I think people largely forget that this happens to Republican issues as well and they have just as little recourse. It's just you probably consider them victories and either ignore or bask the Republicans loudly complaining and then doing nothing. I think the reason that The Democratic Party feels ineffectual is because they've been on the defensive for so long they've lost their aspirational platform in favor of "stopping Republicans from doing bad things." They're the opposition party now.

xp84 2y ago

> we hold that Broadband Internet Service Providers offer only an ‘information service’ under 47 U.S.C. § 153(24), and therefore, the FCC lacks the statutory authority to impose its desired net-neutrality policies through the ‘telecommunications service'’ provision of the Communications Act, id. § 153(51). Can we just appreciate how silly and sad it is how many billions of dollars hinge on the distinction between two terms which 99% of Americans would, if they weren't aware it was a political issue, are basically synonyms? Hi Mr. Brown, CEO of Comcast, what does your company do? Is it a telecommunications company? "No!! We only provide information services!"

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

cranberryturkey 2y ago

why are we always fighting for freedom in the "land of the free"??

DrScientist 2y ago

Isn't an alternative is to say, if you aren't treating all content the same - then you aren't a common carrier, you are a publisher and therefore responsible for the content? ie you choose - if you want the "common carrier" protection you need to behave like one.....

floydnoel 2y ago
this seems like a fabulous solution, without making more things "illegal"

egorfine 2y ago

I don't think there's a chance of net neutrality happening in the US given the current political climate. Net neutrality is communism, literally. /s

DonnyV 2y ago

The internet is a common service everyone needs. There should be a separate department that oversees all internet services in the US, ran by an elected official.

Annatar 2y ago

[dead]

MR4D 2y ago

Maybe I’m missing something, but this is a good thing, as it will finally allow us to fix this problem. Hear me out… Net Neutrality was always very poorly defined from a delivery perspective in that it limited companies’ and consumers’ options. What it should have done instead is define the word “Internet” and then say that if you advertise , say “100 Mbps Internet” speed that you cannot discriminate on any particular site or protocol by slowing or blocking. This definition would allow telcos to offer generic internet, but then offer speed-ups to customers as options. For instance, if you love Netflix, allow the telco to offer a higher level of service for Netflix connectivity. Or if you are a gamer, allow lower latency/higher bandwidth for things like Fortnite, etc. I want my “internet” access to be unfettered, but I’m also willing to pay extra for service above that level for certain apps/sites. Yes, this is simplified to fit a post on HN, but it seems the only rational way to regulate appropriately and simply, and most importantly, giving consumers what they actually want.

BillButter 2y ago
The concern is that a teleco can create an alternative and provide it for cheaper than competition. For example, Spectrum creates a Netflix, changes $20 dollars for it, then blockades Netflix behind a $20 'teleco' fee. Now your choices are $20 Spectrum-flix or $15+$20 Netflix.
- MR4D 2y ago
  No - I’m specifically saying they cannot do that. Like I said - their internet service cannot block or slow down any site or app. If they want to create their own streaming service and give you fast access to it, they can - but they cannot slow down anything else. That’s why my rule works.

datmar 2y ago

Not sure if this violates any rules, but I just pulled the actual ruling and asked Gemini to summarize it. See below: """ Summary of the Decision The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) 2024 "Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet" Order. This order sought to reinstate "net neutrality" rules, which would regulate broadband internet service providers (ISPs) as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Here are the key points of the court's reasoning: Overruling Chevron Deference: The court explicitly rejected the standard of deference to the FCC's interpretation of the Communications Act, as previously required by the Chevron doctrine. This deference was overruled by the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The court decided it must determine "the best reading of the statute" itself. Information Service vs. Telecommunications Service: The core of the ruling hinges on the distinction between "information services" and "telecommunications services," as defined in the Communications Act. The court found that broadband ISPs offer an "information service" because they provide consumers with the capability to access, retrieve, and utilize information via the internet (even though they don't create the content themselves). The court emphasized the importance of the "offering of a capability" language in the definition of an information service. The court rejected the FCC's argument that ISPs are merely conduits for data transmission (a "telecommunications service"). Mobile Broadband: The court also ruled that mobile broadband services (internet access via cellular networks) cannot be classified as a "commercial mobile service" under Title III of the Communications Act, and thus cannot be regulated in the same manner as traditional telephone services. The court determined that mobile broadband is not directly "interconnected with the public switched network" (i.e., the traditional telephone network) since it uses IP addresses, not the traditional 10-digit telephone system. Therefore it must be a "private mobile service," which is not subject to common carrier regulations. Historical Context: The court highlighted the historical understanding and the FCC's consistent interpretations before the 2015 change, noting that Internet access was generally considered an "information service" and that Congress intended to keep the internet free from significant regulation. Result: The court vacated the FCC's order, effectively ending its attempt to impose net neutrality regulations under Title II on internet providers. Potential Consequences This ruling has significant potential consequences, including: No Net Neutrality Regulation (for now): The immediate impact is the absence of federal net neutrality rules in the U.S. Broadband ISPs and mobile broadband providers will not be legally bound by the principles of net neutrality. This means: ISPs could potentially throttle or block traffic to certain websites or services. ISPs could potentially offer paid prioritization of some content over others. ISPs may also offer differing internet speeds for different plans, without the need to justify this to the FCC Impact on Consumers: Consumers could see: Higher costs if ISPs charge for preferred access to content providers. Slower speeds for some services if ISPs decide to prioritize others. Reduced choice if ISPs favor their own services over competitors. Impact on Edge Providers: Websites, platforms, and content creators could be affected by: Reduced reach if their content is throttled or blocked. Increased costs if they have to pay ISPs for priority access. Less innovation if startups or new platforms are unable to compete with established services. Uncertainty and Litigation: The future of net neutrality is uncertain, and further litigation is highly likely. The FCC could appeal to the Supreme Court, which could further influence the debate. Other attempts to regulate the Internet may arise, potentially from states, but could lead to more legal challenges. Political Ramifications: This decision may lead to legislative efforts to create new laws codifying net neutrality in the US, or at least to further clarification of the existing Telecommunications Act of 1996. Increased consolidation: Without Net Neutrality, it is likely that larger telecommunications providers, who can utilize their economies of scale, will be able to further dominate the market, reducing competition. In Summary The Sixth Circuit's decision is a major blow to net neutrality proponents. It removes the current federal net neutrality regulations, and in doing so, it potentially gives more control over internet access to ISPs and mobile carriers. The long-term effects will depend on future legal challenges, legislative action, and market behavior. However, the decision is consistent with current Supreme Court precedent concerning judicial deference to agency interpretation of law. """

cashsterling 2y ago

The real solution to this issue is municipal broadband. If there is a municipal option for high speed internet, people who don't want deal with companies' monitoring and throttling shenanigans have a viable option from a community-focused provider. This provides price and service competition for the Tel-Co cartels who collude to fix prices and pull all kinds of other nonsense (like taking billions of dollars in federal funds and then deliver next to nothing... then lobby their way out of accountability). T

1oooqooq 2y ago

all the arguments pro isp ubderprovision here misses the point that they are a sanctioned monopoly, either on access to wires on the streets or wireless spectrum. they are guaranteed a insane high profit because of the assured monopoly and presumed technology and capacity investments. if you defend their "profit" by under provision you are extremely uneducated on the matter.