4 ms·

So odd that the FCC would suddenly revert all these rules which were designed to advocate for consumers. Wonder what changed recently?

downrightmike 1y ago
Previously and recently, we've had to fight tooth and nail to make any progress on this and then others like Ajit Pai just flagrantly fake support for destruction of net neutrality.
paul7986 1y ago
Republicans are always pro-business first consumers whatever!
tbrownaw 1y ago
Well there was that one court ruling that said agencies have to stick to what Congress actually authorized them to do rather than having free reign to reinterpret their own authorizations however they want.
- idiotsecant 1y ago
  That's a pretty reductionist take. Here's what I think is a more reasonable one. If I told you your job was to keep the house clean, but made you come back to me for permission to pick up socks, but told you that absolutely didn't give you permission to pick up shoes, waited 8 months to reply to your request for permission to vacuum, denied you authority to decide what pieces of paper are trash and which are important, and also told you that it wasn't your job to get large muddy dogs out of the house you might think I wasn't serious about having an effectively cleaned house. And then it turned out that the muddy dog just bought me a new yacht.
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    Yes. But it's important that you accept the yacht afterwards. If you get the yacht in advance, it's a bribe, you see.
    - vlovich123 1y ago
      Right. It's a bribe if you accept it in advance. If you accept it afterwards, it's just a salary.
- vlovich123 1y ago
  Assuming you’re referring to Chevron/Loper, I fail to see the relevance to this case. Also, it’s important to remember that Chevron wasn’t “however they want” or to “reinterpret their own authorizations”. It was a doctrine that if the agency (staffed by domain experts responsible for resolving the ambiguity) had a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguity in the law, even if the court thought it had a better opinion, it had to defer to the agency that Congress created and left it up to congress to resolve that ambiguity if they felt the agency did so incorrectly.
  - tbrownaw 1y ago
    > It was a doctrine that if the agency (staffed by domain experts responsible for resolving the ambiguity) This is not an accurate description of what agencies are meant to be experts in. Their expertise is meant to be in how best to act within their bounds. Which is distinct from deciding what those bounds are.
    - threatofrain 1y ago
      Their expertise is in science.
    - vlovich123 1y ago
      First, are the courts actually any better? Constitutionally they have limited jurisdiction in the first place to adjudicate administrative matters, only getting some authority in 1948 from Congress to do such administration. > In 1974 the Supreme Court stated that deference depends on an administrative interpretation being consistent with the agency's other statements and being consistent with the congressional purpose So it wasn't that the agency got to set its own bounds - it had to be consistent with all their other statements and with the congressional purpose of the body. So for example, Congress said the EPA had the power to regulate pollution sources but did not define what meant sources or specifically what regulations they could enact. Chevron said "Congress intended the EPA to figure this out so they get to do that". Loper said "actually, Congress needs to spell everything out" which is actually quite a radical idea for administrative legislation which with a stroke of a pen undoes a huge amount of legislation that had been done with Chevron in mind (& before that it was understood to be the case anyway since judges didn't even have power over administrative powers).
- tzs 1y ago
  If you are thinking of the ruling overturning the Chevron doctrine, that's not what it said. What it said is that courts do not have to defer to the agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute. The court can make and use apply its own interpretation. Under Chevron courts were to defer to agency interpretations if the statute was ambiguous and the agency's interpretation was reasonable.
  - tbrownaw 1y ago
    Here is an article that (1) lambasts the 2023 Sackett ruling that a swampy back yard is actually not a navigable waterway; and (2) says that that decision teed up the 2024 Loper decision that got all the headlines: https://minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/6Ryan_Online.pdf https://minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/6R... , section starting at the page numbered 2863.

downrightmike 1y ago

Previously and recently, we've had to fight tooth and nail to make any progress on this and then others like Ajit Pai just flagrantly fake support for destruction of net neutrality.

paul7986 1y ago

Republicans are always pro-business first consumers whatever!

tbrownaw 1y ago

Well there was that one court ruling that said agencies have to stick to what Congress actually authorized them to do rather than having free reign to reinterpret their own authorizations however they want.

idiotsecant 1y ago
That's a pretty reductionist take. Here's what I think is a more reasonable one. If I told you your job was to keep the house clean, but made you come back to me for permission to pick up socks, but told you that absolutely didn't give you permission to pick up shoes, waited 8 months to reply to your request for permission to vacuum, denied you authority to decide what pieces of paper are trash and which are important, and also told you that it wasn't your job to get large muddy dogs out of the house you might think I wasn't serious about having an effectively cleaned house. And then it turned out that the muddy dog just bought me a new yacht.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  Yes. But it's important that you accept the yacht afterwards. If you get the yacht in advance, it's a bribe, you see.
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    Right. It's a bribe if you accept it in advance. If you accept it afterwards, it's just a salary.
vlovich123 1y ago
Assuming you’re referring to Chevron/Loper, I fail to see the relevance to this case. Also, it’s important to remember that Chevron wasn’t “however they want” or to “reinterpret their own authorizations”. It was a doctrine that if the agency (staffed by domain experts responsible for resolving the ambiguity) had a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguity in the law, even if the court thought it had a better opinion, it had to defer to the agency that Congress created and left it up to congress to resolve that ambiguity if they felt the agency did so incorrectly.
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  > It was a doctrine that if the agency (staffed by domain experts responsible for resolving the ambiguity) This is not an accurate description of what agencies are meant to be experts in. Their expertise is meant to be in how best to act within their bounds. Which is distinct from deciding what those bounds are.
  - threatofrain 1y ago
    Their expertise is in science.
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    First, are the courts actually any better? Constitutionally they have limited jurisdiction in the first place to adjudicate administrative matters, only getting some authority in 1948 from Congress to do such administration. > In 1974 the Supreme Court stated that deference depends on an administrative interpretation being consistent with the agency's other statements and being consistent with the congressional purpose So it wasn't that the agency got to set its own bounds - it had to be consistent with all their other statements and with the congressional purpose of the body. So for example, Congress said the EPA had the power to regulate pollution sources but did not define what meant sources or specifically what regulations they could enact. Chevron said "Congress intended the EPA to figure this out so they get to do that". Loper said "actually, Congress needs to spell everything out" which is actually quite a radical idea for administrative legislation which with a stroke of a pen undoes a huge amount of legislation that had been done with Chevron in mind (& before that it was understood to be the case anyway since judges didn't even have power over administrative powers).
tzs 1y ago
If you are thinking of the ruling overturning the Chevron doctrine, that's not what it said. What it said is that courts do not have to defer to the agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute. The court can make and use apply its own interpretation. Under Chevron courts were to defer to agency interpretations if the statute was ambiguous and the agency's interpretation was reasonable.
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  Here is an article that (1) lambasts the 2023 Sackett ruling that a swampy back yard is actually not a navigable waterway; and (2) says that that decision teed up the 2024 Loper decision that got all the headlines: https://minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/6Ryan_Online.pdf https://minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/6R... , section starting at the page numbered 2863.