Support NeoGAF

[nintendoman58]

Despite millions of public comments and objections from businesses and consumer groups nationwide, the Trump administration’s FCC seems determined to go ahead and kill off net neutrality as soon as possible.

Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia held a forum just outside of D.C. last night for his constituents to come learn and voice their concerns about the fate of net neutrality in. Though Beyer was the host, the real headliners of the event were Wheeler and former FCC general counsel Jon Sallet, who both spoke at length to a packed house about how we got to where we are today, with the rules under fire, and what consumers can still do to try and make their voices heard.

Why Commenting Is Important

That the current FCC, under Chairman Ajit Pai, will eventually succeed in reversing the Open Internet Rule was something of a foregone conclusion in the room among presenters and the audience.

They will probably get the rule reversed, Wheeler, Beyer, and Sallet all admitted — but that doesn’t mean they’ll truly succeed.

“We can all predict what can happen at the FCC, but I can tell you this,” Sallet said: “When I was general counsel, I didn’t think that what the FCC said was the last word. I knew there would be a day in court.”

And indeed there was: The businesses that threatened to sue the FCC if it passed a net neutrality rule did so the second they were legally able to.

And indeed there was: The businesses that threatened to sue the FCC if it passed a net neutrality rule did so the second they were legally able to.

As general counsel for the FCC, Sallet argued that case before the D.C. Circuit in late 2015. And the FCC did, indeed win that case, with the court ruling to uphold the FCC’s policy almost exactly a year ago.

Both Sallet and Wheeler admitted that the FCC’s mind is probably already made up, no matter what public comments come in to the proceeding now. But those comments become vital in the case of a lawsuit and “can shape what happens if it’s necessary to go to court one more time,” as Sallet put it.

More at the link.

A bit of an old article from a few weeks ago, but I thought this was an appropriate thread to make, given that nobody seems to entertain this possibility when the subject comes up.

Your comments may not matter to Pai, but they sure do matter to the courts.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

They better not throttle my gifs.

 

[jett]

They better not throttle my gifs.

Appropriate gif. Bunny is the FCC, the other guy Murica.

 

[Earthstrike]

So this is why the telecoms posted comments on behalf of constituents.

 

[Candescence]

The problem for Aji Pai is when the new rules go to court, his FCC will have to try and make the argument that the industry has changed significantly enough in a certain way that justifies the sudden change in rules. Pai won't be able to provide any kind of argument in that regard that will stand up to scrutiny.

If the Trump administration wants to see net neutrality removed, they'll likely have to see a bill through congress and the senate... Which is also incredibly difficult, especially with this issue being incredibly partisan (which it really shouldn't be). Remember SOPA? That was far less controversial in congress until the tech industry drummed up popular opposition, and it died a sad, agonising death. Another similar effort would scare off moderate GOP congressmen/senators in a far more divided duo of houses on an issue the Dems won't budge an inch on.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

So this is why the telecoms posted comments on behalf of constituents.

Thanks for reminding me about that bulllshit. Fucking Comcast should've gotten sued for that.

 

[Shauni]

The problem for Aji Pai is when the new rules go to court, his FCC will have to try and make the argument that the industry has changed significantly enough in a certain way that justifies the sudden change in rules. Pai won't be able to provide any kind of argument in that regard that will stand up to scrutiny.

If the Trump administration wants to see net neutrality removed, they'll likely have to see a bill through congress and the senate... Which is also incredibly difficult, especially with this issue being incredibly partisan (which it really shouldn't be). Remember SOPA? That was far less controversial in congress until the tech industry drummed up popular opposition, and it died a sad, agonising death. Another similar effort would scare off moderate GOP congressmen/senators in a far more divided duo of houses on an issue the Dems won't budge an inch on.

I don't know about that. Those rolled back those internet privacy rules quickly and quietly. Net Neutrality is a much bigger thing than that, but I just don't know if the general public at large is aware enough of this to make a real difference

 

[KingV]

I don't know about that. Those rolled back those internet privacy rules quickly and quietly. Net Neutrality is a much bigger thing than that, but I just don't know if the general public at large is aware enough of this to make a real difference

That was a bill passed by congress that trump signed.

 

[Candescence]

I don't know about that. Those rolled back those internet privacy rules quickly and quietly. Net Neutrality is a much bigger thing than that, but I just don't know if the general public at large is aware enough of this to make a real difference

SOPA wasn't well-known until a variety of sites like Google and Wikipedia basically drew the attention of damn well everyone. The end game is congress, and if it comes to that, there will be a ton of noise being made.

 

[Vital Tundra]

Shit should have been a utility 20 years ago. Wouldn't have this shit happening.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know about that. Those rolled back those internet privacy rules quickly and quietly. Net Neutrality is a much bigger thing than that, but I just don't know if the general public at large is aware enough of this to make a real difference

That measure only required 51 votes. A net neutrality bill would need 60 in the Senate.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Dude was put up explicitly to give fellatio to corporations. Republicans are scum.

 

[Omegasquash]

SOPA wasn't well-known until a variety of sites like Google and Wikipedia basically drew the attention of damn well everyone. The end game is congress, and if it comes to that, there will be a ton of noise being made.

Coincidentally, many representatives on the hill removed their publicly available email address right after the SOPA spectacle.

 

[Foffy]

So this is why the telecoms posted comments on behalf of constituents.

I can't get over the fact they actually used Barack Obama as a commentator and left the address as the fuckin' White House.

 

[Suikoguy]

So this is why the telecoms posted comments on behalf of constituents.

They failed miserably then, the courts are not inept, it will be obvious the validity of those comments.

 

[KingV]

Dude was put up explicitly to give fellatio to corporations. Republicans are scum.

He was an Obama nominee with a unaminous confirmation. Lots of blame to go around on Ajit Pai.

 

[Autodidact]

They failed miserably then, the courts are not inept, it will be obvious the validity of those comments.

Yep. And as the article noted, this same court ruled in favor of net neutrality last year, and I don't think the composition of the bench has changed since then. Pai will lose, and we might even get an injunction on implementing the new rules in the meantime.

People should also consider the possibility that the companies might not make any significant changes to their business models or internet plans. They know that we'll have a Democratic Congress and/or President sooner rather than later. A Democratic Congress in particular could finally settle the issue by passing net-neutrality legislation rather than allowing the FCC, which changes hands frequently, to vacillate between upholding and repealing Title II protection depending on which party has the chairmanship. If the companies know that net neutrality will return one way or another, why bother investing time and money into new business practices? AT&T might be "supporting" the fight for net neutrality for that very reason.

He was an Obama nominee with a unaminous confirmation. Lots of blame to go around on Ajit Pai.

The FCC has a rigidly defined partisan composition. It cannot contain more than three members of the same party. Obama had to nominate a Republican. Granted, I wish he'd chosen better than Pai, but he still had limitations on his decision.

 

[Diablos]

I have no faith in the courts to do the right thing. Net Neutrality has been on life support ever since November 8th.

 

[Autodidact]

I have no faith in the courts to do the right thing. Net Neutrality has been on life support ever since November 8th.

Even though the same court with the same judges upheld it last year?

 

[KingV]

Yep. And as the article noted, this same court ruled in favor of net neutrality last year, and I don't think the composition of the bench has changed since then. Pai will lose, and we might even get an injunction on implementing the new rules in the meantime.

People should also consider the possibility that the companies might not make any significant changes to their business models or internet plans. They know that we'll have a Democratic Congress and/or President sooner rather than later. A Democratic Congress in particular could finally settle the issue by passing net-neutrality legislation rather than allowing the FCC, which changes hands frequently, to vacillate between upholding and repealing Title II protection depending on which party has the chairmanship. If the companies know that net neutrality will return one way or another, why bother investing time and money into new business practices? AT&T might be "supporting" the fight for net neutrality for that very reason.



The FCC has a rigidly defined partisan composition. It cannot contain more than three members of the same party. Obama had to nominate a Republican. Granted, I wish he'd chosen better than Pai, but he still had limitations on his decision.

I realize this. Still didn't have to be Pai. Somewhere there has to be a Republican who is milquetoast on net neutrality.

 

[Vyse The Legend]

Tom Wheeler ended up being the dingo we needed, but not the one we deserved. Miss him.

 

[Diablos]

Even though the same court with the same judges upheld it last year?

It will eventually go to the SCOTUS. It's only a matter of time.

 

[Snake]

I realize this. Still didn't have to be Pai. Somewhere there has to be a Republican who is milquetoast on net neutrality.

Republicans get to make their own pick, the President just formally nominates them. Pai is on them, and this is happening entirely because Republicans were elected.

 

[Autodidact]

It will eventually go to the SCOTUS. It's only a matter of time.

The telecom companies didn't appeal to the Supreme Court last year, and the SC, like the DC circuit, has the same ideological composition it had in 2016. Now, Trump might get another justice, but as I said, we could also have a Democratic Congress and/or President in the near future.

If the Supreme Court changes and/or Democrats lose next year, I'll get worried.