New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman this afternoon announced that he and 22 other Attorneys General have teamed up to file a lawsuit aiming to stop the Federal Communications Commission's planned rollback of net neutrality.
The multi-state lawsuit [PDF] asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the FCC's repeal order, calling it arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion that violates federal law.
"An open internet - and the free exchange of ideas it allows - is critical to our democratic process," Schneiderman said in a statement on his website. "The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers - allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online. This would be a disaster for New York consumers and businesses, and for everyone who cares about a free and open internet."
The FCC has not filed its new rules with the Federal Register, so the repeal is not yet final, but the lawsuit has been filed out of "an abundance of caution" and to "preserve the right to be included in the judicial lottery procedure." It's essentially the states' way of establishing the first step towards a full challenge of the FCC's decision.
#BREAKING: I’m leading 22 AGs and filing suit today to stop the @FCC’s illegal rollback of #netneutrality. We can’t stand by and watch one of the greatest tools for democracy ever created be turned into a private playground for the rich and powerful. https://t.co/BUXSVVVMcs pic.twitter.com/xDTbE1uIrM — Eric Schneiderman (@AGSchneiderman) January 16, 2018
The lawsuit is backed by Attorneys General of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
In related net neutrality news, 50 senators have now endorsed a legislative measure to override the FCC's net neutrality repeal, reports The Washington Post. With one additional Republican vote, a Senate resolution of disapproval will be able to be passed, but it will still need to make it to the House and be signed by President Trump.
Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Top Rated Comments
Competition will keep the internet open, unless the government takes over, then the government will use these rules to regulate the internet just like they did with the IRS to silence conservatives organizations, just like they did with the FBI , the federal judges, and the NSA to attempt to sabotage a presidential election, they will implement the rules that Google and Twitter want in order to silence those with out favor views.
The attempt to say that these rules are for Net Neutrality is nothing but lies and fake news, they are nothing but the groundwork for government's forced control of the internet.
Except that makes no sense, since 100% of the opposition to net neutrality is from the right. So you're wrong.
[doublepost=1516149164][/doublepost]Is that you, Ajit?
Your comment has a number of glaring factual errors (I would say lies, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt):
The only reason Wheeler classified ISPs under Title II is because the courts rejected their previous rules—after a lawsuit from Verizon, of course—and insisted they use their current powers under Title II. So this "government never had power" argument is BS.
The idea of "competition" with ISPs is absolutely laughable, since Comcast absolutely dominated the market. For example, I live in the tri-state area and have exactly one option for cable and broadband. What do I do when Comcast tried to screw me? What competition is pushing them to be better? Who do I complain to when they throttle my Netflix/Facebook/CNN/Snapchat?
Your reference to the IRS makes no sense whatsoever. And the rules under Pai would allow Comcast to charge your precious Fox and/or Breitbart and/or whatever your propaganda outlet of choice is more money to keep reaching their audiences. Fox is particularly susceptible to this because they're one of the few major networks not owned by a massive corporation; Comcast and AT&T will have no problem streaming CNN and MSNBC to their respective customers.
Finally, your use of "fake news" is not only pathetic, its nonsensical.
[doublepost=1516149254][/doublepost]Not really the same situation. Federal courts tend to resolve public disputes as quickly as possible, particularly when they have such far-reaching consequences.
lol That describes about a quarter of what Obama did while in office.
... yet you have Trump doing the exact thing you claim. Trust me, you don't want to go down this road.
BL.
Why do you think every media outlet, bar none, are pro NN? It's not because it's a good idea.